House of Commons
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
As you know, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State has suffered a family bereavement this week, so will not be with us today. I am sure that the whole House will wish to send him and his family our deepest condolences. Can we also pause to think about the communities, including those in my own area in the Scottish borders, that have been devastated by the recent storms? I know that the emergency services, council and power company workers are supporting them as best they can. Lastly, Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy Burns night, which will be celebrated around the world tomorrow.
The ongoing situation with the Post Office and Horizon is clearly very serious. We need to ensure that all sub-postmasters wrongly prosecuted finally get justice, no matter where they reside in the UK. I assure the hon. Lady that my officials are working at pace with the office of the Advocate General and other key UK Government Departments to consider the issues around wrongful convictions.
Mary Glindon
In Scotland, these prosecutions were carried out by the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal. Ministers of the Crown were made aware of concerns around potentially unsafe prosecutions in 2013. Can the Minister tell the House why it took so long for the prosecutions to be halted and for previous convictions to be reviewed?
John Lamont
The Horizon scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in this country’s history, with hundreds of people having their lives ruined and reputations dragged through the mud. The Prime Minister has announced new laws that will be introduced to ensure that those wrongly convicted are exonerated and swiftly compensated here in England. As the hon. Lady will know, the administration of justice is devolved, but the UK Government are in contact with the Scottish Government to explore the most effective way to exonerate and compensate those innocent people.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I pass the thoughts of the Opposition to the Secretary of State at this difficult time, and join the Minister in his comments about all those affected by flooding.
The scandal of the unjustified prosecution of sub-postmasters the length and breadth of this country is almost beyond words. Although it should not have taken a TV drama to get action, it is good that those found guilty in England will now have their convictions quashed, but meanwhile, in Scotland, we are no clearer on how those wrongly convicted will get justice. The First Minister initially claimed that he would be happy for this Parliament to legislate for every victim across the UK, but his Lord Advocate then said that she does not support blanket exoneration. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who were wrongly convicted in Scotland finally get the justice they deserve?
John Lamont
Officials from the UK Government are working with their counterparts from the various devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, to fully understand the legislative options that are available across the respective jurisdictions. I reassure the hon. Member that it remains a priority for all concerned to ensure that those sub-postmasters receive justice, and the compensation to which they are entitled, as quickly as possible, irrespective of where they live in the United Kingdom.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Oil and gas is, and will remain, a vital sector for the UK. The UK Government are committed to supporting the industry. That is why last week I attended the Grangemouth future industries board with other UK and Scottish Government Ministers on the transformation of the Grangemouth oil refinery. The introduction of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill demonstrates our ongoing investment in the industry.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend knows that Scotland has the potential to be one of the world’s most advanced producers of hydrogen, and oil and gas companies are playing an important role in that transition. What is the Department doing to support oil and gas companies, which employ a huge number of people in Scotland and in my seat of Rother Valley, in building their hydrogen production, transmission and use capabilities, to ramp up the production of hydrogen so that we can get more of the low-carbon energy that we so need?
John Lamont
We anticipate that by 2030 the UK’s growing hydrogen sector could support more than 12,000 jobs and unlock £11 billion worth of private investment. Our hydrogen production delivery road map sets out proposals for annual hydrogen allocation rounds from 2025 to 2030, helping to provide certainty for the industry. In December, we announced the results of hydrogen allocation round 1, with Scotland fielding two successful projects.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The renewables sector provides the greatest job growth for Scotland’s energy sector, with the number of jobs in the renewables sector in Scotland growing by more than 50% in 2021. The future of Scotland’s job security, energy and economy lies with renewables. When will the UK Government finally match support for the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund?
John Lamont
The SNP’s position on energy, particularly in relation to oil and gas, is frankly all over the place. We do not know where the First Minister of Scotland stands on this. He described developing Rosebank as “the wrong decision”, but now seems to think that oil reserves can fund capital investment in an independent Scotland. We fully recognise the importance of the energy sector to Scotland. That includes oil and gas and renewables. I will continue to work with all parts of the energy sector to develop that for the Scottish economy.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government’s funding for levelling up has now reached more than £2.9 billion in Scotland. That includes almost £900 million of new funding announced last year. That is the equivalent of £535 per person in Scotland, and the total is set to rise with millions of pounds of further investment in 2024.
Chris Law
The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), will meet me on Friday, but sadly that is not a courtesy that has been extended to the leader of Dundee City Council, who has repeatedly invited the Minister to a roundtable in the city to discuss funding that is critical to projects such as the Eden Project, and the life sciences innovation district among others. I have sought to continue the long-term investment and regeneration of the city through those projects in the Tay Cities region deal. Will the Minister assure me that he will urge his colleague to include those in our discussions on Friday and that his dreadful lack of engagement is from a UK Government that are committed to levelling up, not an outgoing Government winding down?
John Lamont
The UK Government are investing more than £60 million in projects in Dundee, and those projects have been identified as key priorities by Dundee City Council and other local partners. The hon. Member mentions the leader of Dundee City Council. After receiving £20 million for Dundee from UK levelling-up funds, the SNP leader of Dundee council recently said,
“This is just the UK Government element. I’m pursuing the Scottish Government as well, because we need both governments to work with us if we’re to make significant economic inroads into the challenges we face.”
I hope the hon. Member will agree to write a joint letter with me to his SNP colleagues in Holyrood asking, “Where is the money?”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I ask the Minister to also convey our condolences to the Secretary of State. We were given assurances prior to Brexit that the structural funds that provide the capital funding for Scotland would be replaced by specific levelling-up and shared prosperity funding after Brexit. Can the Minister say how that funding from those sources compares to what it was prior to leaving the EU?
John Lamont
Four years since the United Kingdom left the EU, the UK Government have announced more than £1.4 billion for new levelling-up initiatives across Scotland. That exceeds the entire seven-year budget for the EU structural and investment funds for Scotland for 2014 to 2020—roughly £780 million of funding—so I do not accept the analysis the hon. Member presents.
Tommy Sheppard
Well, no, it does not actually, because this Government have a tendency to draw all sources of capital funding into its levelling-up myth. I am talking about the specific levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund. They have given Scotland £471 million and £212 million respectively. That is exactly £98 million short of the £780 million that came from the EU structural funds, so when can we have the money please?
John Lamont
The hon. Member is simply not correct: £2.9 billion has been invested by this Government into communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I know that SNP Members have fought tooth and nail to stop that investment being delivered to those local communities, but this Conservative Government will continue to invest directly into Scotland.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Funding policies for those studying in Scotland, including nursing students, is a matter for the Scottish Government. The UK Government support collaboration between our nations to share best practice and provide better healthcare services. We would be open to future discussions with the Scottish Government about this matter.
Karin Smyth
My constituent has been denied additional funding for her nursing degree because she is domiciled in England but studying in Scotland, whereas those studying in England can access the funding regardless of where they are domiciled. What advice can the Government give me to help my constituent?
John Lamont
Nursing bursaries for those wishing to study in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government only provide bursary support for Scottish-domiciled nursing students, and only if they are enrolled in a course that leads to a diploma in Scotland. In contrast, the UK Government ensure that the learning support fund is available to all UK students studying at English universities, regardless of where they are domiciled. I will be happy, on behalf of the hon. Lady, to set up a meeting with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to see how we might be able to pursue the matter further.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The latest official figures speak for themselves and show sustained increases in both the import and export of goods between Scotland and the EU, with healthy results for services too.
Douglas Chapman
The Brexit pain continues, with £140 billion wiped off the UK economy and more regulation making it tough for exporters. Relative to similarly sized countries, Scotland’s exports are under real pressure. Two themes in the First Minister’s industrial strategy were to become an independent nation and to rejoin the EU. All the evidence points to the fact that that is the correct course of action, does it not?
John Lamont
No, it does not. Scotland continues to punch above its weight in exports, goods and services and foreign direct investment. Trade is now well above pre-Brexit levels.
Carol Monaghan
According to the Government’s own figures, new Brexit controls will cost the UK £330 million. Businesses in Glasgow are telling me they are already suffering from increased costs and red tape when importing parts and exporting goods. Can the Minister explain to businesses in my Glasgow North West constituency how Brexit is good for them?
John Lamont
The hon. Lady and the SNP really do have a brass neck speaking about business costs, given their own policy of setting up a hard border at Berwick, next to my constituency. That would risk thousands of jobs and force thousands of companies out of business—it would be a most damaging and reckless economic step. We will work through any short-term issues, but the answer is not the long-term decline proposed by the SNP.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Supporting economic growth in Scotland remains a core priority of the Scotland Office. We are focused on long-term economic growth, generating more jobs and boosting business investment. That is exemplified by investment of up to £372 million in the Scottish freeport and investment zones programmes, on top of our £1.5 billion-worth of investment into growth deals across the whole of Scotland.
Kerry McCarthy
The former right hon. Member for Kingswood and Government net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, said that what businesses and investors need from the Government is certainty, clarity, consistency and continuity. Never has that been more true than in Scotland, where there is huge potential for businesses and communities to flourish as a result of the green transition. However, they are not getting the certainty, clarity, consistency and continuity that they need from this Government, are they?
John Lamont
I do not accept that analysis. For example, the UK has a world-leading ambition to deploy up to 50 GW of offshore wind by the year 2030, with up to 5 GW coming from offshore floating wind. Offshore wind provides secure, domestically generated electricity and will play a key role in decarbonising the UK power system by 2035, achieving net zero by 2050. I do not share the hon. Lady’s analysis of this Government’s focus in that area.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the Minister share my frustration that, while his Department is working to support the Scottish economy, the SNP is hitting it with higher taxes and is not supporting vital sectors such as hospitality in the way that is happening in England?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly the SNP’s sole focus seems to be independence referendums and making Scotland the part of the United Kingdom with the highest tax. I see that every day of the week in my constituency, as people find it increasingly difficult to justify remaining in Scotland when they are paying so much more tax compared with the rest of the UK while getting less good public services.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join the Minister in passing on our condolences to the Secretary of State and his family on their bereavement. I also wish everyone a happy Burns day for tomorrow. I thank the wonderful Ayrshire musicians in the Public Gallery, who treated us to some entertainment last night.
Since the Government have been in power, working people have paid on average 10p on the pound more in tax. The supposed party of low tax has created the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years, making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament since records began. In Scotland, the SNP has looked at that tax burden and said, “Hold my beer,” as everyone earning more than £28,000 pays even more tax than they would in England. What impact does the Minister think that historically high tax burden has on the Scottish economy?
John Lamont
The Government remain focused on reducing the tax burden when it is prudent to do so, but as the hon. Gentleman identifies, we have an additional challenge in Scotland in the high tax agenda put forward by the SNP Scottish Government. I share his concerns about the impact that that is having on the ability of the Scottish economy to perform to its full potential.
Ian Murray
The Minister seems to think that having your pocket picked for £10 and getting £2 back is something to be grateful for. The fact is that working people all across the country, including in Scotland, are paying for the Tories’ crashing of the economy. We know that the Barnett formula results in an additional £19 billion of public spending in Scotland’s economy, but last week The National reported that the SNP was being encouraged by its sister party in Wales to join the campaign to ditch the funding formula.
Sixteen years of SNP Government have left Scotland’s public finances with a £1 billion black hole. We are in the middle of the worst cost of living crisis in generations, yet historically high taxes are already being imposed on working people to pay for it. Losing the Barnett formula would devastate Scotland’s public finances and economy like nothing we have seen before. Will the Minister join me in demanding that the SNP rule out the policy to bin the Barnett formula?
John Lamont
The biggest enemy of the Barnett formula and of devolution in Scotland is the SNP. It wants to rip up the devolution settlement and stop the Barnett formula, which results in millions of pounds of extra investment going into Scotland each year. The Conservative Government remain absolutely committed to devolution, the Barnett formula and more investment into Scotland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The United Kingdom Government have taken action to make trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland easier. The UK Government have also committed to providing funding to deliver targeted improvements to the A75. That will provide better links between the Cairnryan ferry terminals serving Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland, benefiting businesses on both sides of the north channel.
Mr Campbell
The Minister will, like many, understand that the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom is usually centred in the south-east of England, to the detriment of the south-west of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will he do more to ensure that that small 12-mile stretch of water between Scotland and Northern Ireland is bridged in business terms by greater co-operation and expansion opportunities for people on either side of it?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes an important point. I fully recognise the strong links between south Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the potential to enhance those economic ties is great. Improved transport links, including the A75 and ferry links, are undoubtedly part of that. I look forward to working with him to see how we might be able to enhance and improve those links.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Scottish businesses would give their right arm to have the arrangements that Northern Irish business have, with their access to the single market and all the competitive advantages that that brings. The Prime Minister has described Northern Ireland as one of the
“world’s most exciting economic zones”.
Does the Minister agree with that, and what is he doing to ensure that Scotland gets the same arrangements?
John Lamont
I thought that the hon. Member was going to stand up and tell me how great the House of Lords is, a bit like his colleague the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), in a sort of pre-emptive job application.
Scotland is not Northern Ireland and does not share a land border with an EU country. It is disappointing that the SNP is seeking to play party politics with the situation in Northern Ireland, which, as the SNP well knows, has a unique place in the United Kingdom, and we will protect that.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government work tirelessly to promote Scottish interests around the world through our extensive diplomatic network, forging business links and generating trade and investment. Our response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry on Scotland’s international position highlights the extensive efforts we undertake to achieve this.
Alyn Smith
I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s Panglossian view of this issue. Does he share my concern about recently published figures that show that, in the years 2019 to 2021, Scottish exports to the EU fell from £16.95 billion to £14.97 billion? Whatever the UK Government are doing, it is not working, so the Scottish Government have a pressing need to promote ourselves overseas for the sake of our economy and our society. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to increase that overseas promotion, not cut it back due to domestic wrangles?
John Lamont
Given the hon. Member’s interest in this area, perhaps he could speak with his SNP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. They are cutting funding to South of Scotland Enterprise, which will mean less support for businesses in the south of Scotland to grow, innovate and export. Perhaps he could tell the First Minister of Scotland that promoting Scotland overseas begins with supporting businesses at home in Scotland.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government recognise the important job that all NHS workers do, including those in the ambulance service. I see that every day of the week in my own constituency in the Scottish Borders. The UK Government would be open to exploring with the Scottish Government how we can work together and share best practice to reduce ambulance waiting times in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone
Last year in Scotland, almost 3,000 people had to wait more than eight hours for an ambulance, but in recent days, women who might have to travel a two and a half hour drive to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness to give birth or for specialist treatment have not been able to travel at all, because the roads have been closed owing to the terrible weather we have had. Does the Minister share my deep anxiety for any woman who lives over 100 miles from Raigmore Hospital?
John Lamont
I share the hon. Member’s concerns and agree that those long distances are not acceptable, but it tells us all we need to know about the NHS in rural Scotland. NHS Highland has said that it will need to substantially reduce spend following the SNP Government’s budget in December. The SNP Government are taking a slash-and-burn approach to the rural NHS across Scotland.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The autumn statement supported families and set out measures to grow the Scottish economy. With a stronger fiscal outlook, the Government have the space to cut taxes for hard-working people and businesses. That is highlighted by cuts to national insurance, benefiting 2.4 million people in Scotland, and the extension of full expensing, ensuring that the UK has one of the most competitive business tax regimes in the world.
Mr Speaker
Order. Will Members please not walk in front of other Members while they are asking questions?
Douglas Ross
The Minister is correct that the autumn statement from this UK Conservative Government provided tax cuts for millions of Scots, provided support for businesses and invested to grow the economy. That was in stark contrast to the SNP’s budget last month, which hiked taxes on hard-working Scots, failed to pass on support to the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors, and has been widely criticised across Scotland. Does the Minister agree, as I do, with Sir Tom Hunter, who said at the weekend that the business community in Scotland does not believe that the SNP has its back, and does he agree that that must change?
John Lamont
I agree with my hon. Friend, and Sir Tom is right too. Traders in Scotland have accused the SNP Government of undermining the rejuvenation of high streets across Scotland with their tax hike of 6.7% through business rates. The SNP must stop attacking employers and high-street traders who are already under tremendous financial strain because of the SNP’s mismanagement of Scotland’s economy.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Despite devolution rendering it pointless, the budget of the Scotland Office, along with that of the Attorney General, has jumped by over £3 million since 2018-19—it leapt up by £1.2 million just last year—while the Scottish Government’s budget allocation suffered a real-terms cut. Around 80 people currently work for the Scotland Office in Queen Elizabeth House alone, along with around 30 civil servants from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. What on earth are they doing, and how does the Minister justify that to the Scottish taxpayer?
John Lamont
The team at the Scotland Office, both in Dover House and in Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh, are doing a tremendous job supporting Scotland across the United Kingdom and around the world. I would be very happy to welcome the hon. Lady to meet some of them with me, so that she can understand more clearly the important work that they do on our behalf across the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. That completes Scottish questions. We now come to Prime Minister’s questions, but I just want to announce to the House that we are joined today by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic—welcome.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know that Members across the House will want to join me in offering our best wishes to His Majesty the King and Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, this afternoon I shall be meeting the extraordinary 100-year-old holocaust survivor Lily Ebert. Lily promised that, if she survived Auschwitz, she would tell the world the truth of what happened. Never has such a promise been so profoundly fulfilled. As we prepare to mark Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday, I am sure the whole House will join me in reaffirming our promise to Lily that we will never forget the holocaust and we will carry forward her life’s work for generations to come.
Richard Thomson
Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments on International Holocaust Memorial Day?
My constituents, like all of our constituents, rely on the Royal Mail to deliver important items of mail and packages, and for people to run their businesses, so they will be very alarmed to learn of the proposal from Ofcom that Royal Mail might be allowed to cut the number of days that it will provide that service. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to me here today that, on his watch, there will be no reduction in the postal services provided by the Royal Mail in Scotland or anywhere else?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the Royal Mail’s universal service obligation. As the hon. Member will have heard this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that it remains as it is.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important matter to the people of Eastleigh, which I was pleased to discuss with him on my recent visit to his area, and I know that the contents of the report are deeply concerning. It is disappointing to see this Lib Dem-run council rack up debt with absolutely no plan for how to fund it. The council has been issued with a best value notice, and I know that he is talking to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which will be monitoring this situation closely.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I join the Prime Minster in his comments about His Majesty the King and Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and in his comments about Holocaust Memorial Day? “Never again” must be said more defiantly this year, as it is said every year.
Last week, we lost Sir Tony Lloyd, a true public servant who touched the lives of many people across the House and across the country. I am glad that his family were here yesterday to hear the many tributes to and memories of Tony. He will be greatly missed.
The Prime Minister has had quite a week—from endlessly fighting with his own MPs to collapsing in laughter when he was asked by a member of the public about NHS waiting lists—so I was glad to hear that he managed to take some time off—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted to hear the Prime Minister, and I am certainly going to hear the Leader of the Opposition. Those on the Conservative Benches who do not want to hear him can certainly leave. That is how it is going to be, so get in order. Some of you will be wanting to catch my eye again, and that is not a good way to do it.
Keir Starmer
I love this quaint tradition where the more they slag him off behind his back, the louder they cheer him here.
Mr Speaker
The same goes for those on the Labour Benches. You can have a joint cup of tea.
Keir Starmer
I was glad to see that the Prime Minister managed to get some time off yesterday afternoon to kick back, relax and accidentally record a candid video for Nigel Farage. The only thing missing from that punishing schedule is any sort of governing or leadership. So was he surprised to see one of his own MPs say,
“He does not get what Britain needs. And he is not listening to what…people want.”?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about what Britain needs, what Britain wants and what Britain values—and that from the man who takes the knee, who wanted to abolish the monarchy, and who still does not know what a woman is. Just this week, one of his Front Benchers said that they backed teaching divisive white privilege in our schools. Looking at his record, it is crystal clear which one of us does not get Britain’s values.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister spouts so much nonsense, no wonder they are giving up on him. Even now, as his Government crumble around him and his own MPs point out that he is out of touch and has no plan for growth, crime or building houses, the Prime Minister is sticking to his one-man Pollyanna show—everything is fine; people should be grateful for him! The trouble is that no one is buying it. Does he actually understand why his own MPs say that he does not understand Britain, and that he is an “obstacle to recovery”?
The Prime Minister
Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls it nonsense, but these are his positions. He does not want to talk about it, but these are the facts. He chose to represent a now-proscribed terrorist group. He chose to campaign against the deportation of foreign national offenders, just like he chose to serve the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). That is his record, those are his values, and that is exactly how he should be judged.
Keir Starmer
In 2008, I was the Director of Public Prosecutions, putting terrorists and murderers in jail. The Prime Minister was making millions betting on the misery of working people during the financial crisis. We have seen this story time and again with this lot: party first, country second. Safely ensconced in Westminster, they get down to the real business of fighting each other to death. The country is forced to endure their division and chaos—the longest episode of “EastEnders” ever put to film.
Meanwhile, this week we discover that Britain is going to be the only major economy that no longer makes its own steel, that the Government are handing out £500 million to make 3,000 steelworkers redundant, and that the parents of thousands are being told that his free childcare promise is nothing but a mirage. Is he not embarrassed that the Tory party is yet again entirely focused on itself?
The Prime Minister
Yet more sniping from the sidelines, Mr Speaker—you can see exactly why Hizb ut-Tahrir hired him in the first place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to talk about these things, but even members of his own party are now realising that he simply does not have a plan for this country. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said that it is difficult to “identify the purpose” of his leadership, and long-time celebrity backer Steve Coogan recently said that
“he licks his finger, sticks it up in the air, sees which way the wind is blowing”.
Even the Labour party knows that he is not a leader, he is a human weathervane.
Keir Starmer
It is not the sidelines but from behind him that the fire is coming. The Prime Minister can try to blame the Labour party all he wants, but the difference is that I have changed my party; he is bullied by his party. Has he found time in his busy schedule to work out why thousands of parents are being told by their nurseries that they will not get the free childcare that he promised them?
The Prime Minister
Let us see what the Labour party is offering the country. We all know that he does not have many ideas for our country—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
We do know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is committed to his 2030 decarbonisation promise, which the Opposition say will cost £28 billion. I was reading about it this week. He says that he has changed the party, but one of his team called that promise “an albatross” hanging around their neck—that might have been the shadow Chancellor. But he said they are doubling down on it, and all this is ahead of a crunch meeting this week, we are told, for the Opposition to work out how they will pay for that. I can save them some time, because we all know the answer: higher taxes for the British people.
Keir Starmer
There is only one party that crashed the economy, and they are sitting right there. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holmes, you have had your question already. Obviously you do not want to remain for the rest of questions.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is Mr 25 Tax Rises, and he has nothing to say on childcare. Millions of families will have been listening for an answer, and they got absolutely nothing. He announced the scheme a year ago, claiming that it would get 60,000 parents back into work. Only on Monday this week did he notice that there were, in his words, “some practical issues” with that. Eight weeks before its launch, parents cannot budget, plan for work or make arrangements with their employers. The Prime Minister’s response is to say, “It’s all fine. It’s the fault of the Labour party.” Is this merely a practical issue, or is it yet another example of him simply not understanding how life works for other people?
The Prime Minister
We are delivering the biggest ever expansion of childcare in this country’s history. While millions of parents will benefit from that, it is right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should come clean with them about the cost that his plans will impose on all of them. He goes on and on about the green promise. He says he wants to keep it, but he does not have a plan to pay for it. What he is really saying is that he will scrap the borrowing associated with it, but he wants to keep the £28 billion of spending. For all those working families who are benefiting from our free childcare, why does he not come clean with them now and be clear that his plans mean it is back to square one and higher taxes for British people?
Keir Starmer
Making steelworkers redundant and failing to provide childcare is not a plan, Prime Minister; it is a farce. He may soon discover that with childcare there is an IT problem, nurseries do not have the spaces, they have not got the staff, there is a black hole in their budgets and there are eight weeks to go. That is not a plan. [Interruption.] Government Members can laugh all they like, but families are making plans now. Families are struggling with the cost of living crisis, trying to work out the household budget, balancing spiralling mortgages, prices and eye-watering bills, and then at the last minute they are thrown into chaos because their nursery says that it cannot deliver the free childcare that he promised. He calls that a practical issue, but I prefer the honesty of whichever of his colleagues briefed The Times that it was, and I quote, a complete “shit show”. [Interruption.] Who was it who briefed that to The Times? Hands up! Will the Prime Minister finally realise—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide how long the question goes on for. For those who wish not to hear it, I have told you the answer, and I will help you on the way.
Keir Starmer
When will the Prime Minister finally realise that the biggest practical issue facing Britain is the constant farcical incompetence of the Government he leads?
The Prime Minister
Another week with absolutely no ideas for the country and absolutely no plan. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the cost of living and the economy, but he never actually brings it up, and we all know why: because things are improving and we are making progress. Wages are now rising, debt is on track to be reduced and inflation has more than halved from 11% to 4%. He knows that our plan is working and that his £28 billion tax grab will take Britain back to square one. That is the choice: it is back to square one and higher taxes with him, or a plan that is delivering a brighter future with the Conservatives.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. As I am sure he will appreciate, establishing a new bespoke institution is a significant endeavour, but I know that he has discussed it with the Foreign Secretary, who will look at the proposals in more detail. In the meantime, as he knows, our Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 has a raft of new measures to crack down on dirty money, and we will shortly publish our second anti-corruption strategy. We will set out ambitious plans for combating corruption both here at home and internationally.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last night, as Tory MPs were once again fighting among themselves, the public were at home watching John Irvine of ITV News report on footage from Gaza of an unarmed Palestinian man walking under a white flag being shot and killed by the Israel Defence Forces. Such an act constitutes a war crime, does it not?
The Prime Minister
We have been absolutely consistent that international humanitarian law should be respected and civilians should be protected. I have made that point expressly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Foreign Secretary is in the region this week making exactly the same point.
Stephen Flynn
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to rise to that Dispatch Box and tell the people of these isles and elsewhere that shooting an unarmed man walking under a white flag is a war crime. In recent weeks, the House has acted with urgency and intent following an ITV drama. The question is, will the House now show the same urgency and intent following this ITV News report and finally back a ceasefire in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
No one wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than necessary. We do want to see an immediate and sustained humanitarian pause to get more aid in and, crucially, the hostages out, helping to create the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire. I have set out the conditions for that in the House. The Foreign Secretary is in the region today, and we will continue to press all our allies and partners to make sure that we can bring about that outcome.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner for better dental access in his constituency. I congratulate him on the new dental centre that is opening, which I know he worked hard to deliver. I agree that it is right and fair that we seek better value for the significant investment that the taxpayer makes in the education and training of the dental workforce. That is why, as our workforce plan outlined, we are exploring whether a tie-in would ensure that dentists spend a better proportion of their time in the NHS. We will launch a consultation on that policy later this year.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
In the week of the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, people in Derry are watching unarmed Palestinians being gunned down by Israeli soldiers. Over 25,000 people have now been slaughtered in Gaza. The Prime Minister has said—he has said it again today—that he wants to see a sustained ceasefire. My question is a very simple one: the next time there is a vote at the UN for a ceasefire, will his representative vote for it?
The Prime Minister
Of course we will engage with all UN resolutions on their merits. I have been clear that no one wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than is necessary. We want to see an immediate pause so that we can get aid in and hostages out, because the situation is desperate for many people there, but a sustainable, permanent ceasefire needs to fulfil a set of conditions, which include Hamas releasing all the hostages, Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza with the threat of rocket attacks into Israel, and an agreement in place for the Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza to provide governance and services. The Foreign Secretary is in the region. Those are the principles on which we are working, and I believe that those are shared by all our major allies.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner for the footbridge at Lostwithiel station. I recognise her concerns and the pressing need for the construction of the footbridge. I am told that Network Rail is currently working on a funding solution, so that it can take forward this important project in the next financial year. The Rail Minister will keep my hon. Friend updated on progress.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
In fact, the plan is working because poverty is falling in our country. There are 1.7 million fewer people in poverty than in 2010, including hundreds of thousands of children. Of course there is more to do—there is always more to do—to make sure children do not grow up in poverty, but that absolutely would not be helped by Labour’s £28 billion tax grab on their parents, which would take money out of their family’s bank account.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is great to see, thanks to my hon. Friend, that Bracknell Forest is thriving, with people in work up and footfall in the town centre up and, as he knows, almost 100% of his schools are now good or outstanding. But he is right that we must do more to relieve the burden on working people, which is why we cut taxes for tens of millions of people in work earlier this year, worth £450 on average. We have to stick to the plan for lower taxes, a strong economy and a brighter future for the people of Bracknell Forest, and absolutely not risk going back to square one with the Labour party.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to caring for society’s most vulnerable and that is why almost 20 million families will see their benefit payments increase this April. That will bring our total support over these few years to around £3,700 per UK household. The Department for Work and Pensions is looking very closely at how it can target its services precisely on the most vulnerable customers. I know the hon. Lady spoke to the DWP permanent secretary at length about that when he appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee earlier this month. I can assure her that he will be writing to the Committee on exactly that subject shortly.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend has been a great support to his constituents over all these years, and has fought relentlessly for the truth to come out. As I have said, the Horizon scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, and, as I said a few weeks ago, we will introduce primary legislation within weeks to ensure that all convictions that were based on erroneous Horizon evidence are quashed. That will clear people’s names, deliver justice and ensure swifter access to compensation. Innocent people such as my hon. Friend’s constituents have waited far too long, and I am determined that they receive compensation as swiftly as possible. We have a clear moral duty to right these wrongs, and that is exactly what we will do.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I do not want to see anyone reliant on food banks, but while they are in place I have nothing but praise and thanks for the people who run them. However, it is wrong to say we are not making progress. When I came into this job, inflation was running at 11%, which has had the single biggest impact on families’ cost of living. Now, thanks to the efforts of this Government—most of them opposed by the hon. Gentleman’s party—inflation has been more than halved, at 4%, and we are combining that with significant tax cuts to put more money into people’s bank accounts at the end of every month. That is the right way to go about supporting people, combined with our extensive cost of living support for the most vulnerable. All the statistics show that that support has helped and has made a difference, and that is what you get with responsible management of the British economy.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is correct: local transport projects are and must be prioritised, and every region of our country will have more transport investment as a result of the decision that we made on HS2. Work is under way to consider potential upgrades to the west coast main line, including improvements at Preston station which may support additional local services from south Fylde. I know that the Rail Minister is considering these options carefully as we speak, and will update my hon. Friend in due course.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We have been clear that the volume of sewage discharge by water companies is unacceptable, and that is why we have launched the most ambitious storm overflow discharge reduction plan. We have now achieved the monitoring of nearly every single storm overflow in England—under this and previous Governments—and introduced unlimited penalties on water companies. Where there is evidence of poor performance, the Environment Agency will not hesitate to pursue the water companies concerned, just as it did, I believe, a couple of years ago in the hon. Lady’s constituency, when it specifically fined Thames Water £4 million following a serious incident.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and I published our report on T1DE—type 1 diabetes and disordered eating, a condition estimated to affect over a quarter of type 1 diabetics in the UK. It is life-shortening, life-threatening and can lead to death. I am pleased to say that Hampshire integrated care board has already responded positively to the report. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government not only look seriously at the recommendations that we have put forward but act on those recommendations, which would improve lives, save lives, and save money for the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Can I start by thanking my right hon. Friend, and indeed the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), for their important work on this issue? I know that both speak from personal experience. As my right hon. Friend says, it is important that people get the treatment they need. The Health Secretary will of course consider the report, and the NHS has already been piloting services to support those with this condition, as she will be aware. I understand that the NHS is now also expanding pilot sites to every region of the country so that even more people can benefit from the appropriate integrated care.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I have been absolutely clear that we are incredibly concerned about the devastating impact of the situation in Gaza on citizens. That is why we have tripled our humanitarian aid for this financial year to the region and, as I said in the statement yesterday, we are working with partners such as Jordan and the United States to open up new aid corridors so that we can increase the supply of aid getting to those who desperately need it.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
This morning the press reported the tragic case of a 14-year-old girl who took her own life following horrific social media bullying, including on TikTok and Snapchat. Since 2010, across the English-speaking world, there has been a marked increase in poor teen mental health, teen suicide attempts and children addicted to pornography. The United Kingdom has a strong tradition of legislating to protect children from serious threats to their safety and welfare, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to consider banning social media and perhaps even smartphones for under-16s?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the impact of what happens online on our children, which is why our Online Safety Act 2023 tackles criminal activity online and protects children from harmful or inappropriate content, such as bullying or the promotion of self-harm, and from accessing pornography, and also from exposure to eating disorders. Ofcom is now rightly developing and consulting on the guidance and the codes of practice for how those platforms will meet their duties, and if they do not clean up their act, Ofcom will be able to impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover on the social media firms.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is the face of the changed Labour party.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you for commissioning the Holocaust Educational Trust’s exhibition in Portcullis House, and for your unwavering personal commitment to holocaust remembrance? As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, will the Prime Minister join me in commending the Holocaust Educational Trust for its important work, particularly its work with holocaust survivors who, despite living through the darkest moment in human history, continue to share their testimony in the hope of ensuring “Never again.” In the face of the appalling rise in antisemitism that we see on the streets of Britain, will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging all Members to sign the book of commitment and stand up against antisemitism?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust for it brilliant work, and I thank her for all her work on this issue. I will be signing the book of commitment this afternoon, during my meeting with Lily Ebert, and I encourage Members on both sides of the House to do the same and to reaffirm our shared determination to ensure that the holocaust is never forgotten, and to defeat the resurgence of antisemitism and all forms of hatred in our country.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that this is an anxious time for steelworkers in south Wales, but we are committed to working with the steel sector to secure a positive and sustainable future. The hon. Lady will know that, during the pandemic, we provided support to Celsa to safeguard jobs and ensure the sustainability of its steel plant in south Wales. The proposed complete closure of the plant would have seen the loss of 8,000 direct jobs in south Wales, and thousands more across the supply chain. Because of the Government’s investment, support and partnership with Tata, we have safeguarded 5,000 direct jobs and thousands more in the supply chain, and we have ensured the long-term sustainability of the steel plant so that it has a brighter future. Obviously this is difficult, but it is entirely churlish of the hon. Lady not to recognise one of the largest support packages that any Government have provided to any company, safeguarding thousands of jobs in the process.
Extreme Weather Events: Resilience
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the UK’s resilience to recent extreme weather events, including Storm Isha and Storm Jocelyn.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I begin by saying how sorry the Government were to hear that four people—two in this country and two in Ireland—sadly lost their lives due to Storm Isha. I extend my sympathy to their family and friends. At the same time, I praise our emergency and utility workers who worked so hard to help the public in very difficult conditions.
Forecasters at the Met Office raised a rare whole-country weather warning for the wind over the weekend, in preparation for Storm Isha. The warning encompassed even rarer amber and red warnings for wind in the areas forecast to experience the worst of the storm. Indeed, wind gusts reached a peak of 99 mph in Northumberland and 124 mph across the Cairngorms. Although the storm had the potential to be extremely destructive, the vast majority of the transport and power infrastructure stood up well and recovered quickly, which is a credit to the resilience of our critical infrastructure and the response capabilities of our operational partners on the ground.
Storm Isha was closely followed by Storm Jocelyn, which reached a peak of 97 mph. I am informed that it was the 10th named storm to impact our country this season. Again, the impacts of Jocelyn in England were less than feared, with operational partners working around the clock to clear any disruption on our transport and power networks.
There is no doubt that the forecasting capabilities of our experts at the Met Office, and the accuracy and speed at which they can warn and inform the public of incoming severe weather events, saves lives and protects our homes and businesses.
My officials and those across government worked hard last week and over the weekend to co-ordinate the extensive preparation and mitigation measures that were taken. The fact that no escalation to a Cobra-level response was required for either storm is testament to our effective response structures at local and national levels. I am very grateful for the response from colleagues in the devolved Administrations and local resilience forums across the country. Our local authority and agency partners kept public services running and reacted to any local issues that emerged.
We are adapting to weather events not previously experienced in our country, and events such as these come with increasing frequency and severity. The UK is driving forward cross-Government action to respond to climate risks and their impacts on our economy and way of life. Our third national adaptation programme, published in July last year, sets out an ambitious five-year programme of work, driven by three themes: action, information and co-ordination.
We are ensuring a more integrated approach to climate adaptation over the next five years, through stronger Government engagement and co-ordinated policymaking. As part of that, we have established the right Government structures not only to monitor progress, but to tackle strategic cross-cutting challenges that will drive the UK’s resilience to climate change. This is all in line with the Government’s broader strategy, as set out in the resilience framework, which committed us to strengthening the links between our understanding of the risks that the UK faces and the action we take to prevent those risks from materialising. We must continue to drive forward these initiatives, which help us to curb the impacts of climate change, and at the same time build systems that help us to withstand extreme events as they arise.
Mr McFadden
I thank the Minister for his response. Recent days have seen the UK battered by two severe storms, first Storm Isha and then Storm Jocelyn—the 10th named storm of this winter. Liz Bentley, chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, has said that these storms are
“some of the worst in the last 10 years”.
Our constituents across the country have been hit by widespread damage, flooding, power outages, and the cancellation of flights, ferries and trains. In the most tragic circumstances, four people are reported to have lost their lives. I want to pay tribute to the emergency service workers, electrical engineers and other response teams who have been working to help people, restore power and get transport moving, often at risk to themselves, in very severe conditions. We owe them all a debt of thanks.
Of course, Ministers cannot control the weather—indeed, ex-Ministers on the Conservative Benches cannot even control themselves—but the greater regularity and severity of extreme weather demands a response from the Government. Let me therefore ask the Minister: given the frequency of extreme weather events, why do the Government not have a standing flood resilience taskforce, as part of the Cobra system, with a specific responsibility for building up long-term protection? Local resilience forums have been neglected since the passing of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 under the Labour Government. What more can Ministers do to revive them and make sure they are properly supported? Last week, the Public Accounts Committee said the flood protection budget put in place has been underused since it was announced and is now expected to cover 40% fewer properties than was first claimed. That leaves more than 200,000 homes vulnerable to flooding. What is the Government’s plan for them?
Jocelyn may be the latest storm, but it will not be the last. The very least the public have a right to expect is that their Government| understand that, and are focused on the job and not on whatever is the latest episode in the Tory psychodrama that has distracted the governance of the country for far too long.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words about our emergency services and utility workers. On his specific point about flooding, he will have heard the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for this area, comment earlier in the week that, “Flooding resilience in England is a priority for DEFRA, as part of a whole-society approach to resilience outlined in the UK Government resilience framework.” For example, the Government are investing a record £5.2 billion in the flood and coastal erosion risk management capital programme. Since 2021, over £1.5 billion has so far been invested in flood defence projects across England, with over 67,000 properties better protected.
Of course, the response to flooding is just one part of our resilience work that is co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office. Mercifully, very few families were flooded out of their homes in the storms we have just had, but we are absolutely cognisant of the need to prepare. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the National Audit Office report published late last year, which notes positively that since 2021 the Government have
“strengthened the arrangements to manage national risks”;
that they are
“taking steps to address extreme weather risks as whole-system risks”,
a point to which I will return in a moment; and that they have acquired
“good forecasting data for droughts, heatwaves and storms”.
Over the past few years, we have seen a noticeable improvement in storm preparedness and response. A few years ago, there were still about 40,000 people without power three days after Storm Arwen. The storms we have just had were very powerful and about 400,000 people lost power to their homes, but 99% of them had their power restored within 24 hours as a result of the planning and preparedness that this Government have put in place.
We have learned the lessons. We now have improved public warnings, we have hardened infrastructure and, crucially, we forward deploy repair experts. When we see storms forming over the Atlantic, we signal to local partners in the utilities and the emergency services, and they go out and get ready on the ground, doing everything from clearing storm drains to getting ready to repair infrastructure that might be vulnerable.
We have better public information. The public are much more connected with the activity of storms. Naming storms may seem like a superficial change, but we know that is has improved public awareness of what is going on. We have clearer travel advice and the Department for Transport is doing great work through our operators.
We also have superior forecasting. The Government have invested a great deal in compute capacity and forecasting capacity that enables us to see where storms are coming from. Better co-ordination and deployment of resources from the centre means that we are working better with partners on the ground and getting a better response when extreme events take place.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and I thank his officials in the Cabinet Office who do so much that is often unseen. On those with a higher public profile, will he join me in thanking the Environment Agency emergency response teams for the west midlands, the Shropshire fire and rescue teams, who have done such a great job, and all the officials at Severn Trent Water, Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council?
The Minister mentions national infrastructure; does he agree that highways fall under that? Will he call on Highways England to do more to ensure that the M54, an important road in Shropshire and in connecting Wales and England, has less flooding in future and to put in place more mitigation and investment to do that?
Alex Burghart
I join my hon. Friend in his words of praise for those who have been working in the west midlands. I am sure that my DFT colleagues have heard what he said about the critical road in his constituency.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a little bit cheeky of the Government to take entire responsibility for the improvements. For example, SSE has put improvements in place and done a huge amount of work, for which it deserves credit, so it is not just about the changes to forecasting. I thank the resilience partnerships that improved the emergency services, the energy companies and all the individuals who stepped up to help others in their local communities. It was truly a community effort and people came together.
I wish the Government would take climate change more seriously, given the incredible amount of extreme weather events we are seeing right now. It is important for the Government both to talk the talk and to walk the walk when it comes to climate change. They should be leading from the front in developing a strategy to help to ensure that we are resilient in the face of climate adaptation and the changes that are happening, and they should put the funding in place to ensure that that strategy can be delivered.
The Scottish Government need funding to make the changes required for resilience. If there are massive geographical disparities in some of the weather events, such as with Storm Arwen, then Barnett may not be the appropriate method to fund some of the required changes. In the upcoming Budget process, it might be sensible for the Government to ensure that resilience funding is spread to the areas that are most likely to be hardest hit, so that rather than Scotland having a percentage share based on our population numbers, that share is based on the likelihood of extreme climate events. That would be most welcome, particularly when it comes to resilience.
Alex Burghart
That is a classic question from the SNP, isn’t it? The hon. Lady did not listen to what I have said and then asked for more money. Central Government are absolutely not taking all the credit for everything that has happened. As she will have just heard me say, it is our partnership with the people who work in the emergency services, local government, utility companies and so on that has made the changes possible.
On climate change, I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased to discover that, since peak CO2 emissions in the mid-1970s, the UK Government by their actions have helped to reduce CO2 emissions by more than 50%, which is more than any other G7 country. We take these things seriously and we will continue to do so.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank both the Minister for his statement and the Government for their clear actions to strengthen our nation’s resilience. As these extreme storms again unleash damage right across the UK, will my hon. Friend join me in sending our thoughts to the people whose homes, businesses and farms have been affected, and in paying tribute to the Environment Agency staff, emergency services, local authorities, electricity companies and volunteer groups—such as the Appleby Emergency Response Group in my constituency—which do so much to help people and communities through the trauma and aftermath of storms and severe floods?
Alex Burghart
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Appleby Emergency Response Group. So often, it is local community organisations, with their connections and awareness of and intelligence about what is taking place on the ground, that make a response possible, so I am very happy to join him in that. I am glad to hear that although his constituency was hit hard by the storms, it has managed to move on quickly.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked why the Government had neglected local resilience forums and, indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which they bypassed during covid. May I ask that question again? What lessons have the Government learned from covid and such issues in order to give greater sustainability to the local resilience forums that need to protect us?
Alex Burghart
We obviously learned a great many lessons from covid. As the hon. Lady will be aware from the documentation that the Government have published over the past couple of years, there has been a great deal of activity to improve our resilience and response to emergencies. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave a statement to that effect in this House in December.
The Cabinet Office assigns ownership of acute national risks to lead Government Departments, across risk identification, risk assessment, prevention, resilience, preparation and emergency response and recovery. The lead Government Departments may change between the phases as the impact changes and different competencies are required. None the less, the UK has adopted a bottom-up approach to managing emergencies, as most emergencies affect local areas. We have local responders such as the police, fire and ambulance services, which manage emergencies without direct involvement from the Government. The response to larger-scale emergencies is then led by lead Government Departments. It is only in the most serious cases that the response is escalated to Cabinet Office briefing rooms—known as Cobra—and senior Ministers from across Government are brought in. As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, this is very much about a partnership between centre and locality, and we are starting to see the benefits of that approach.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend to congratulate the good people of Repton and the other villages that came together to help with all the flooding that has been going on? In particular, they are holding follow-up meetings to get more flood wardens across South Derbyshire. I have never seen anything like the flooding that has taken place in South Derbyshire. We need to get the Environment Agency to move on with plans for installing holding ponds further up the Trent and the Derwent to stop the run-off from the fields that we have had this time round. Anything that my hon. Friend can do to help me to get spades in the ground on those projects would be much appreciated.
Alex Burghart
I very much hear what my hon. Friend says. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard likewise. She will have heard what I had to say earlier about the Department’s position on flooding. On alerts, for instance, normal flood warnings were operated. We did not use the national alert because the situation did not reach that threshold, and our local partners did not ask us to use it. From what we can see at this stage, that local system worked well and helped to protect people and, where possible, property.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The consistent storms we have had this winter have meant that our communities have felt more consistently battered by flooding and winds than ever before. Sadly, as the Minister mentioned, lives were lost at the weekend. Tens of thousands of houses and businesses were left without power. Transport links were halted in my Edinburgh constituency—there were no flights out of the airport, no trains were going anywhere, and roads and bridges were closed. Thousands of homes were flooded, yet the National Audit Office has warned that the Government have not set a long-term target for the level of flood resilience that they expect to achieve, and there are no concrete plans to do so beyond 2026. That means that any investment could be misplaced and inefficient and that homes will not be protected sufficiently. Does the Minister see that this could be a lack of foresight? Will the Government commit to reversing the current cuts to flood protection and do more to ensure that investment is effective?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me reflect on what DEFRA said earlier in the week about the £5.2 billion of investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management through its capital programme, and the fact that, since 2021, the Government have put £1.5 billion into flood-defence projects across England.
On the hon. Lady’s first point about the level of disruption, we understand and sympathise with people who have been put in such situations. Although we cannot control the weather, we can, by degrees, become better prepared for events, both through the general resilience planning that the Government have been doing and by having better intelligence on storms forming over the Atlantic and making sure we have the right people with the right skills poised to act quickly when those storms strike. That, of course, means that we can minimise disruption to the public, even though we cannot eliminate it altogether.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
In my Broxtowe constituency, some businesses and homes that I have visited have been affected by multiple storms and have received the flood recovery grant but, as it stands, those who have been affected by Storm Babet and Storm Henk can claim after only one of the floods. Are the Government looking to put more support in place for individuals who have been flooded multiple times by separate storms?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend raises a very important question. We know how awful it can be for families to be flooded out of their homes. There is damage to their property and effects, and sometimes to items with sentimental value. It is important that we have processes and procedures in place to make sure that we can help people out in those circumstances. On my hon. Friend’s specific point, I will make sure that he gets a response from colleagues in DEFRA.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In Scottish questions, I spoke of how Caithness and north Sutherland were completely cut off. All the roads were blocked during the storms, so a pregnant mum whose contractions had started could not even begin her 100-mile journey to Raigmore in Inverness to give birth. People speak of the helicopter ambulance; there is one based in Inverness, but if that has to go to an emergency in Lochaber, on the other side of Scotland, what does the pregnant mum do? To be quite honest, we are faced with a mum and her child dying. When the Minister meets the Scottish Government, will he please point out the utter folly of centralising these services in Inverness, when we have a perfectly good, workable hospital in Wick, which should be upgraded and put into full use?
Alex Burghart
I am happy to communicate that message strongly to the devolved Administration. I have visited Caithness and seen its remote beauty, but yes, one can only imagine what it would be like to be a young woman giving birth and cut off from major services. I feel that the hon. Gentleman’s plea for an upgrade at Wick is very important.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Two weeks ago, Runnymede and Weybridge was flooded as a result of Storm Henk. When flooding happens locally, my constituents must navigate a host of organisations with different responsibilities, including Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, Surrey County Council, Runnymede Borough Council, Elmbridge Borough Council, Thames Water, Affinity Water, the Environment Agency and Surrey Highways. As part of my campaign to improve flood response and preparedness, and protection from flooding, I have been calling for a local flood control centre to be a single co-ordinated access point for accessible support and advice, and clear and consistent communication. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that?
Alex Burghart
I am glad that my hon. Friend has such a worthy campaign to support his constituents. I will ensure that his request for a meeting goes to the most appropriate Minister, who may be able to advise him on how possible his proposal is.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the NAO, since plans were first unveiled in 2020 the Environment Agency has cut by 40% its forecast of the number of additional properties that will be better protected from flooding by 2027. In Feltham and Heston, the level of water on our streets during storms that is unable to drain away is getting higher and higher. I have to push the Minister on this: is he confident that his plans will be sufficient to keep homes and businesses across the country safe from flood-related damage? This is a huge and growing concern.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me say a moment ago that the NAO was pleased that the Government have taken steps to address extreme weather as part of a whole-system approach, which can have real advantages when floods are coming. For example, it enables appropriately trained emergency workers to be sent out to clear storm drains and ensure that anything that might make the floods worse is cleared out of the way. She will also have heard me say that DEFRA has committed a great deal of money to improving flood defences over the past three or four years, and that tens of thousands of homes are better protected as a result. We are not complacent, and are always looking at ways we can improve that.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the excellent work by the team at the Cabinet Office, who I know work extremely hard on these problems. As he will know, my constituency is home to some of our most precious chalk streams and winterbournes. I am sure that he is aware that water levels in the Bourne Valley and in villages to the west of Andover are perilously high. He will understand the ecological importance of those rivers, and the risk of the sewage system being overwhelmed and leaking into the chalk streams. The Environment Agency and Southern Water are doing great work. There is a huge pumping operation under way to avoid that calamity, but further significant rainfall might overwhelm the entire system. In his post-match analysis, once the weather calms down, will he consider giving special priority to identifying work that is required in areas of particular ecological sensitivity? Significant work has been done up and down my constituency over the past 10 years by the flood resilience group, Southern Water, the EA, and indeed riparian owners, but more could still be done, and it needs a certain amount of concentration.
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his observations. As a former resident of 70 Whitehall, he understands the problems in great depth, and the chalk streams of Hampshire have no finer defender than his right honourable self. He makes a serious point about ecological sensitivity. It is right that we pay attention not only to the immediate threats to life or property but to our natural environment. As we know, if we do not do so, the damage can be irreparable and long lasting.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Barely a part of Oxford West and Abingdon was unaffected by the recent floods, but Abingdon remains unprotected. In 2007, we were promised a plan, which was cut because of a lack of resources for the EA. It is not just the River Thames; it is also the run-off from the new developments, where huge numbers of houses have been built. What is the Cabinet Office doing to connect DEFRA with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities so that the developers, who have promised to clear the culverts, can be forced by the local authorities to do so?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady will have heard me say earlier, the Cabinet Office has a co-ordinating role that brings together lead Government Departments and local responders. It would be under that guise that different Government Departments would meet to discuss issues of the sort that she describes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Even by the standards of what we are accustomed to in the northern isles, the last week has been exceptionally disruptive. I associate myself with the previous expressions of gratitude to the road staff, electricity engineers and others who have gone about their jobs, and to those who are responding even though it is not part of their job. The response of farmers, who just get on with clearing the snow with a bucket on the front of their tractor, has been phenomenal. Is this not a moment to pause and reflect that some of the changes proposed in other parts of Government could weaken our resilience? The switch-off of the copper wire network for telephones and the proposed increase in the response time of the search and rescue helicopter provided by the coastguard from 15 minutes to 60 minutes will leave us in a worse position if they are allowed to happen. Can the Cabinet Office do something to ensure that they are not?
Alex Burghart
I have landed at Tingwall airport in a storm in the summer, and that was frightening enough.
Alex Burghart
No. One can only imagine what it has felt like in the Shetlands over the past week or so. My sympathies are with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents. To his point about general resilience, the Government are trying to take a whole-system approach to understand exactly how we can work with emergency responders and those who are responsible for our national infrastructure. We are making progress, but there are always areas in which we can do more work.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As both the Minister and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), pointed out, this is the latest in a series of storms that we have faced. In October, St Andrews harbour was significantly damaged as a result of the sea surges following Storm Babet. The harbour is run by a trust that dates from when James VI of Scotland granted the land to the people of the town, but as a result of the community ownership fund that the Government have run, and other funds generally, more and more of our assets are owned and run by local communities, which when faced with this kind of disaster have no source of funding to access support. Do the Government agree that they should be looking at ensuring that funding is in place, because St Andrews is a working harbour that is facing £3 million in costs. Without the repairs being made, there is a risk of other parts of the town being affected in the future.
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to have learned something about St Andrews harbour. I am sure that colleagues in other Government Departments, including DLUHC, are considering those issues. Community-owned assets can be a wonderful thing. It is important that assets such as local ports are governed by people who really understand the towns and cities in which they are based. I am happy to take that forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive answers to the questions. Farmers in my constituency tell me they cannot recall floods and rain quite like this; indeed, they tell me the volume of rain has been of biblical proportions. I hail from the coastal constituency of Strangford, where storms hit with a fury that is possibly not fully grasped. The coastline defences around Strangford loch and within my constituency have been subjected to a level of onslaught never before seen. Can the Minister confirm what discussions he has had with the Department in Stormont, to which Westminster gave substantial financial help to address coastal erosion? Perhaps the same level of assistance can be offered again.
Alex Burghart
I will ask Ministers from other Departments to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics, but he will know that we are very keen to see a restoration of Stormont, and I believe that the House will hear more about that very soon.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Somerset is so often battered by extreme flooding and, in response, the River Cam flood warning system is being piloted in my constituency. A stretch near North Cadbury will be fitted out tomorrow with laser depth-measuring devices, which will send real-time messages and alerts to residents when the water levels start to rise. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Liberal Democrat councillors and Somerset Rivers Authority for that initiative and agree that we need to fund more extreme weather resilience plans for isolated rural communities?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to hear about the initiative in Cadbury—I have fond memories as a schoolboy of walking around the hillfort there—and am well aware of the historical threats that Somerset has faced with flooding. I am glad that in recent incidences local government and central Government have been able to work together for the benefit of the people who live in that area.
Point of Order
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. An organisation in my constituency where I had grounds to intervene on behalf of a previous pub tenant has issued its current tenant with a gagging order and verbally told them not to contact their MP. What can be done to protect my constituents from such bullying and to ensure that their constitutional rights are respected?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. The ability of constituents to communicate with their Members of Parliament is constitutionally important. I am very concerned about the matter he has raised. Constituents must be able to communicate freely with their Members of Parliament, and I trust and hope that urgent action will be taken to clarify that that is understood by all parties in this case. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will seek advice from the Clerk of the Journals in the first instance about how this very important issue might be escalated.
Bills Presented
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T C Davies and Mr Steve Baker, presented a Bill to make provision to extend the period following the Northern Ireland Assembly election of 5 May 2022 during which Ministers may be appointed.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 150), with explanatory notes (Bill 150—EN).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I advise the House that this is a very narrow Bill. If the House agrees the business of the House motion today, amendments may be tabled before the Bill has been read a Second time. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that she will make her provisional selection of amendments soon after 2 pm. Members who are considering tabling amendments are asked to contact the Public Bill Office as soon as possible.
Whistleblowing Bill
Mary Robinson presented a Bill to establish an independent Office of the Whistleblower to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing in accordance with the public interest; to make provision for the Office of the Whistleblower to set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, to provide disclosure and advice services, to direct whistleblowing investigations and to order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers; to create offences relating to the treatment of whistleblowers and the handling of whistleblowing cases; to repeal the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed (Bill 151).
Road Traffic and Street Works
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Road Traffic and Street Works Bill 2023-24 View all Road Traffic and Street Works Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about speeding offences on roads to which a 20mph limit applies; to make provision about the enforcement of moving traffic offences; to require 24 hour staffing of works on specified public roads; and for connected purposes.
As I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, life as a motorist has changed significantly over the past two decades. Cars have become safer, more efficient, greener and quieter, and yet despite the fact that the motor car is possibly one of the greatest contributors to human wealth, happiness and freedom, it has become seen by many as the root of all evil. Despite the enormous benefits that cars bring to our constituents’ families up and down the land and, indeed, to people across the world, for many motorists, the world seems to be filled with councillors and officials who are dedicated to making their lives more difficult. Driving is becoming a minefield of potential traps and penalties, such that drivers are becoming paranoid and resentful about the entire system. When that happens, order tends to break down, and the time has come for a rebalancing.
In the Bill, I propose three modest measures that would achieve a better balance and would hopefully see better results generally for motorists and members of our communities across the board. First, I propose that anybody caught speeding between 20 mph and 30 mph does not receive penalty points, rather they would be required to attend a speed awareness course. Repeat offences would require repeat attendance at speed awareness courses. I should declare an interest, having been at a speed awareness course recently after I was caught unwittingly doing 24 mph on the Embankment, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury—not at the same time or in the same vehicle, but he was also done for a similar offence.
The roll-out of 20 mph speed limits across the country has brought benefits in terms of road safety, but it has left many thousands of drivers disproportionately punished for straying over the limit. The fact that drivers can receive three penalty points for doing 24 mph in a 20 mph zone and for doing 57 mph in a 50 mph zone seems unfair to many and is in danger of discrediting the system. In addition to penalty points and a fine, drivers so punished would also face higher insurance premiums at a time when premiums are rising significantly in any event. As it stands, it is possible for someone to lose their driving licence by driving at 24 mph four times in three years.
Two years ago, it was revealed that as 20 mph zones were rolled out across London, Transport for London was setting a target of a million speeding fines a year with the Met police. That represents a huge increase in prosecutions and the accumulation of points. Analysis of Department for Transport data by Claims.co.uk confirms that of those speeding in a 20 mph zone, 49% were exceeding the limit by 5 mph or more, and only 19% were driving above 30 mph. Those numbers, of course, imply that 51% of those caught speeding were doing less than 25 mph.
In evaluations, speed awareness courses have proven to be significantly more effective in preventing reoffending than penalty points and a fine. If our objective is to improve road safety, particularly on residential roads, it would be more effective to put people through repeated courses, perhaps with increasing intensity and time required. That would be a more proportionate approach and would achieve better road safety. Points would of course still apply for those who fail to attend courses or, indeed, who fail their courses, which I understand is a possibility.
The second element of the Bill is for non-speeding traffic offences enforced by a local council or body other than the police. A first offence in those circumstances at a particular location should result in a warning letter, rather than a fine. A subsequent offence at the same location would attract a fine in the normal manner. Over the past few years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of traffic enforcement cameras operated by local authorities. In London alone, nearly 3.2 million tickets were issued in 2022-23, extracting about £200 million from motorists. The number of councils approved by the Government to operate enforcement in that way has increased steadily. There are regular reports in the media of the earnings of particular cameras. The most successful camera in Birmingham apparently pulls in £10,000 a day from drivers who stray into bus lanes.
A number of councils that have introduced enforcement cameras have started with a grace period, during which erring drivers have been issued with a warning letter for their first offence at a particular location, recognising that a sudden change may not be immediately appreciated by many. In Liverpool, the city of my birth, when cameras were brought in at one particular location, 1,400 drivers were caught out within the first 24 hours. Happily, they all received a warning letter first. That is a good and civilised principle, and it maintains public support for the enforcement system. It recognises that the vast majority of drivers will have made a genuine error, will learn their lesson and will not make the same mistake again.
This very British sense of giving people the benefit of the doubt should continue, and this Bill would make it a permanent feature. Anyone who commits a moving traffic offence—caught in the yellow box, straying into a bus lane or turning left when they should not—enforced by a local authority with a camera for the first time at a particular location would only receive a warning letter. Subsequent offences at the same location would attract a fine in the normal manner.
Finally, the third element of my Bill says that any roadworks on an A road should not be left unattended at any time. We know, as Members of Parliament travelling around our constituencies and to and from London, that the Government have struggled to control and minimise disruptive roadworks. Anyone who drives in any major city will say that unannounced roadworks with poor traffic management and inconsiderate positioning are a source of huge delay and aggravation—even more so when those works are seemingly abandoned and lifeless, sometimes for days.
Even in the past few days Hyde Park Corner, one of the busiest junctions in the capital, has been beset with works and temporary traffic lights, with not a soul in sight after 5 pm. There is a polite Government consultation out at the moment on increasing fines and tinkering a bit with the current system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) introduced his ten-minute rule Bill, the Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, last year with an imaginative and more radical set of measures to address the same problem, and his “Can the Cones” campaign hit the mark with many.
My proposal is simple. It would require contractors to ensure that no roadworks on any A road can ever be left unattended. Someone must always be on hand to deal with problems, speak to the public, alert authorities to traffic issues and generally manage the site. That obligation would also provide a powerful incentive for the work to be completed quickly and the duty could be satisfied by having at least one person always working on the site—a very efficient use of resources and one that would show the public that contractors are being as diligent as possible and works are being completed as swiftly as possible. Above all, motorists would know that their safe and smooth passage through the works was being supervised at all times.
These three simple measures would improve all our lives, with greater road safety, a greater sense of proportion and civilisation in the enforcement of non-speeding traffic offences and less aggravation for motorists going through abandoned works.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kit Malthouse, Royston Smith, Will Quince, Nickie Aiken, Sir Desmond Swayne, Philip Davies, Mark Menzies, Shailesh Vara, Julie Marson and Steve Tuckwell present the Bill.
Kit Malthouse accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed (Bill 152).
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) kindly mentioned in his speech that I brought in a similar Bill, or at least a Bill on the same subject, last year. I commend him on what he has done and put on the record that the roads Minister was here to listen. If my right hon. Friend or I put in for an Adjournment debate to give the roads Minister an opportunity to reply on the subject, perhaps the Chair might be prepared in due course to look favourably on such a request?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know how to apply for an Adjournment debate. However, it is just possible he might find favour with Mr Speaker, as he would probably find favour with me on this subject. Other than that, I do not think it is a matter for the Chair.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Business of the House)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill—
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16)(a) of this Order.
(6) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(9) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (9) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(11) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(14) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.
(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Chris Heaton-Harris)
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Amendments, new clauses and new schedules for Committee of the whole House may now be tabled by Members at the Opposition side of the Table of the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that she will make her provisional selection of all those amendments tabled soon after 2 pm. If any amendments are tabled and then selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, an amendment paper for the Committee of the Whole House will be circulated as soon as possible.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a very short and, I would like to think, perfectly formed Bill. I thank all those who have helped to expedite this simple but important piece of legislation to this point. As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my focus has always been on facilitating the return of devolved institutions and upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands. This Bill is no different, and hopefully plays a part in that.
The UK Government believe in the agreement. We believe in devolution. We believe in localism. We strongly believe in power sharing. That is why I am today legislating to extend retrospectively the Executive formation period to 8 February 2024. The people of Northern Ireland deserve locally elected decision makers and want them to address the issues that matter to them. This very short extension provided for by the legislation will create the legal means to allow the Assembly to sit and get the Executive up and running as soon as possible.
Importantly, a restored Executive will have access to the significant financial package that I announced before Christmas, worth more than £3.3 billion, to secure and transform Northern Ireland’s public services. Ministers will be empowered to immediately begin working to address the needs of local people and unleash Northern Ireland’s full and amazing potential. This Bill to helps to deliver that outcome and support the return of devolved governance to the citizens of Northern Ireland. On that note, I conclude my remarks for now and commend the Bill to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Another year, and another Bill to postpone the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. It is worth noting that the last time we did this, something quite significant happened five days later, when the Windsor Framework negotiations were concluded, so let us live in a state of hope—tempered, as always, by experience.
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill in such a timely fashion. We support it and I have met no one who thinks that holding elections now would help to resolve the difficulties that Northern Ireland’s politics are currently in. However, while we may be in agreement about the need for this Bill, I do not think we should let this moment pass without acknowledging that the Assembly elected 20 months ago has still not yet been able to meet. In any other democracy anywhere in the world, that would be a cause of anger, not to say uproar. The very essence of a democratic election is that the representative body should be able to meet and do its job. I would just observe that Northern Ireland surely cannot continue to be the only place where that does not happen.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the discussions that we have had. It is a pleasure to do business with him. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), said just under a year ago:
“It would, of course, be better if this legislation were not needed. Northern Ireland is a valued part of the United Kingdom, and restoring the Stormont Assembly and Executive should be a priority for the Government.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 238.]
I know that is a priority for the Secretary of State, because he has spent so much time negotiating with the Democratic Unionist party to try to find a way forward, and from the moment I took on this role I have tried to support him and the Government in that objective. With the negotiations, it appears, having effectively concluded, we have now come to the moment of decision.
I hope the DUP will return to government. I think the DUP should return to government. I say that for a host of reasons, but above all because the people of Northern Ireland need to have their Government back. The consequences of having no Government for almost two years this time around—and, of course, for almost three years when Sinn Féin walked out of the institutions—are very serious for the people of Northern Ireland. As we know, the Assembly cannot even elect a Speaker so it cannot meet, difficult decisions are not being taken, the public finances are in a parlous state, and when the floods struck last year and affected so many businesses and homes, there was no Government in Stormont for people to turn to for help—none.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
When I was at home over Christmas, I took my uncle to the specialist cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital. It was a humbling experience to see the care and dedication provided by the staff in that world-leading facility, but the stresses and strains of a lack of funding and direction were clear. When institutions and systems fail, people suffer. This has to be the last time that legislation like this comes before the House. Let us get the institutions back up and running, or the Secretary of State, with the Irish Government, should find something else to sort it out.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is the moment to get the institutions back up and running. I wish the person he referred to all the best in their treatment.
The civil servants are left to make decisions that ought to be made by elected representatives. In the case of public sector pay, for example, some workers have not had a pay rise for almost three years—that should hardly bear repetition—and no decisions have been taken because there is not enough money in the budget to do so. That is why there was such a large strike last week, and I see that further industrial action is likely coming towards us. Everyone, including the Government, now recognises that that is not a sustainable position.
The proof on the Government’s side is that, in announcing the financial package, they identified money for public sector pay, but it will not be released until such time as the Executive are restored. If I may be frank, I understand why the Secretary of State took that decision initially, but in relation to public sector pay, that moment has now passed. That is why I called on him last week to release that part of the budget package so that the disputes can be settled, workers can get their pay increases and public services can try to address the many challenges that they face.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Many public sector pay awards have been made—nearly 50 over the past year. The only reason the current one is not being made is that the Secretary of State is holding teachers, nurses and so on as pawns in the game that he is playing in his efforts to force us to make a decision that he wants us to make, but that we do not wish to make.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman links the pay question to his stance on the DUP’s difference of view on the Windsor framework and the protocol. I say to him in return that it is equally true that if the DUP were to go back into government, public sector workers would get their pay increase. That is why I said a moment ago that I hope very much that that will be the case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Back home in the papers, with TV correspondents and in media statements, those in the unions say clearly that the problem does not lie with the politicians but—with respect—it lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has control of the moneys. He, in his own right, could settle the claims for those in education, healthcare and elsewhere. The moneys are there. The unions say, “Let the Secretary of State do it.” Has the shadow Secretary of State heard the same story that I have heard in the news and media?
Hilary Benn
I have indeed heard the unions making precisely that point. I have set out to the House that I understood why the Secretary of State took that approach initially, but I do not think that public sector workers should continue to be held hostage to the failure thus far. I hope that it will change soon in order to solve this problem, which is why I am calling on the Secretary of State to release the funds now.
We need to be honest about how we got to the deadlock that the Government, and indeed the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), as the leader of his party, have been grappling with. One of the many consequences of leaving the EU was that a decision had to be taken about what to do about trade across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Everyone agreed that the border had to remain open—there were not many things on which everyone agreed when it came to Brexit, but that was one of them—and everyone agreed that the EU needed to be sure that goods crossing that border complied with the rules of the single market. There was no escaping that. The Government decided that the answer would be the Northern Ireland protocol.
Before I occupied this role, I was one of many people who argued that the implementation of the protocol would not work in Northern Ireland as originally intended, including for reasons that many in the Unionist community had pointed out. In fairness to Maroš Šefčovič, he understood what the problems were and changed the EU’s approach. That is why I genuinely believe that the Windsor framework represents a significant step forward, and why Labour voted for it.
Of course, detailed implementation will need to be worked through—that is another reason the Executive need to return—but most businesses tell me that the green lane is working reasonably well. As I said last week—I make no apology for reinforcing this point today—the framework is here to stay and will continue to be implemented by whoever is in government in Westminster. With respect, anyone who thinks otherwise has simply got it wrong, not least because any hope of negotiating future arrangements of benefit to Northern Ireland with the EU will depend on the Windsor framework being implemented. If the UK were to renege yet again on an international agreement that it has signed, which has happened before, no sanitary and phytosanitary agreement or anything else would be reached, because trust would once again have been destroyed—absolutely destroyed.
At the same time, of course, unlike the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland continues to enjoy ready access to both the UK and EU markets, which is a huge opportunity for jobs and economic growth in the years ahead. Those are facts that nothing will change. What the Government have been doing, as we all understand, is negotiating on measures that they could take to reinforce Northern Ireland’s position in the UK internal market. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has wisely and repeatedly said—and I support him in this—that any agreement has to be acceptable both to Unionists and to nationalists. That has shown great wisdom. In addition, there is now a financial offer on the table that I think provides a basis on which to go forward. After months of negotiation between the Government and the DUP, now is the moment to decide whether to restore the institutions.
On the detail of the Bill, of which there is not much, I have one question. In his press statement on 19 January, the Secretary of State said:
“I intend to introduce new legislation which will take a pragmatic, appropriate and limited approach to addressing the executive formation period and support Northern Ireland departments to manage the immediate and evident challenges they face in stabilising public services and finances.”
I take it from those words that actually he was referring to another Bill that he thinks might be needed if the current negotiations fail. Can he confirm that that is the case? I am not asking for any further detail, but we all hope that the institutions return and that such a Bill will not prove necessary. Will he assure the House that, as and when there is an outcome either way, he will immediately make a statement to the House?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman asks in his questions to the Secretary of State about plan Bs and alternatives, but does he agree that any alternative to restoration of the institutions is suboptimal and not the settled position of this House? All parties have as their primary policy on Northern Ireland governance the restoration of the institutions.
Hilary Benn
I agree 100% with the right hon. Gentleman. He anticipates a point that I am just about to make in my concluding remarks.
Northern Ireland has come a long way since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in 1998. It is unrecognisable in so many ways, and for the better. In all of my meetings and visits, I have been so impressed and encouraged by the energy, enterprise and industry of those I have met, who are working hard to build a new and better future for the people of Northern Ireland. That really matters when we know, for example, that families in Northern Ireland have the lowest disposable incomes in the United Kingdom.
The longer there is no functional devolved Government, the harder it will be for those businesses to seize the opportunities that are available anyway, including because of access to the EU market. Businesses that are thinking of investing do not like uncertainty. They want stability—they want to know that a Government are in place—so the absence of a Government undermines the bright future that otherwise faces the people of Northern Ireland.
The basis of power sharing, which was at the heart of the Good Friday agreement—including devolved government—was essential to the making of progress. Of course, there have been bumps and difficulties along the way and periods of no Government, but a generation on from 1998, I simply want to echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith): we cannot give up on devolved government. It is what we in this House believe in, and it is the responsibility that we all take on when we stand for elected office. We cannot have a system where any of us chooses to put down conditions and does not take part if those conditions are not met. That is not how a democracy works.
As I am fond of saying, we have to deal with the world as it is, as we seek to change it into the world we wish it to be. It cannot be, surely, that politicians from all parties and communities in Northern Ireland are somehow unable to come together to establish the Assembly, form an Executive and get on with the task of governing.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am very much enjoying the tone and the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Of course, he is dancing between a majoritarian and a power-sharing arrangement in his comments, which are perhaps not quite as aligned as he might suggest.
This is not the first time that Stormont has been suspended. In the past, Sinn Féin refused to come back to the Assembly. As I understand it, that was due to concerns over the language, and the UK Government have taken steps in that regard in recent years. As such, would the right hon. Gentleman support the UK Government taking measures to address the current impasse over the Northern Ireland protocol, as modified by the Windsor framework? Could he support alterations that might be helpful in restoring power sharing and alleviating the concerns of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful for that intervention. I believe strongly in Northern Ireland’s place as part of the internal market of the United Kingdom. Since I took up this position, I have repeatedly made it clear that I will support any measures that reinforce that place and make it clear, but that are also consistent with the international commitments that the Government have signed up to.
Can I just pick the hon. Gentleman up on what he said initially? I am not arguing at all for a majoritarian position. I believe in power sharing—I am as wedded as the Secretary of State to the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement. I am making a point about the responsibility of politicians to participate in that power-sharing arrangement, and I would make those remarks equally to those who have collapsed the institutions previously and the current cause of the collapse, because in the end it is not in the interests of Northern Ireland to not have a functioning Government. I would like to clarify that.
John Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. The whole point of the agreement and of power sharing is that it is based on consent, so how can the Unionist community consent to lawmaking by the EU in which that community does not participate and has no influence?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very pertinent question, but that is a consequence of a course of action that I personally did not think was a terribly good idea and he thought was a good idea. The moment we left the European Union, everybody knew that there would be a problem that had to be addressed. To keep that open border, there were only two practical propositions. The first was proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister: she came up with a scheme to try to keep the whole of the UK within the arrangements of the single market, having announced that we were leaving the single market. That did not work out, so the second option was to do the same in respect of Northern Ireland. That is where we are, and the Government eventually negotiated the Windsor framework, which is an important step forward. These things are going to have to be worked through.
Really, what we are talking about is the operation of the green lane. Everybody agrees with the red lane: if goods are coming into Northern Ireland to then head off to the Republic, of course they should be checked, and that is what the red lane is for. We are debating the operation of the green lane. The question is whether it makes sense for there to be no power-sharing Government institutions—no Assembly and no Executive—in Northern Ireland because of a debate and an argument about the operation of the green lane. My very strong view is that that is not sufficient reason not to have a functioning Government.
I will conclude just by saying that the people of Northern Ireland have been waiting long enough, and now is the time for everyone to get back to work.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I want to make a few remarks in support of my right hon. Friend the Minister who introduced this Bill. I think it is absolutely the right thing to be doing, and I pay tribute to the patient work over the past few months that he and the officials have done—those here in the Northern Ireland Office, in the Northern Ireland civil service and in the different political parties at Stormont.
There is a huge need for the institution of Stormont to be restored. Whether it is regarding public sector pay, which has already been mentioned, health waiting lists, creaking public services, charities and others relying on the public purse, or the limited offer of childcare in Northern Ireland, that institution needs to be back up and running. Divergence on medicines and other issues is also happening as a result of Stormont not sitting. The deal that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister put forward before Christmas is really good: it provides over £3 billion and will unlock many of the challenges currently facing Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and his team seem to have negotiated a very good deal with the Government on issues around the Windsor framework. I hope that we will be able to see the results of that work in the coming days and weeks. I am sure some in his party will still have concerns. The deal will not be perfect, but it will be much better now that so much work has been done over the past few months to enable the DUP to go back into the Executive and make further arguments. For Unionism generally, being in the devolved Assembly is the key route to making the case for the Union—for the NHS, for the fact that being in the UK defence and security system is better for Northern Ireland, and for making sure that any remaining concerns on the post-Brexit arrangements are dealt with.
The Secretary of State has given an end date of 8 February for this Bill. My understanding is that the Government are supporting the final stages of the DUP negotiations. There is no bullying or any hard demands; there is just support for the work that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is doing with his party and the discussions he is having. There is a real hope that, in making the decision to get the institution back up and running and to go back into Stormont, if the DUP does so, the future for Northern Ireland, and for young people and generations to come, will be best served, with local Ministers making decisions in the best interests of this key part of our country.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I will begin, as is sadly becoming customary, by saying how much it is a matter of regret that we are back here discussing a postponement to elections. I am very firmly of the view that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, and that for the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland we wish to see the Assembly return in early course. Having said all that, however, we see no utility in or prospect of progress being made by holding an election at this point.
There were opportunities last year to reflect on the 25 years of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I remember with great pleasure the special meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Belfast. There were meetings across Stormont itself, and also at Belfast castle, at which those charged with the care of affairs and relationships between our islands and jurisdictions had the opportunity to benefit from the breadth of experience of those who were involved in the peace process, the Good Friday agreement and establishing devolution. As a temporary custodian of that role, I certainly found it incredibly valuable to have that transfusion of knowledge and experience. It was also a tremendous opportunity to reflect on how far all parts of the UK that have experienced devolution over that quarter of a century, particularly Northern Ireland, have advanced and progressed. It also brought into sharp focus how much is missed by Stormont sitting empty at present. I very much share the sentiment of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) when he speaks about hope being tempered by expectation.
I always very much enjoy the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland, whether in a private capacity or in my role as the SNP spokesperson and, when I can, to engage with businesses, community groups and representatives of wider civic society. I have had much cause to be grateful to elected Members across various parties in Northern Ireland for the opportunities they have given me to do that, for the doors they have opened and for the insights I have gained. What I have observed from many of those visits is the sense of frustration at how politics is presently failing in Northern Ireland. I say politics rather than politicians deliberately, because it is a failure of politics across many strands that has brought us to this point.
We saw that bubble up most obviously with the recent strikes. In the debates we had in this place on the Northern Ireland budget, I highlighted the problems caused, and the potential solutions deferred, by civil servants having to cheesepare budgets within the confines of the ghosts of ministerial decisions past. I remember from my time in local government the frustration of council officers if we were unable to provide any clear political direction about what we wanted to happen. While it was always possible under different circumstances to set balanced budgets, how much better it was to be able to set them in the context of clear political leadership on the choices we wished to make within the resources at our disposal. That is certainly a consideration, because it is impossible to set the strategic budget directions that are needed in Northern Ireland right now in the absence of a working institution at Stormont.
When it comes to public sector pay, the Secretary of State says that using part of the £3.3 billion cash allocation to settle claims ahead of Stormont being reconstituted is a political decision, and therefore not one that he is willing to make. I would just say as gently as I can that deciding not to act is taking a political decision in its own way: the decision not to act is also political. I would join the voices in previous debates—I am sure we will hear them later—urging the Secretary of State to reconsider his stance on that. Public sector workers in Northern Ireland, on whom the brunt of the pressures caused are falling, really do deserve the pay settlements that their counterparts elsewhere in these islands have been able to get.
I mention in passing that it was said that the absence of a functioning Stormont was the reason why the UK Government were unwilling to make progress on providing funding for levelling up. I had a wry chuckle about that given the UK Government’s disinclination to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. There seems to be a certain amount of cherry-picking in the excuses offered. Punishing the people of Northern Ireland to try to bring to bear some additional political leverage on politicians has not been a conspicuous success so far. Neither do I believe it is an appropriate lever to use where public sector pay is concerned.
As I say, this has been a failure of politics. The fundamental problem that has led us to where we are stems from Brexit and the manner in which successive Governments chose to take that forward—against the express wishes, lest we forget, of clear majorities both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. Again, I allow myself a wry smile, because during debates about the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 we were told that we would apparently be creating a trade border with the rest of the UK. Yet only two years later we saw the UK Government themselves going hell for leather towards creating a trade border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I remember very much enjoying causing consternation on the Government Benches by pointing out in a Backbench Business debate about the Northern Ireland protocol, perhaps a little indelicately, that if Scotland were once again independent and in the European Union, we would be able to enjoy free trade with Northern Ireland. Neither can currently enjoy that as part of the Union, based on the deals that have been put in place.
In closing, I am very clear what my preferences are for the constitutional future of these islands, but short of that, bringing the UK back into the single market and the customs union would make this problem go away. Accepting that that is not politically realistic, given the stance of the current Government and the aspiring Government, closer alignment, on sanitary and phytosanitary matters especially, would be of enormous benefit, not just to people in Northern Ireland but right across these islands, particularly my constituents—speaking selfishly—and for those involved in agriculture and the food trade. That closer alignment would be much better, because the closer we align, the less significant these issues become, and that would be manifestly in the interests of all of these islands, whatever constitutional future we choose in future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I listened very carefully to his assertions about an independent Scotland being a member of the European Union. I am not sure that that assumption is actually the right one, bearing in mind the view of some member states of that Union, notably Spain. That provides a reality check on some of the loftier rhetoric of the SNP about its position in Europe and the world, should it choose to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I make that point, because the consequences of Brexit inevitably meant that an arrangement for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would always be difficult. I certainly bear the scars on my back, having been involved as a Law Officer throughout that process. Indeed, I helped to put together the Malthouse compromise—anybody remember that?—back in early 2018. I know DUP Members will remember that time very well, when we tried to work together to get somewhere that would satisfy everybody.
As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, we have to work in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. The one way we can actually find out about the operation of the Windsor framework is for the Executive to be able to operate it and to see how the green lane works—and if there are operational problems, then let us deal with them. I am as anxious as anybody to make sure that businesses and individuals, and everybody who wants to trade in Northern Ireland or through Northern Ireland, are able to do so in as free and uninhibited a way as possible. I do not want to see Northern Ireland cast adrift from the rest of our United Kingdom in that way.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. and learned Member makes reference to Northern Ireland being set adrift from the rest of the United Kingdom. Businesses in the United Kingdom are finding it difficult—bureaucratically difficult—to trade with Northern Ireland. As a consequence, the divergence of trade is continuing daily, and it is increasing. Everyone says, “Oh, the Republic of Ireland is booming”, but that is simply because its supply chain has changed. Goods are no longer coming through the UK, but straight from France. There is one point I want to find out about: what engagement has the British Government had with the EU on the changes that need to be made to the Windsor framework and the protocol in order for them to work?
Sir Robert Buckland
Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will answer on any engagement that the UK Government have had with Brussels. He is right to cast it at that level, because it is a matter between that Government and the EU, bearing in mind the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the EU, and the fact that the EU has that competence to negotiate a treaty. However, it is barely a year since the Windsor framework was agreed and in reality, coming back to the world as it is, it would be wrong of us blithely to assume that somehow that can be reopened here and now. I am not saying that it can never be reopened—of course everything can be reopened, and there will be an opportunity in a few years to look at the whole trade agreement that we reached with the EU in the 2025-26 review period.
My point is that unless we see a functioning Executive with responsibility for the operational aspects of Windsor being able to identify and highlight the problems and to raise them with the UK Government, at an appropriate level, we will not move the process on in the way that I know right hon. and hon. Members want to happen, as do I.
As I have said many times, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which we debated long and hard when I was Lord Chancellor, contains some measures that have been helpful and are now on the statute book. However, putting aside the “notwithstanding” clause, more was intended to be done legislatively to help cement the place of Northern Ireland in our UK internal market. I think that we should legislate, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) very much agrees with me on that point. We want to see that happen, but we are here in January 2024. I note the shortness of the period that the Secretary of State seeks to extend in the Bill, and I think that is sensible and right. Tempting as it is to have longer periods—I will not call them blank cheques—I do not think that would be right. I wish the Secretary of State, and everybody in the negotiations, well in coming to a sensible and pragmatic solution that allows the Government of Northern Ireland to continue.
I will not repeat the points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I see in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair weekly, the inability of the institutions of Northern Ireland to plan ahead in a multi-year way, and to provide the level of public service that I know they want but which they cannot do, bearing in mind the constraints under which we have to operate. Unlike previous periods of direct rule, this time there would need to be legislative change on the Floor of the House for that to happen. It has been made clear by the leadership of both main parties that that is not the policy of the British Government.
That is the world as it is, I am afraid, not the world as some would like it to be. I certainly do not want a situation where there is again an imbalance in our UK constitution that will only lead to more tension being stoked in the communities of Northern Ireland, rather than less. It therefore seems to me that the most obvious way forward now has to be the restoration of the Executive.
Robin Millar
There has been much use of the phrase “the world as it is” in the debate, which I think is helpful because we must be pragmatic about this. Is it the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend’s Committee to look at Northern Ireland as it is now, including levels of inward investment, for example, or how business has responded to the 12 months in which the Windsor framework has been in place?
Sir Robert Buckland
We are in the process of preparing a report on the state of public services in Northern Ireland. We have taken a wealth of evidence, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who are active members of the Committee. They will have heard the same evidence we have heard. We are looking into the energy market and the move to net zero in Northern Ireland. That is a very important issue, bearing in mind hard-pressed bill payers, and the particular pressures that they are under given the way that energy is supplied. We are also looking at issues as varied as education right through to paramilitarism.
On the Windsor framework, I sound a bit like Zhou Enlai, in that in some respects it is still “too early to say” precisely what its effects are. There is no doubt that, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said—I am sure he will intervene again—there is already evidence of excessive bureaucracy and problems that are real for businesses on the ground.
Paul Girvan
Because Northern Ireland sits under EU rules and laws, the carbon tax offset for energy costs is twice what it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, simply because we are having to take on board European law as opposed to what is passed in this House.
Sir Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the facts about the situation we find ourselves in. I will not labour the point, but I am afraid that the consequences of Brexit were always going to be complex and difficult for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the particular importance of the border and the clash, if you like, between the irresistible force of the logic of a single market that wishes to police its border rigidly, and the immovable object of the fact that the border has a particular status and sensitivity that means that to make it excessively hard creates other problems and issues that we are all familiar with. That, I am afraid, is the difficulty that we all have to wrestle with. I know that this place sometimes risks sounding rather portentous and nannyish in the way it talks about Northern Ireland, and we have to be careful about that. But in resisting that approach it is logically correct to say that the best way to cure this issue is for the institutions of Stormont to function, and to function well.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. and learned Friend have a message to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland regarding why they should put up with EU laws that they do not influence, and why they should put up with border controls when they are trading within our own country?
Sir Robert Buckland
The message I would give is simply that we still need a functioning Executive to work out and bring to account, with proper scrutiny, issues with the framework, so that at a Stormont level it can be understood and debated in far more detail than with the time and capacity we have in this House. That work should be done thoroughly by the institutions of Stormont, so that this place, and the Government in particular, are even better informed about what they need to do to correct some of the problems that have been thrown up by the anomalous position that Northern Ireland finds itself in. That is where we now stand. We have to get on with exercising those institutions in order to solve some of the problems that right hon. and hon. Members quite rightly raise.
Before I finish, I will simply say this: I commend the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) for his forbearance, his patience, and the way he is approaching these issues. It is not an easy position for anybody to be in. All of us will have to make compromises in our political life—goodness knows that is something I have had to wrestle with. On behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, I say simply that he goes with all the good will and support that I can muster on behalf of the Committee. I hope that 2024 will be a moment not of more pause and political vacuum, but a moment when responsibility can be taken up, the reins of government can be held firmly by my friends in the DUP, and we see the progress for the people of Northern Ireland that I know everybody wants.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for his comments, and I wish him well in his ongoing and important work as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I say to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is no longer in his place, that we recognise the pressures on our public services at this time, and we want to get to a place where we see our political institutions restored on a sustainable basis. As the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), reminded us, that must be on a basis that Unionists and nationalists can support, because that principle of cross-community consensus is at the heart of the Belfast and successor agreements. It is the key principle that enables those institutions to operate in what remains a divided society in Northern Ireland.
To be absolutely clear, the Democratic Unionist party supports devolution. We support the concept of the people of Northern Ireland being able to elect their representatives and to have good government delivered through the institutions of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are clear that our objective is twofold: to address the issues and problems created by the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the withdrawal agreement of 2019-20; and to provide the basis for the restoration of our political institutions.
We are approaching the two-year mark since my party took the decision to withdraw the First Minister, which then precipitated a process that ultimately resulted in the institutions not being able to function. That was not a decision we took lightly. For months in advance, I and my party made it clear that we wanted to see a negotiating process under way between the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Union to address the very real problems created by the protocol. Sadly, those pleas were ignored and there was no process. In fact, we were told variously by Irish Government Ministers, EU representatives and so on that the protocol would not be renegotiated.
I stand today and recognise that, as a result of the actions that my party took, the EU was brought back to the table, there were negotiations, changes have been made and further change will come. I watch the political discourse back home in Northern Ireland and I listen to the commentary of some who share our concerns about the protocol and its impact on Northern Ireland, but who are talking up that some deal has been done—clearly, they think they know the detail—and that it falls short of what they need or require.
My party can stand on its record of the change we have delivered and will deliver. I say to those who point the finger at us, “What have you delivered? What has the Traditional Unionist Voice party delivered by way of change to the protocol?” Absolutely nothing—not a single thing—yet TUV members put up posters in the dark of the night, before any deal has been done, talking about a sell-out. What have they sold? What have they delivered for the people of Northern Ireland? What has been their contribution to securing the change that we need to restore our place in the United Kingdom and its internal market?
We read lots of other pearls of wisdom on social media about what is needed and required. We hear all kinds of speculation from commentators about what has been agreed, despite the fact that they have not seen the detail. There is undoubtedly an attempt to orchestrate opposition to a deal and agreement that are not yet concluded. The very fact that we are here today in the House of Commons extending legislation reflects the reality that no agreement has yet been reached. If it had, we would not be here.
There are some, though, who are putting it about for their own narrow purposes that certain things have been agreed, the deal is all there and they know what it is. They are entitled to their view—everyone is entitled to their perspective—but they should wait until an agreement is reached before they make their final verdict and assess the progress that has been made before they reach their conclusion. I suspect what is going on is not about that.
The truth is that there are some—a tiny minority, but there are some—who do not want Stormont back or an Assembly in Northern Ireland. They would rather have imperfect direct rule than an imperfect Stormont. That is what they say, yet they are the same people who constantly berate the Government of the United Kingdom and this Parliament for selling them out. They constantly point the finger at the United Kingdom Government and say, “You have sold us short. You have betrayed us. You have let us down,” yet they want to hand all the power back to that Government. That is not the view of the vast majority of Unionists or people in Northern Ireland, and we understand that, which is why we are committed to getting a solution, moving things forward, making progress and resolving the issues that have harmed Northern Ireland—our economy, our businesses and, yes, our place in the United Kingdom.
I am a proud Unionist. I am proud to be part of this United Kingdom. I am proud to have served my country in this Parliament for almost 27 years. I am proud of the service that I have given, unlike some others, to my country, when I put on the uniform of the Ulster Defence Regiment to protect everyone in the community from terrorism and violence, yet today, because of the stirring up that is going on, I was threatened by those who never put on a uniform and who have not served our country. I checked out one of the people who threatened me on the register, and they did not vote at the last election. They cannot even come out to vote for our future in the Union, never mind doing anything about it, yet they are threatening me, and people like me who are working day and night to try to find solutions and to move Northern Ireland forward on a basis that the vast majority of people can support.
I say this to those who stir up and threaten: the Provisional IRA attacked me in the past, and it did not deflect me from the task that I and my colleagues have to do our jobs and get the best we can for Northern Ireland, and I will not be deflected now. I will continue on the course. I will continue to engage with the Government until we get the progress needed to enable us to take a decision about whether the deal is sufficient to restore the political institutions.
Let us not forget that when we took the decision to come out of the institutions, it was about the protocol and restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and its internal market. It is about ensuring that goods flow freely from Great Britain to Northern Ireland when they are staying within the United Kingdom. It is about ensuring that our place in the economic and political Union is respected and protected in law. That is important, and that is what we are striving to achieve, to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is valued, respected and protected, and that our right to trade within our own country is respected and protected.
That is what we are aiming to achieve, but I make no apology for us also aiming to strengthen our ties across this United Kingdom. Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has altered the way in which we govern in this nation. Brexit—our decision to leave the European Union—has altered things, which is why, as part of what we are proposing, we want to see a more joined-up, cohesive approach across the Union, working together on economic issues, trade issues, education and health. We are working to make progress on that.
I want to talk about something else, which I found quite insulting: when the Secretary of State convened talks at Hillsborough to discuss the funding of our public services in Northern Ireland. I did not ask him to do that. I am very clear that for me this is not about the money; this is about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. When we have made the progress that I hope we will make, we will sit down with the Government and finalise arrangements in relation to the future sustainability of our political institutions and the funding of our public services.
I want to echo comments made by other colleagues in the House. Our public services are only as effective as the people who work in them. During the covid pandemic, we saw our healthcare workers—our doctors, our nurses, our ancillary staff and our care workers—on the frontline working hard, taking risks and putting themselves on the line. In education, our teachers are investing in the future of our young people, and many others work across our public services in Northern Ireland. They deserve their pay rise. They have earned their pay rise. It is essential to the delivery of our public services that they get their pay rise.
In advance of reaching an agreement on the outstanding issues—whenever that might be; I believe we are moving towards finalising them—I hope that the Secretary of State will transfer the funding for 2023-24 that the Treasury has committed to and enable our public sector workers to have the pay rise that they deserve. I urge the Government to do that; we do not want to see politics played with them. I note that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Northern Ireland has today come out with yet another statement calling on the Secretary of State to act. I echo those comments. Those people deserve the pay rise. I hope the Secretary of State will reflect on that.
In conclusion, some have said that they hope this is the last time we have this type of legislation, but that requires us to reach agreement. It requires us to resolve and finalise the outstanding issues so that we can move forward. We can assess the progress that has been made and we can take decisions around the restoration of our political institutions if that is the way we are to go. But I am clear, and my colleagues are clear, that this is not about any price. We have fought hard and will continue to fight hard to get the outcomes we need for everyone in Northern Ireland, to restore the cross-community consensus that is essential for the proper functioning of our devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. We will work at that.
I simply say to my fellow Unionists in Northern Ireland, whatever their political persuasion or background, that the notion that a Unionism that turns in on itself is a Unionism that can deliver for Northern Ireland, to make Northern Ireland work and to secure the Union for the future, is not the way to go. We will provide the leadership that is required—because that is what is necessary to make Northern Ireland work—to ensure that our place in the Union is valued, respected and protected in law and in practice, to remove the barriers to trade so that we can trade in both directions with the rest of the United Kingdom, and to ensure that our Union is stronger and that Northern Ireland’s place within it is both respected and protected. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
We will assess the outcome against our seven tests, which we have set out clearly, determine the progress made and make our decisions based on these matters. We will do so rationally and clearly, recognising that we are the custodians of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. On our shoulders rests a huge responsibility. We will not shirk that responsibility, and we will not be found wanting in continuing to defend Northern Ireland’s place in the Union.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
This will probably not do the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) many favours, but I congratulate him on the tone of his speech. I found it to be encouraging in that respect. Obviously, Northern Ireland is currently in an incredibly difficult place. In terms of the overall situation we find ourselves in, it is fair to say that there is disappointment, anger, frustration and indeed bewilderment that we do not have functioning institutions. That view is shared by the vast majority people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, by businesses and civic society organisations.
When the January 2024 date was set in the previous Bill, it was so far off into the future that it seemed inconceivable that the institutions would not have been restored by that point, but here we are. It is in a sense bizarre to see a piece of primary legislation going through this Parliament essentially to extend and facilitate a negotiation by two weeks. Decisions could have been taken at any stage in the previous year—indeed, in the previous weeks and days—to avoid this situation.
On the surface, this is a simple Bill, but beneath it lies a much bigger story. This may well be a pragmatic extension in the hope and expectation of a breakthrough, and I sincerely hope that that happens, but the people of Northern Ireland have been patient—overly patient in many respects—about bringing matters to a conclusion. There will always be a degree of scepticism until we see a positive outcome. For others, however, the Bill amounts to kicking the can down the road for another couple of weeks and potentially deferring the much bigger decisions that will have to be taken in the event that we do not see the speedy resumption of devolution.
One aspect of the situation we find ourselves in is the story of Brexit, which was alluded to by both the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). It is about how the DUP backed a hard Brexit and did not reconcile that with the implications for Northern Ireland in terms of the special arrangements that had to be put in place. There is no perfect solution to the challenges that Brexit poses to Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework offers perhaps the best approach to putting a square peg into a round hole, short of a wider reassessment of the UK’s overall relationship with the European Union, but I must stress that whatever residual issues exist with the Windsor framework—I fully accept that businesses have frustrations with certain aspects of what they see; the same applies for consumers in some respects—they all pale into insignificance compared with the absence of functioning institutions and the ability to take decisions on health, education, our economy and protecting our environment.
As the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), said, we are also seeing real consequences in the wider trust and confidence in politics itself in Northern Ireland. Politics is not working, and that is a dangerous place to find ourselves in. It is not simply that issues are being parked for the eventual resumption of the Assembly to pick up where we left off. Every day the impasse goes on, more and more damage is being done to Northern Ireland’s public services and we are losing economic opportunities.
I do not want to get into too much politics today—there has been a lot of that—but nevertheless I have a responsibility to say that there are other options we can consider. The DUP has been allowed to essentially hold the process to ransom with impunity over the past 12 months, in terms of blocking the Executive. I understand the point about cross-community confidence in any Executive, but blocking the functioning of the Executive goes against 75% of the people of Northern Ireland. There is a world of difference between checks and balances on individual decision making with the institutions, and a party pulling them down and stopping them from functioning and having no Government at all. The fact that we have to legislate for direct rule—if that is where we end up; I stress again that I hope we do not find ourselves in that situation—shows that previous legislators did not envisage a situation where the Assembly would not be functioning.
The space for negotiations around the Windsor framework is narrow. We have to be realistic. The Windsor framework is an agreement between the UK and the European Union, and there will be consequences from unpicking it unilaterally. Equally, we cannot unpick the Good Friday agreement, so the space is narrow and centres around implementation. I want to again stress from the Alliance party’s point of view that we would be open-minded on any solution that comes forward. For us, the key element is that Northern Ireland maintains dual market access to both the UK internal market and the wider European market. Outside that red line, we are open-minded. If checks across the Irish sea can be reduced or limited in some cases, we are all for that. None of us wants to see them, but at the same time we recognise that due to the fact that Northern Ireland has special arrangements, and there is a good reason for them, some degree of checks across the Irish sea might be needed. Northern Ireland has always had special arrangements throughout its entire history, right back to the foundation of the state in the early 1920s, and they were accepted with pragmatism for very good reasons. I urge that that is the case today.
On the financial package the Secretary of State referred to, I again put on record my and my party’s thanks to him and his wider team in the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury for putting it together. It is a bigger financial package than we have seen in previous breakdowns of devolution. At the same time, however, I have to say that the glass is somewhat half full. It will buy some time for a restored Executive, perhaps a couple of years of stabilisation, but there is still a much bigger conversation that we have to have in conjunction, potentially, with the next spending review on a proper fiscal floor for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there are reasons why the current Government cannot go down that particular avenue, in terms of their wider spending commitments and the Prime Minister’s five pledges, but it is important to stress the point that that wider discussion still needs to take place.
I join colleagues from Northern Ireland in stressing that we would like to see the Secretary of State moving ahead with the public sector pay issue, which has no leverage whatever in the negotiations. The money is there and it should be released. Equally, while we all might wish to dump on the Secretary of State and put pressure on him—he is a player in this regard—frankly, that release would be quicker and smoother if DUP colleagues returned to the Executive tomorrow, next week or whenever. There are two ways we can address the rightful claims of public sector workers: through the action of the Secretary of State or a speedy resumption of devolution.
In the event that we do not see an outcome in the next couple of weeks, we must look at alternatives. Perhaps that is a debate for another day, but there are two directions of travel. For me and my party, reform is the key way forward. The Good Friday agreement was never meant to be set in stone. It was always envisaged that it would evolve with circumstances and changing demographics. Indeed, many of the architects of the agreement—people no less than Senator George Mitchell himself—recognised that review and evolution would be important. Reform is important to facilitate restoration, or, if we get restoration, to learn the lessons of the instability, lack of cohesion and unfairness of the past 25 years and prevent a further collapse from happening. But the principles of the agreement, the structures, and the set of relationships across these islands remain sound.
To conclude, I think it was the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who made the point that all the parties in Northern Ireland are committed to devolution. Reform of the agreement keeps devolution alive. If we end up with the presumed default of going for direct rule, we move outside the Good Friday agreement. It might be the pragmatic solution in the circumstances, because Northern Ireland must be governed and public services have to be funded, but none the less we must recognise that that is a big step away from devolution. Reform is consistent with the agreement; direct rule is not.
However—this is an important point to stress to those people who are again opposing a deal and the way forward—in the event that we do not get restoration and we end up with direct rule, that direct rule must have an Irish dimension to it. That Irish dimension will be consultative and build on existing structures within the agreement. We have to recognise that direct rule, in a divided and diverse Northern Ireland, will be controversial. We have to recognise that in our governance and put in place mechanisms that balance it out. That is the reality. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who is muttering from a sedentary position—I am happy to take an intervention from him on this point—that the principle of consent remains in place. However, the principle of an Irish dimension has been established for quite some time, going back to the Anglo-Irish agreement. Of course, the Good Friday agreement acted to take much of that away, but that is the direction of travel. Those people who are arguing against progress in Northern Ireland and saying that we have a cover blanket of direct rule to fall back on, need to think very carefully about what they are calling for. What I am setting out is not what I want to see, and it is definitely not what they want to see, but that is the trajectory they will find themselves on if we do not see the speedy restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and I have not agreed on much recently—in fact, he kind of drives me crazy—and we do not agree on much of what we have debated today or over the past couple of years, but I strongly believe that he comes at this from a position of strong belief. He comes at it in an attempt to represent his constituents. He comes at it from a good place. It is a different place from me and we want to end up in a different place—and I might argue that he is helping us along in that regard—but I say this very clearly: those people who have threatened him today could not lace his boots, and every single democrat in this House or elsewhere should stand in solidarity with any of us who are being attacked like that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I think we are in a more hopeful place today than we have been. Last week, I was expecting to debate a much wider piece of legislation that would have seen us going in a different direction. If today’s Bill symbolises that we are getting closer, at least, to a resolution, we must welcome that and give it space. Nobody is more frustrated at the slowness of the process than I am. Nobody has expressed frustration more than I have about how we got into this situation. It is nearly two years since we had a Government in Northern Ireland; before that, we had covid, which was a very strange time, and before that we had three and a half years, after Sinn Féin brought the Government down, of having no Government. People in Northern Ireland now feel that the default setting is to have no Government. That is not good enough. Any of us in this place who believes in devolution and put their shoulder to the wheel around this peace process, should ensure that, very soon, we have democratically elected politicians in Northern Ireland dealing with these issues.
I find the state of our health service embarrassing. According to figures that I saw the other day on dementia diagnoses, some people in the western part of Northern Ireland are waiting nearly six years for a diagnosis. In what modern democracy should that be seen as acceptable? We are very lucky that people are not out on the streets in uproar over such figures. The public sector is tied together with a string, and our health service is at the point, if not beyond the point, of collapse.
That is not the fault of the people who have been asked to go into the tough places and do the tough work for very little pay. We proposed an amendment—and we understand that the scope of the Bill is very narrow— calling on the Secretary of State to pay those workers. Last week 175,000 people were on picket lines across Northern Ireland, in the cold and the snow. I think people will know that my preference is for the DUP to return to government as soon as possible, so that we have democratically elected politicians making these decisions and we can get the money into those people’s pockets, but I am furious that ordinary workers have been used as a political pawn because of our political failure. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Those people need their pay rise today. They are the people holding this thing together. They are the people whom we have asked to go and do the tough things for very little reward, and there is no longer any excuse for that money not to be paid. If there is a technical reason for it, I will come back tomorrow and we can debate a Budget Bill if the Secretary of State wishes, so that we can get money into those people’s pockets, but I do not believe there is any technical reason why they cannot be paid.
We have talked about solutions, and a great many have been proposed. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) talked about reform, and we are up for that conversation. In fact, I think that our amendment would have got the Assembly back up and running, if we used a different mechanism for electing a Speaker as at least a first step, although we also understand that we must have properly reformed institutions in Stormont. I strongly believe, however, that the best time to have that conversation is when we have a Government and an Executive in Stormont, because I fear that otherwise we would end up in a five-year negotiation about what reform would look like, and all the while we would still not have a Government in Stormont and locally elected people dealing with people’s concerns.
Some of us who are in the Chamber today have been through many long negotiations. I know that it is possible to go into a negotiation wanting to fix one little thing, and five years later not to have fixed it and to have done three or four other things that nobody asked for in the first place. We need to be cautious about that, and we need to be committed to reform. However, the first thing that must happen is that those who are elected to represent the people of Northern Ireland, and the person who is elected to be the First Minister, should be in place and allowed to do the job that they were elected to do. Then we will be able to have a proper discussion about how we should reform our institutions. A blind man on a galloping horse could tell you that we must reform those institutions, because they simply are not working.
Let me make one plea today to all the other political parties, and I will make this commitment myself. If we do get Stormont up and running, the next time a particular political party has a major disagreement, can we have a discussion about it, and can we all commit ourselves not to pulling the institutions down? The edifice of government should not be the first thing that goes when we have a difficult decision to make. I think that that would take us a long way.
I am glad that we have arrived at this point. I think that it tells us something about the direction of travel. The history of our place should remind us all that at some point we must take on our own dissidents wherever they may reside—in our own party, in our own community, or on social media. They need to be taken on because the representatives of a broad swathe of opinion—whether nationalist, Unionist or “not interested”—want ordinary people to be looked after. They want their health service to be properly resourced, they want their schools to function properly, and they want their public sector workers to be paid properly. The broad population want a Government in Stormont, and they want it now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Before I proceed, let me remind hon. Members that the Second Reading debate must end at 3.23 pm. I assume they will want to hear the Front Benchers wind it up. I am not going to impose a time limit; it is up to hon. Members whether they choose to hear the Front Benchers or not.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Without encroaching on the advice that you have just given, Mr Deputy Speaker, am I right to assume that there are three Back Benchers still waiting to speak? If that is the case, I think we can pass the time well between us.
Mr Deputy Speaker
As things stand, yes, but one hon. Member left the Chamber and came back in, and another who indicated that she wished to speak has left the Chamber but is entitled to come back in because she heard the opening speeches, as did one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. All I am saying is that I urge brevity. I know that that is difficult, but speeches are currently running for more than 10 minutes, and that is too long.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I certainly do not take those comments personally, because it is a trait among those of us who are of Ulster-Scots lineage that we sometimes add a few extra words or phrases.
I am proud to speak in this debate. Let me first acknowledge the constructive tone adopted by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). He was right to say that should we find ourselves in circumstances like this in the future, we should talk. If I were not willing to follow the constructive tone of the debate, I would gently remind him that at the time when we tried to have those conversations, some were chiding us, encouraging us to take the action that we did and mocking us for not doing so; but I will leave it there.
I am also proud to follow the remarks of my party leader and the leader of Unionism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who very carefully, clearly and thoughtfully articulated not just where we have been or where we are today, but the aspiration that we have outlined for a number of years. We have been to the electorate, and we have highlighted the difficulties and the deficits within the arrangements foisted on us, but the challenge for us all is to recognise that the prize for restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, for reducing the constitutional harm and for removing the democratic deficit, is the ability to return to a place where Northern Ireland functions as well as it has in the past: a place where people in Northern Ireland are confident of their position within this United Kingdom irrespective of their constitutional outlook, and a place where people in Northern Ireland can recognise that it is through their elected representatives directly and locally that they can shape their own future. It does not matter what passport they hold; they live in Northern Ireland and can benefit from, and do benefit from, a relationship that has spanned centuries on these islands.
My right hon. Friend referred to custodians of the future. I remind Members that our place in politics is to protect and promote our place within this United Kingdom. That is our first and foremost principle. To those who have raised questions in the last number of days, and who will no doubt continue in the next number of days to raise questions or sow discord, let me say this: the Democratic Unionist party is united in the task that is before us.
We highlighted the pitfalls and the dangers of what was proposed to us back in 2019, at a time when others dismissed and demeaned our position. When we asked for change and indicated the consequences that the proposals could have for power-sharing arrangements in devolution, we were dismissed. We were set aside. Yet through our actions, when changes were delivered in the Windsor framework, what we had been told were mythical unicorns suddenly became something that, while being far from rigorous implementation, constituted changes that recognised the problems and brought solutions. The very same people who had ridiculed and dismissed us turned round and said, “Of course all this is sensible and pragmatic, and we should move forward.”
When faced with the choice between religious observance of that which was agreed with the European Union and the importance of devolution, sadly there are those within Northern Ireland political society who chose religious observance of the EU. They lost sight of the prize of power sharing in Northern Ireland, where communities with different aspirations could work collectively together. That is where we find ourselves.
The Secretary of State and I have engaged on this, as he has with a number of colleagues over a considerable period of time, and I commend him for a number of things, including for delivering a speech that had fewer words than are in the Bill before us today. That was a remarkable achievement. But he did not have many choices that were workable, other than to present the Bill today. Of course, he could have brought forward legislation that addressed a budget for next year. He could have brought forward legislation that assumed powers from Stormont to here in Westminster. He could have brought forward legislation that set a regional rate of around 15%. I think it is fair in the context of this debate to recognise that he still may need to bring forward such legislation. While others speculate about the intentions of this short Bill—I have my own views on it and what it should have been—I think it is a recognition that there is still work to be done and that there is a commitment to do that work.
I cannot say where this will end. I know where I think it should end. I cannot say what the ultimate outcome will be, but what I see and hear and read in the papers at home bears no resemblance to reality. My party is at one in our position. We have stood together through worse times than this. Anybody who thinks they are going to come at one member of our party over the coming days and weeks comes at us all, and they do so for their nefarious ends, not for our collective future. The choices will become stark, but let us make a choice on the basis of where we are, not where others who do not wish anything to work think it is. That is the challenge for us, for the people of Northern Ireland and for the people we represent.
In standing in the position that I do today, with nine years as an elected representative in this House and 14 years as an elected representative and as someone who has lived in Northern Ireland benefiting longer from periods of peace than seeing troubled times, I can say that nothing will shake our resolve to get this right. I say that with only this in mind: the Secretary of State has taken the choice available to him today in proceeding with this Bill, and it does not end today. It cannot end today, and our commitment for the future needs to be emboldened further still.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am not too sure why we have the Bill in this form today, with the suggestion that we could have further legislation on 8 February. I suppose the generous interpretation is that the Government still recognise that a lot of work needs to be done to deal with the concerns of the Unionist population. The other interpretation is that this is an attempt to put short-term pressure on my party to come to an agreement on the basis of terms that are unacceptable.
I know that the Government are intent on trying to put the failure of their negotiations with the EU behind them because they have so much internal division with their own party about how they have failed to deliver on the promises of Brexit, but cementing this agreement into the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is not good for a Government who claimed that they wanted to take back sovereignty, and it is not acceptable to Unionists in Northern Ireland who have gone through terrorist campaigns, and shown resolve in terrorist campaigns, in order to stay within the United Kingdom.
We have had all kinds of pressure put on us. We have had threats. We have even heard more of those threats today, such as, “If you don’t go down the route of getting a resolution here, we will have to re-examine the Belfast agreement. We will maybe have to take away the safeguards that were put in place.” With Unionists now not being the dominant parties in the Assembly, it is easy for those who said safeguards for minorities were important in the agreement to dismiss them now. I listened to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), and it is little wonder that many people in North Down regard him now as a Sinn Féin cuckoo in the constituency nest, because he talks and argues so much as though he were coming from a Sinn Féin position, rather than from the position of a constituency that is predominantly Unionist.
We have had the threats, including that there might be a change in the agreement that would take away the consensus, or that we might have direct rule that involves the Irish Republic, even though there is no provision for that in the Good Friday agreement. Of course, the Secretary of State has sought to say this at times—or through surrogates. I notice that the hon. Member for North Down echoed the words of the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in threatening that there could be big change that would be detrimental to the Union if we did not come to an agreement quickly.
We have had the bribes, and of course we have also had the bullying: “If you don’t go back into the Assembly, people will not get their pay rise.” I have to say to the Secretary of State that it does not become the current Government to use the workers in Northern Ireland as pawns in trying to push us into a situation. He well knows that this is unnecessary, because nearly 50 public sector pay agreements have been awarded in the last year. However, because there is now an opportunity to use public sector pay agreements, they are being used to exert pressure.
As far as we are concerned, and as our leader has made clear, we want to see devolution restored. In fact, devolution stopped only because the Government refused to listen. Furthermore, not only did they refuse to listen but they expected Unionists to stay in positions in Northern Ireland where they would have had to implement the very thing that we believe is destructive to our economy and will destroy the Union as well. That was an act of last resort. Nevertheless, the Government must be aware that the economic impact of the border in the Irish sea must be removed. The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said today that the red lane was only for goods moving into the Republic and that that surely showed the integrity of the UK internal market. That is not true. There are many businesses in Northern Ireland that will have to use the red lane until they show where their goods have gone.
I spoke to a businessman this morning in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who told me that he had a consignment of goods come in this week with 151 individual items for which he had to identify the country of origin, change the product codes and provide weights and a whole range of other information. He is a small businessman. He sent me a message he had received from a major supplier in Manchester, where he bought 10% of his goods, who had finally said to him, “I can’t trade with you anymore. It is not worth my while, given the amount of paperwork.” He operates in Newtownards and none of his goods sell in the Irish Republic, yet he is subject to all this. Now he has to look for new supply chains, and it has been pointed out here many times before that the Irish Government are not behind the door in exploiting that. In fact, he told me that officials from the trade body in the Irish Republic ring him up on a regular basis and ask why does not buy from such and such a supplier in the Republic. It is no wonder that we have already seen a 15% trade diversion as a result of this.
This is hurting us economically. In the long term, it is hurting us constitutionally, too, with the application of EU law in Northern Ireland. We have seen it in the last week on animal safety standards, which cannot apply in Northern Ireland even though the law was passed by this House. Regulations on illegal immigration cannot apply in Northern Ireland, and there is a danger of having to introduce passport controls if Northern Ireland becomes a magnet for illegal immigration. We now have Bills being passed by Parliament that extend to Northern Ireland but cannot apply to Northern Ireland, and we cannot tolerate that.
Unless those issues are dealt with, and as the Secretary of State well knows, how could any Unionist be expected to accept that trade within our country continues to be disrupted? It will hurt businesses and, in the long term, our constitutional arrangements, causing divergence between Northern Ireland and the country to which we belong.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) indicated that he is prepared to work to resolve that challenge, and he has indicated that he takes personal abuse for working at it—that is the position in which politicians now find themselves in Northern Ireland. We did not create this problem. The Government created this problem, and courageous people such as my right hon. Friend should not be hung out to dry because the Government are not prepared to take on their masters in the EU.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call Jim Shannon. I would be grateful if he tried to confine his remarks to five minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will certainly do my best, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Over the past few days I have received correspondence, emails and text messages from the people I represent and, as Unionists, they are all concerned about where we are with the protocol. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned my constituent in Ards, who sent me a text message this morning outlining the concerning amount of bureaucracy he went through for each of the 300 items he ordered from a wholesaler in Manchester.
What is the point of the protocol? Many constituents tell me that the point is to press the DUP to give up and go back in; the point is to strong-arm the Unionist people by withholding the necessary money—the Secretary of State will not use his power to allocate it. The Secretary of State knows that I have the greatest respect for him, and I always try to be courteous, but I can understand why some constituents believe that, because they see the Government legislating for something as non-urgent as relationships and sex education in schools, yet they will not give a pay rise to public sector workers. The unions want it, the £3.3 billion is there and the £600 million necessary for the wage increases is there. I suggest that the Secretary of State allocates the money immediately.
The mindset of the Northern Ireland people is perhaps not understood. As a people who were bombed and attacked by IRA nationalists for 30 years, we are not easily pressured or cowed. When it comes to protecting that for which my family and many other families shed their blood, we will not be blackmailed. My constituents want me to make it clear that all those who gave their life for Queen and country, as it was then, or King and country, as it is now, died for freedom, liberty and democracy.
I am given to understand that progress has been made, which I welcome. We want to see constructive progress, but I understand that we are not there yet. We are perhaps far from it, but there has been progress. My constituents are concerned about how this has been handled. Instead of being anxious to hear about how far things have moved and what has been achieved, the result of the seeming blackmail is distrust.
There is a feeling that the DUP has done its best for the nation, and I believe we are heading towards something that, constitutionally and practically, would prevent our children from having to fill in reams of unnecessary paperwork and allow them to operate in the UK as normal. Under the Windsor framework, our shopkeepers continue to have to sign off Trader Support Service declarations for goods from the UK, yet there is no paperwork when they purchase goods from the Republic.
Members will understand why we are a little less British in Northern Ireland than they are in Wales, Scotland or England. The presumption should be that Northern Ireland is UK-focused. We want to be UK-focused, and we want to continue buying from where we bought things in the past. Our traders, including those who trade with shops in Newtownards and Bangor, are paying accountants and spending money and man hours on something that need not be done.
One ridiculous example among many is pet treats that are deemed not to be safe to sell in Northern Ireland. They were safe before the Northern Ireland protocol and are still safe at the other end of the ferry journey in Scotland. We are working towards something that allows the health service to secure the same medications as NHS England, and that enables vets to access anything they need for their animals without additional costs or paperwork. This would reaffirm our place within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and stop reunification through the back door. These are the things that the DUP, ably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), has been working towards.
The undoubted changes that have been secured will not easily be trusted by the Unionist people, not because the DUP has attempted to pull the wool over people’s eyes but because the Unionist people, whom we support and who support us, believe the media hype, and the actions of this Government appear to underline that hype.
The Secretary of State is aware that we in the DUP will not be blackmailed, and that we have continued to negotiate and secure further changes is testament to the fact that we will not accept just any deal. We will only accept the right deal. I fervently hope that the next few weeks bring about the last complex changes required for the good of the Unionist people and, indeed, of people throughout the Province, no matter what their political persuasion.
There should be no doubt that, should we fail to negotiate the correct deal, we will not be afraid to face our electorate. I look forward to seeing the deal and how the words on the page will affect life in Northern Ireland. Although I support a two-week extension and understand the reasons for it, I ask the Government to get the messaging right. Instead of seeming to work against us, they should work with us to find a solution and to get this right for every person of every colour and creed in Northern Ireland. We want a restored Assembly, but it must be the right deal. The Conservative and Unionist party’s Northern Ireland protocol has to be addressed. The power to make the necessary change lies at the feet of the Secretary of State and with the Government. We will do our best to bring about change and to find a deal, but we cannot, will not and must not ignore the voice of Unionism.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. We are united in wanting the best for the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, we heard a very powerful speech from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and no one who heard it could be in any doubt about his determination to fight hard for Unionism. The whole House will be sorry to hear that he has been threatened. Anyone trying to bully him clearly does not know him.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State outlined, Labour supports this Bill and supports the ongoing efforts to restore the Executive as soon as possible. In the short amount of extra time afforded by this legislation, the restoration of power sharing and devolved government must be the Government’s absolute priority. While I commend the important work that civil servants are doing to keep the mechanics of the state functioning, the truth is that communities across Northern Ireland need the Executive and the Members of the Legislative Assembly to be back in their rightful place, taking the important decisions that are so desperately needed for the effective delivery of public services, health, education and to protect the environment.
On my visits to Northern Ireland, I have met many inspiring community groups that are struggling because of cuts and because of the cost of living crisis. Although all of these groups are making an enormous difference within and across their communities, they have all told me that the one thing that would make the biggest difference to their work, and for people who are suffering from the cost of living crisis, is a restored and functioning Executive.
Just last week we saw the biggest industrial action in Northern Ireland’s recent history, with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers joining the strike. There is clear and obvious widespread dissatisfaction with the impact and consequences of the current political situation in Northern Ireland. Given that the Government are legislating only to push the deadline back by 15 days, it is vital that we see quick progress and that the limited time available is not squandered. As the shadow Secretary of State has said, whatever happens, the money for public sector pay, which the Secretary of State has made clear is available, should be released, so that workers in Northern Ireland finally get the pay increase they deserve. The current situation must not be allowed to become the accepted norm. A failure to restore devolved government could cause and is causing damage that could take years to undo.
Labour will support this Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to do all he can to ensure that an agreement is reached and to keep the House informed at every stage.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I call Chris Heaton-Harris.
Chris Heaton-Harris
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to close this Second Reading debate. At the beginning, I spoke for a whole two minutes, because I wanted to hear what everybody had to say. I was hoping it would not go on quite as—[Interruption.] Quite as well as it did, but some important speeches were made, which I will come to in a moment. Clause 1 states:
“In section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, for “18 January 2024” substitute “8 February 2024”.
It provides for a short extension in time. Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. My two-minute speech was simply about keeping within scope, but we have managed to touch on Scottish independence, public sector pay, leaving the European Union, the Malthouse compromise, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs agenda and reform of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, all within two hours. I shall learn yet another lesson about Northern Ireland debates on the Floor of this House, and just say what I think all the time at the very beginning.
A number of excellent interventions were made in the debate. I will talk about the speeches we heard, but the interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) were all interesting and important. I wish to put on record for the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) that the whole House wishes his uncle well; the hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but it is important that we recognise that we are all human in this business.
I thank all those who made speeches in the debate: the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith); the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson); my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who gave a fantastic speech and I associate myself with many of the comments he made; the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson); the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who made a characteristically passionate speech—I really appreciate the way in which he put his words and what he said—and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The stand-out contribution came from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I thank him profusely for the conversations we have had over the course of the past weeks and months. I know that he really does want to get the best deal for Northern Ireland that works for both the nationalist and the Unionist communities, that is based on consent and that means that he can find the conditions to restore the institutions. I know that he and his party believe in devolution. He listed the number of things that he has managed to achieve during his leadership of his party, and he should be and can be rightly proud of what he has already achieved in that space.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been threatened for doing the job he should be doing is a disgrace—it is extraordinary. Unfortunately, everyone in this place has to come across such things. The people making these threats are cowards and idiots, and I know that they will not deter him. I have noticed in my time as Secretary of State that the number of followers someone has on Twitter, or X, does not necessarily equate to the number of brain cells they might have or the amount of common sense or decency they display as a human being. Those characteristics are personal and ones that someone can display as a human being. Unfortunately, some people choose to have a different persona when they are on social media and when they are emailing some really stupid things. I promise him that I shall work with him and use whatever power I have to make sure that he does not feel insecure in going about his business properly, because no parliamentarian should feel that. As I said, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
When we gathered to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement last year, we noted that the hard-won gains of the peace process should be honoured by the restoration of the devolved institutions. There is broad agreement on the main substance of this Bill: that our priority must be to continue to restore devolution in Northern Ireland. I was asked about this by the shadow Front-Bench team, so let me say that that is the immediate issue on which I am completely concentrated.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central asked what other legislation there might be. There could be future legislation, but I do not want to be in that place. He asked me to make a statement if things move, in order to keep the House updated. I absolutely guarantee that I will do so, should things move forward. Of course, he would expect me to be prepared for all eventualities, and I will update the House on my plans if it does not prove possible to restore the Executive by the new deadline. But I really do hope that those plans will not be needed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about public sector pay, and a number of other Members mentioned it. The Government recognise the vital work that public sector workers carry out and they should be fairly paid in recognition of that work. However, the UK Government do not have the authority to negotiate pay in Northern Ireland. I recognise that the uncertainty on pay awards is causing pressure on Northern Ireland finances, which is why the Government put a fair and generous financial package on the table, offering a new Executive a non-repayable injection of help to restore the Executive and manage that pressure.
Gavin Robinson
This is not intended to spoil the mood, but the trade unions would be quite upset if we did not take the opportunity to say that they are not asking the Northern Ireland Office to negotiate their pay; they will negotiate with their employers, as is right in the normal course of events. They are asking that the money that was secured and agreed in December be released to their employers, so that they can get on and have the negotiations.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is a complete package that is available for a restored Executive.
I promised at the beginning of this debate to be as brief as possible. I know that we have more work to do in this Parliament on different subjects, but I hope shortly to be in a position where I can return to this Dispatch Box celebrating the return of a wonderful institution of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Practically speaking, this step—to secure Royal Assent on this legislation—is the first step along that route.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that, in Committee, the Chair should not be addressed as “Deputy Speaker.” Please use our names when addressing the Chair, although “Mr Chairman” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
It will stand on the record that my contribution was longer than anybody else’s during this Committee stage.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Chris Heaton-Harris
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
I wish to place on the record my sincere thanks to everyone involved in the Bill’s passage through the House for their support for its expedited passage. I particularly thank the Front Benchers of all parties for their collaborative and constructive engagement.
On Second Reading, a whole host of issues concerning Northern Ireland had a reasonable outing. I would like to think that the tone of the debate we have had over the course of the past two hours will be reflected in the positive tone we can take in our negotiations and talks over the next few hours and days, or however long it may be, so that we can get to the wonderful place that I believe we all want to get to.
I reiterate my comments about the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and his words. I have really enjoyed working with him, listening to him and understanding the points he makes when he represents Unionism so powerfully, as he does. I know it is vital to him that we get this right. Occasionally, some of our conversations have been repetitive, but they all have a point.
I hope he would acknowledge that I have a deep and fundamental understanding of the issues that he and his party have been outlining during the past few days, weeks and months, and I would like to think that those issues are being reflected in the conversations we are having now. I do not think anybody in the House does not want to see Stormont returned, the Assembly sitting, the Executive up and running, and Ministers making the choices that the people who elected them would like to see.
Jim Shannon
I am mindful that the Secretary of State introduced his comments by talking about the good will that we have heard in the exchanges between Members as we try to find a way forward. Will he use some of that good will to ensure that the £600 million needed to address the pay agreement with the medical sector and teachers is found from the £3.3 billion that he has? He must build upon that good will, make that gesture and ensure that the unions have the pay increase they seek, on which there is consensus from all parties on the Opposition Benches. Will he use that good will, build upon it and make that gesture today?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contributions, but I have said all I am going to say on that matter for today.
It has been nearly two years since the institutions have been up and running, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Like the hon. Gentleman, I meet people from across Northern Ireland, those from both communities and those who are new to Northern Ireland, who have chosen to work and live there. They all want to see their institutions up and running, and that is important for democracy too. We all need to see the results of an election that was fairly fought delivered, because we are all democrats in this place. I prefer to win elections, rather than lose them—I very much hope I manage to maintain my lucky streak that I have had since I started to represent my seat of Daventry. Democracy is vital to our system, as is ensuring that every voter feels heard through the ballot box.
I place on the record my thanks to those who have engaged in the debate. I also place on the record my appreciation to the House authorities and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their continued expert advice. Right hon. and hon. Members involved in the debate know that there could have been a different piece of legislation laid today, and that is probably where we were progressing to, so the slight course correction that we have made involved a huge amount of help from the people behind the scenes who make this place function so well. I put on the record my thanks to them.
I thank my colleagues and officials in the Government Whips Office for helping us progress in a smooth fashion. As ever, I am grateful to them for everything they do. As a former Government Chief Whip, I understand their pain.
I conclude by repeating what I said on Second Reading. People in Northern Ireland rightly expect and deserve to see locally elected decision makers address the issues that matter to them. I agree with them, and I genuinely believe the House does too.
Hilary Benn
Now I can see the relief on the faces of the Government Whips. I will keep my remarks extremely short.
Once again, I thank the Secretary of State for being punctilious, in the proper sense of the word, in his dealings with me and in keeping me informed about what he has planned. I echo his thanks to civil servants, although I should think in civil service careers this is probably the easiest Bill to draft because that one line cannot have taken terribly long.
I join the praise for the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) for the speech he made and the passion he showed, and his willingness to set out the argument that has united all parts of the House, namely that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to have their Government back. In whatever further conversations they are due to have in the next few days, I wish him and the Secretary of State every success in bringing the situation to a conclusion. In the end, the people who will feel the benefit of an agreement are the people of Northern Ireland.
We criticise the Government, but we look to them when we want things to be done—when we want them to help us to deal with problems or to advance the interests of society. That is why the people of Northern Ireland have the same right as everyone else to see their Government in place. Let me refer back to the comments that I made at the start of Second Reading: I bring my contribution to the passage of the Bill to a close in, I think, a slightly better state of hope than when it began. I wish all those involved every success.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Situation in the Red Sea
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in the Red Sea.
Last week at Lancaster House, I set out why we are living in a far more dangerous world. Members will need no reminding that we are dealing with multiple conflicts at once: Russia has increased the intensity of its attacks on Ukraine; the appalling Hamas atrocities of 7 October have brought conflict to that region; and, most recently of all, international shipping is now being threatened by Houthi proxies aided and abetted by Iran.
Since November, there have been more than 40 attacks on commercial vessels across the region. It is salutary to think that it has been 30 years since the maritime law was codified in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Some 168 nations back the UNCLOS treaty. The UK signed it, Yemen acceded to it, and even Iran is a signatory to it. There is a good reason why it has achieved such broad support. All nations rely on global trade, and none more so than the UK, given that a full 90% of UK commerce comes to us by sea.
Some 12% of international trade passes through the Red sea every single year, amounting to more than $1 trillion-worth of goods. In addition, 8% of global grain trade, 12 % of seaborne traded oil and 8% of the world’s liquefied natural gas all pass through this ancient seaway. Perhaps even more astonishing is that 40% of the goods that are traded between Europe and Asia go through the Red sea.
Sadly, the Houthis’ unlawful and callous attacks are putting all that trade at risk. Twelve international companies have been forced to suspend the passage through the Red sea because of the attacks. The number of vessels transiting Bab al-Mandab was 54% below the level observed in the previous year, and diverting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope has had a crippling impact, not only adding days of delay to vital deliveries but driving up international shipping costs to prohibitive levels. Some reports suggest that shipping costs are up by 300%.
What these Iran-backed Houthi pirate thugs forget is that it is the least well-off nations and people who suffer the most from their illegal actions, starting with Yemen itself, where almost all food comes by sea. At times like these, nations must stand up. Attacks on Red sea shipping automatically make this a global problem.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent speech. According to the House of Commons Library, there are 12 Iranian proxy forces in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Yemen, so this is not just about the Houthis, although that is what we are dealing with now. To what extent are we able to keep tabs on and monitor, or to work with allies who can keep tabs on and monitor, those dozen proxy forces that, sadly, Iran is now using with increased repetitiveness to attack not only our interests but the interests of our allies?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he is something of an expert in this area. Iran is absolutely behind all the different proxy groups that he outlined, and many more. In a way, Iran is able to control this situation without getting too involved itself, and the world needs to wake up and recognise that. We are of course monitoring all of that incredibly closely. Appeasing the Houthis now, or all these other groups, will not lead to a more stable tomorrow, in the case of the Houthis, in respect of the Red sea. Being blind to the sponsors of terror will not benefit the international order in the long run, which is why it is so important that the world has acted.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Defence Secretary. On the shipping side of things, there has been an extraordinary reduction in confidence in that route. The only way to restore the confidence of ships to pass through the gulf of Aden and up through the Red sea is an increase in military convoys. I am sure he is coming to this, but what steps are being taken to drive up military convoys to escort vessels through that passage?
Grant Shapps
As ever, my hon. Friend raises an excellent point. That is what Operation Prosperity Guardian is all about: that taskforce enables shipping to be protected to an extent. He may be getting at the broader point of whether individual ships should be protected. The view that the world has taken is that Prosperity Guardian provides an umbrella to shipping more widely. The sheer volume of ordinary traffic through the Red sea means that we need that US-led international taskforce for the security of the Red sea and the gulf of Aden.
This is incredibly important. After all, we are part of defending the international rules-based order in the actions that we are taking. Last week, I was onboard HMS Diamond—which is right at the heart of the issue in the Red sea—talking to our brave sailors who are out there protecting our critical sea lanes. The House will know that this is the first Royal Navy ship’s company for 32 years who have fired in anger—or in self-defence, in their case. It was fascinating to talk to them about their experience and to witness their professionalism in dealing with this challenge.
It really did not have to be this way. We worked hard to warn the Houthis off. At the start of the year, the world sent a very clear message to the Houthis: “End your illegal and unjustified actions. Stop risking innocent lives. Please stop illegally detaining vessels and crews. Cease threatening the global economy.” All those warnings fell on deaf ears, and eventually enough was enough.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I completely support the Government’s action, which is totally in accordance with international law and defending freedom of navigation on the high seas, but we can only do it with people; otherwise, there will be no one to maintain the Typhoons or crew the warships. People are leaving three times as fast as we are recruiting, as the Secretary of State is aware. Will he commit to coming to the House before Easter to make a statement on what we are doing about the retention of critical armed forces personnel? He knows why it is important.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend has been very solid on these issues, which he and I have spoken about in the Defence Committee and elsewhere. He will be pleased to know that I have recently held meetings with individuals he believes will help to resolve the issue. In common with many western militaries, I am working very hard to ensure that we have the men and women we need in our armed forces, skilled up to the right levels and capable of taking on this challenge. He will be reassured to know that I went to Akrotiri last week and met the Typhoon pilots. They are incredibly highly skilled, and backed by an enormous array of tanker pilots, ground crew, mechanics and many others. It is very important that we support them. I am working very hard on this, and will come back to my right hon. Friend, the Defence Committee and the House with future plans to back up what Haythornthwaite and others have proposed.
A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister, relevant Cabinet Ministers and I authorised the RAF precision strikes using four Typhoon FGR4s, supported by two Voyager air-refuelling tankers. They struck facilities at Bani in north-western Yemen and an airfield at Abbs. The sites had been used to launch reconnaissance and attack drones as well as cruise missiles over the Red sea, and they were destroyed. Let me reiterate what has been said before: this was limited, necessary and proportionate. It was done in self-defence in response to very specific threats and in line with international law.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for all he has been doing over the past few weeks. As he makes clear, this has been an increasingly difficult situation—we had no choice but to act. What is our assessment of the extent to which we need to degrade Houthi capabilities in order for them to change their intent and actions? As yet, I am unclear as to whether we have the ability to look into what the Houthis are thinking, let alone Iran’s activities. We must also recognise that the Houthis are, at best, a disobedient ally and not really a proxy, so they do have their own interests that they are pursuing.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend, with her immense experience and perspective as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is absolutely right about the formation of the Houthis, who, if we look back at their history, are actually opportunists. Only as far back as 2015, they did not support Hamas. Now they claim their entire programme is in support of Hamas’ illegal activities. She also quite rightly asks what proportion of the Houthi equipment and machinery has been destroyed. We work with others to assess the battle damages, as it were. I can confirm that the attacks so far have been complete in their targets, but the Houthis’ modus operandi is flexibility, and they will use launching sites as they see fit, which is why our US allies have been using what they would describe as dynamic strikes, as they ping up.
Sadly, as my hon. Friend and the House will know, the Houthis continued to persist even though they had been dealt a blow. A further 12 attacks followed, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and an unmanned aerial system that struck two US-owned merchant vessels. Our intelligence has continued to highlight an ongoing and imminent threat to our commercial and military vessels across the region.
As the Prime Minister told the House just yesterday, attempting to respond to the Houthis after they launch their irrational assaults is simply not a sustainable way to proceed, so on Monday night, working alongside our US partners, but also with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, the Prime Minister and I authorised a second wave of strikes. They were once again deployed using precision-guided Paveway IV missiles, and destroyed eight targets near Sanaa airfield, taking out clusters of Miraj surface-to-air missile launchers and further degrading the Houthis’ ability to hold our seas to ransom. Our targeting was once again carefully planned and precise and we are not aware of there being any civilian casualties at all, and the operation was designed in that context.
It was a complex joint operation involving close co-operation between UK and US aircrews. I wish to pay tribute to our brave pilots and aircrews, who carried out the action so very effectively. Last week, as I mentioned, it was a real honour to meet those pilots and the support team in Akrotiri—each of them professional to the last.
The military track is only one part of a much more comprehensive Government response. As the Prime Minister set out in his statement yesterday, we are working diplomatically to reduce the regional tensions, making it clear, especially to the Iranians, that they must stop supplying weapons, intelligence, training and money to the Houthis. We are working with our allies to halt the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi militia. We are working and seeking to cut off the Houthis’ financial support, and we are determined to help the people of Yemen, whom the Houthis are not friends of, to ensure that they receive the humanitarian aid they need.
Despite the Houthis’ absurd claims to be the Robin Hood of Yemen, the reality is they are simply exploiting the turmoil in the middle east to their own advantage and in their own self-interest—a point made strongly to me when I spoke to the President of Yemen recently. Ordinary Yemenis have not benefited one iota from their malign activity. On the contrary, they are victims of the same Houthi thuggery as anyone else. It hits our trade and the world’s trade, and will only in the end hurt the Yemeni population, damaging their security and driving up food prices.
However, the Houthis should be in no doubt that the world needs them to cease and desist their illegal behaviour. Today, as I said, we are living in what feels like a more dangerous world, but the UK will not be cowed. We will not retreat to our shores. Instead, we will continue to lead. As the whole House knows, we are already leading in Ukraine; we have increased our military support to £2.5 billion and signed a historic agreement on security co-operation, laying the foundation for a century-long partnership with our Ukrainian friends. We are also leading in NATO and have sent some 20,000 personnel to participate in Exercise Steadfast Defender. To put that into context, there are 32 countries involved in the NATO exercise and we are providing half the personnel.
Returning to the subject of today’s debate, we are also leading in the Red sea. This great waterway is one of mankind’s earliest trade routes, active since the days of the Pharaohs and through Roman times. We will do all we can to keep it active in the 21st century as well. We are working with our allies to deter regional danger, keeping those vital sea lanes open so that our ships and many others can traverse the ancient waters without fear.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Today the House was set to debate the full sweep of defence and international affairs until the change of business yesterday, which gave this debate its focus on the Red sea. I know that Members on all sides will welcome the opportunity to debate and to question the Government on the UK’s presence and the tensions in this part of the middle east, and I look forward to the contributions from all sides to the debate. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will ensure that we get the opportunity soon to debate the broader aspects of defence, especially on Ukraine, as the Defence Secretary indicated in his remarks he is keen to do.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
In the old days—I have been here a long time—we had debates in Government time on defence, as we do this afternoon, but in recent times we have not done so and the debates have been down to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much welcome the Committee, which is a great organisation, but none the less we ought to have defence debates in Government time on a Tuesday or Wednesday, set by the Government. I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that that happens in future.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has great experience and he is right to say that Government time signals the importance that the Government give to the business they bring to this House. While the Backbench Business Committee does an important and useful job, it is Government time that matters. Since the Defence Secretary has been in post, we have not had that general debate on defence, and we should. We have not had a debate on Ukraine for four months, and we should, certainly ahead of the bloody two-year anniversary next month of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We have also not had a debate since 7 October on Israel and Palestine, which is extraordinary. There is an irony that, had we gone ahead with the original debate on international relations, that could have been a subject for debate, but we are restricted by this debate. It is clear why the situation in the Red sea is a priority, but that is probably also a priority, which the Government might wish to take up, and which I have raised previously with the Leader of the House.
John Healey
At the risk of sounding a bit like the shadow Leader of the House responding to a business question, my hon. Friend is right. He is very experienced and I am sure he will find a way, as the Prime Minister did yesterday in his statement about the Red sea action, to talk more widely about Israel and Palestine without testing Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience too far.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about Ukraine. It is important, in the context of everything that is happening globally, that we take the opportunity once again to say that we stand in Ukraine, particularly in the light of the changing political landscape in North America. All of us here, and our allies in Europe, have a responsibility to send a message that we will do everything necessary to support that country, which must prevail against Putin’s aggression.
John Healey
I, for one, appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership of his party when Putin invaded Ukraine. Like us, he has demonstrated that the UK has been and remains totally united behind Ukraine and in confronting Russian aggression. I say to the Defence Secretary that one of the important things that the Government do by organising a debate in the House is signal the importance that all sides of the House give to the support to Ukraine. It is also a chance to explain to the British public why this matters so much, and why defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It is essential to our interests that Ukraine prevails, not Putin.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?
John Healey
One other way of stretching the limits of a tightly drawn debate is experienced interventions of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated. One advantage of debates such as this is that we hear from the Government not just at the start of the debate, but at the end, so we can look forward to the Minister picking up and responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s question when he winds up.
John Healey
What do I think? Well, it would be helpful to have access to the sort of classified information that the Defence Secretary has in order to make these decisions. It is his responsibility to do so, and it is our responsibility in this House to challenge and hold him to account when he makes those decisions—and, of course, if he fails to make decisions.
Perhaps I might return to the Red sea and the theme and focus of this debate. We now have around 2,500 military personnel in the middle east, and I begin by recognising their special service. Many were deployed at short notice—most were away from their families over Christmas—helping to supply essential aid for Palestinians in Gaza, working to reinforce regional security and reduce the risk of wider escalation, and, in cases such as those of the crew of HMS Diamond and the pilots of the Typhoons and air tankers, operating under great pressure and threat. They undertake their tasks with total professionalism. We thank them and are proud of them.
Bob Seely
At this juncture, I think it worth pointing out—the Secretary of State may want to refer to this—that Iranian proxies are regularly rocketing, or attempting to rocket, US bases in Iraq, some of which have a UK presence. It is only through good luck, and complex air defence, if I understand correctly, that there have not been considerable US casualties or potential UK casualties. That is a point that we need to bear in mind when we talk not only about Iranian proxies but about UK forces in the middle east.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has insights into the situation that are rare, even in this House, from his own experience and his particular interest. He is totally right. It is not just about the risks of Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq: the Iranian interests in Iraq, and the attacks on American bases and personnel—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some of those bases are shared with UK personnel—constitute one of the flashpoints and risks of wider escalation. Mercifully, none of those attacks has led to any deaths, but they have led to some injuries. Given that we have 2,500 UK personnel in the region, and given the heightened risk they may face, it would be good to hear what additional protections and measures the Defence Secretary is ensuring are put in place.
Our UK military presence in the Red sea protects international shipping and strengthens regional security. If anyone doubts that, consider what the consequences would be of no action being taken to deal with the Houthi attacks. That extremist force, backed by Iran and with a long record of brutal piracy in the region, could attack commercial ships at will and attack our Navy’s ships without consequence. They are targeting the ships of all nations, threatening the freedom of global trade and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why last month, 20 countries joined the Red sea maritime protection force, Operation Prosperity Guardian; it is why this month, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions and demanding that their attacks stop; and it is why the UK and the US, with operational support from four other nations, have conducted joint strikes on Houthi missile sites, command centres and weapons stores.
We back the two UK-US joint air strikes carried out this month. We accept that they were targeted, necessary and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life, and we will judge any future UK military action on its merits. Ministers have said that the aim of these strikes is first to degrade Houthi capabilities, and secondly to deter their attacks. We accept that the attacks were justified, but we ask the Defence Secretary to confirm how they were also effective. We know that deterrence is a sliding scale, so we ask the Defence Secretary how the Government will guard against Britain being sucked deeper into the Yemeni conflict.
We also back the leading role that the Royal Navy plays in the continuing military defence of shipping from all nations against further Houthi missiles, drones and attack boats. However, the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world for nearly 80 years. What action are the Government taking to persuade other countries to join the maritime protection force? What are they doing to persuade those already involved to deploy more ships? What efforts are they making to encourage other nations with a big global trade interest to play a part in protecting freedom of navigation and using their influence to stop the Houthi attacks, and how long does the Defence Secretary expect Operation Prosperity Guardian to be needed?
The US aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been essential to the operations to date in the Red sea. Is the UK carrier ready to deploy to the Red sea if required? Has the Defence Secretary made the decision to not deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth, and if not, why not? A UK destroyer, HMS Diamond—to which the Defence Secretary has paid tribute—has also played a hugely important and impressive part in the maritime task force. She has been in the Red sea for nearly two months and will need to be rotated out. Do we have a second UK destroyer available to replace HMS Diamond in the Red sea, and if not, what will replace her? If that is to be HMS Richmond, when will she arrive in the Red sea, and how will that change the capabilities that we can contribute to Operation Prosperity Guardian?
We must cut the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi militia. The US intercepted a weapons shipment about two weeks ago, and the UK has successfully done similarly in the past. What is the UK’s capability and plan for doing so again now? Rather as the Defence Secretary indicated, military action on its own cannot solve the problems in the region, so what diplomatic action are the Government taking to pressure the Houthis to cease their attacks, to settle the civil war in Yemen, and to pressure Iran to stop supplying weapons and intelligence to the Houthis?
Like the Defence Secretary today and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I totally reject the Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking oil tankers and seizing ships for least five years, not just in the past 109 days since 7 October. These attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people. We want the Gaza fighting to stop, with a humanitarian truce now and then a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent citizens, get all remaining hostages out and get much more aid into Gaza. This is what we have been calling for in public, and what we have been working for in private. Our leader, our shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and our shadow International Development Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have all been out in the region in the last three months.
The humanitarian agonies of the Palestinians in Gaza are now extreme. Parents are starving, children are drinking dirty water and there are even reports of amputations being carried out without anaesthetic. More aid has to get to Palestinians now. Surely Britain can do more. There have been just four RAF aid flights and one Navy shipment in nearly four months. We got 100 tonnes of aid to Turkey in the first 10 days after the earthquake last year. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Armed Forces Minister has told me recently that the RAF and the Navy stand by ready to do more, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has not asked it to do so. What is going on? There should be a steady stream of aid from Britain. Our aid efforts must be accelerated.
For long-term peace, there has to be a political process, and one that has the capacity, conviction and commitment to turn the rhetoric around two states living side-by-side in peace into reality. Many across this House, like all in the Labour party present, will have found the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent rejection of the two-state settlement utterly unacceptable and wrong. Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is the only long-term hope for peace and stability, and for normalisation for both Israelis and Palestinians. If elected to form the Government, Labour will lead a new push for peace, working with international allies, in the confidence that, as the Prime Minister said to this House yesterday, we in this country and we in this House are
“united in support of a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 152.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
While much of this debate will rightly focus on the rationale, execution and objectives of the recent airstrikes against Houthi rebel military infrastructure, I want to begin with some comments on who the Houthis really are. I have been deeply disturbed by comments in our national conversation painting them somehow as a progressive movement, as freedom fighters or as some legitimate representative body of the Yemeni people. That is so disturbing not only because people are not taking the time to educate themselves, but because the Houthis do not deny who they are. It is out there for all to see. Their rallying cry and flag are quite explicit:
“Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse upon the Jews”.
These are the words that this group puts on their flag. That is their rallying cry, and every action the Houthis take is with that in mind, with hatred in their hearts. Yet we see people, often well-meaning people—it is concerning that even people in this House have made such suggestions—suggest that Yemen has freedom fighters on its shores, and that somehow because Yemen, they claim, was a British colony, the Houthis should be seen as anti-colonial freedom fighters. Unlike southern Yemen, North Yemen was never a British colony. After the collapse of the Ottoman empire, North Yemen was ruled by the Imamate, a theocratic polity led by the religious leader of the Zaydi Shia.
The Houthis offer no vision for Yemen’s future. They seek a return to the past, free from ideals such as equality, women’s rights and democracy. What inspiration they draw from the modern world comes from the Ayatollah and the Islamic revolutionary movement of Iran. We can trace their violent rise to what was initially a moment of hope for Yemen. We all remember the Arab spring back in 2011, when Yemenis rose up together and toppled the dictatorship. Employing the Ayatollah’s handbook, the Houthis initially pledged themselves to co-operation and building a new Yemen, sending delegates to the national dialogue conference and building a deliberate façade, when they were actually working to reject the future that young Yemenis dreamed of. Armed by Iran, the Houthis blocked the 2014 referendum on the introduction of a new democratic constitution, and began a military campaign of conquest and repression. It is easy for us to pass judgment from afar, but the people of Yemen are the witnesses of their crimes.
Let me share briefly with the House the story of Baraa Shiban, a Yemeni democracy and human rights activist who sat on the Yemeni national dialogue conference and saw first hand how the Houthi used deception and oppression to secure their powerbase. Baraa has since claimed refuge in the UK, and now works on the cause of Yemen as a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. He shared with me that, after the Houthi coup in 2014, they banned all political parties, closed all media outlets and suppressed Yemen’s fledgling civil society, which was just beginning to bud. They rejected all calls for elections, and instead chose to govern through fear and intimidation. Baraa was an eyewitness to the Houthi method of conquest from 2014. He saw two small rural villages refuse to surrender to the so-called rebels. In response, they forced all the residents to watch as they summarily blew up all the houses in front of them. He observed as they kidnapped and murdered the family of Akram Al-Zurqa, a community leader in his province, before filming themselves blowing up those families for vile propaganda purposes.
The brutality of the Houthi leadership has been recognised by our Government, and UN security resolutions have been put in place against leader Sultan Zabin for the rape and torture of politically active women. Let that sink in, Mr Deputy Speaker: women who choose to have a voice in Yemen will be tortured. The head of the Houthi security services arbitrarily detained them and raped them for speaking their minds. Not content with merely brutalising villages and women, the Houthis detained two of Baraa’s friends from the Arab spring protests, young journalists Abdullah and Yousif. They locked them in a weapons depot, knowing full well that it would be bombed by the Saudi-led coalition to oppose the Houthis, and they left them there to die.
That was a clear breach of international law, as was the industrialised taking of children and forcing them to be soldiers. The UN estimates that, in just one year between 2020 and 2021, 2,000 children were killed after having been forced to be soldiers for the Houthis. Tragically, the Houthis also expelled Yemen’s 3,500-year-old Jewish community from their homeland, and banished the last Jewish family back in March 2021. Yet now they say that they are acting in defence of Gaza. Now they say they have always cared about the Palestinian cause, despite having hated Israel—yes—but done nothing in the interests of the people of Palestine. This conflict is merely an attempt to distract from their own brutal regime at home and gain clout because, let us be clear, among terrorists there is a pecking order, and they are fighting for who is the big man on the block. The Houthis think this is their chance.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. It is worth mentioning that one of the other things that the Houthis have done is deliberately block humanitarian aid coming into the port, to starve the population. They might draw a parallel with the terrible situation in Gaza, but their actions show that they do not believe that at all.
Alicia Kearns
It is no surprise that my right hon. Friend makes an important point. Whether it is blocking aid, forcing children to act as soldiers or raping and torturing women, the Houthis have no interest in supporting anything but their own power. They have consistently lied to the people of Yemen, and we cannot allow them to act again. I urge anyone in this country who is suggesting in any way that the Houthis are acting in the interests of the Palestinians please to take the time to look at things. If they will not, they should at least look in the mirror.
Moving on, I want to look at why we are absolutely right to take this action. These strikes were a strategic necessity. Article 51 of the UN charter is absolute on the legal right to self-defence for maritime freedom. In the days leading up to the airstrikes, we saw the UN Security Council come together and agree that action was needed. There was a motion calling for an immediate end to Houthi attacks on shipping. Leading up to the strikes, there were 26 attacks in those waters. That might not have been much reported in the media here, but it was elsewhere. Our Royal Navy has had to defend itself against the worst attack against our ships for decades, and the US is having to deploy Tomahawk missiles to protect itself. That was almost unheard of for a long time. We all heard the arguments from the Defence Secretary. We all know full well that almost 30% of all shipping containers pass through those waters, and 90% of ships are having to avoid the area.
I want briefly to look at the Houthi military capabilities, because there is a view held, particularly among some young people, thanks to a very unhelpful TikTok account. The House knows my views on TikTok, and it is unsurprising that it is helping to spread unhelpful narratives. On this account, a young man seems to be bobbing around on the waters outside Yemen—he could be the star of a movie, I admit—suggesting that the Houthis are working in the interests of Palestinians. The Houthis are incredibly well armed, beyond what many people think. They have Iranian support, and the Iranians have provided rockets and drones, but they also have their own domestic capabilities.
We have to remember that the former dictator of Yemen defected to the Houthi cause, and he brought with him ballistic and cruise missiles. Those are now being used against the Royal Navy, the US and allies. The Houthis have one F-5 jet. Some may say that it is only one jet, but it is attacking the Royal Navy; we have seen them using these weapons against us. They have helicopter pilots. They have so much more domestic capacity beyond what they are being given by the Iranians. Will the Defence Secretary at some point update the House on what assessment we have not just of how we strangle Iranian donations of equipment to the Houthis, but of how much more equipment the Houthis have hidden? We know they have buried it underground, and we also know that they took a great deal when they took control. We need to tackle how we strangle the supply of equipment from Iran.
Moving on to strategic concerns, I have already asked the Defence Secretary how we assess the point to which we need to degrade Houthi capabilities so that they change their intent. This is a deterrence mission; it is a mission to put deterrence back in place. How far down the process of attrition are we? How do we ensure that we do not become the air force of the Yemeni Government? How do we ensure that we have a point to which we are operating, rather than just continuing to try until we see the Houthis change direction?
I am also concerned because Yemen is still in a state of civil war. Although the Houthis control the majority of the population, they control only about 40% of the territory. Meanwhile, we have al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Daesh, both operating in Yemen. My understanding is that there may be some sort of informal relationship between AQAP and the Houthis, because AQAP has been able to move equipment and matériel across the country to where it has its bases. However, as I touched on, terrorists have a pecking order, and they like to be the big man on the street. I am concerned that we will see these two groups step up their operations and capitalise on what they see as a competing terrorist group being under attack. How do we make sure that we are acting now so that other terrorist groups are not capitalising on those attacks?
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) rightly raised his concerns about Iraq. That was the first question I asked the Foreign Secretary when he rang me to talk about the airstrikes. I am deeply concerned by our significant footprint in Iraq, not least because over the past few months we have seen increasing attacks on our assets by Shi’a militias beholden to the Iranian regime.
We have also seen the IRGC commit an airstrike in Erbil, and that is concerning but an opportunity. For the IRGC to have taken responsibility for such an airstrike is a step change; we have not seen it do that in the past. That gives more credence to what we will hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) about the need to proscribe the IRGC, and it also fundamentally changes how we can talk about the IRGC and its operations. What is the Government’s assessment of how the Red sea situation is likely to escalate, particularly in Iraq? How are we working to protect our assets?
I will touch briefly on Syria. Many colleagues will know that, when the vote came to Parliament, the decision not to intervene militarily in Syria was one of the driving reasons for my joining this place. I still believe that a great mistake was made on that day. Syria has become—forgive me if this sounds flippant—the Amazon warehouse for terrorists. Whether it is narcotics, weapons, people, Shi’a militias or trafficking—you name it—all that is taking place in Syria. What are we doing to reduce the risks emanating from Syria to our assets and interests on the ground?
I turn to Iranian proxies. The Houthis are only one of Iran’s proxies and allies. As I said earlier, different proxies have different relationships. I believe the Houthis to be more of a disobedient ally than a direct proxy, because the command and control is not as significant as it is with Hezbollah. We have Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shi’a militias and the Assad regime in Syria. What work are we doing to ensure that we have a clear assessment of the differing relationships between different proxies and allies with Iran? Some will be receiving just intelligence. Some will be receiving matériel. With some, there will be direct command and control. Some will feel greater loyalty to others. We need to assess the extent to which Iran will conduct further conflict and chaos to defend each of those proxies. For example, I suspect that Hezbollah is far more happy to wage full-on warfare in defence of the clerics in Iran than the Houthis would be. How do we ensure that we get there?
I have severe concerns about Hezbollah’s future actions. Nasrallah has so far decided to stay out of the action, but the reality is that that could change in a moment. Again, this goes back to who wants to be seen as the best terrorist on the block, and Nasrallah is deeply ideologically tied to the Ayatollahs—more so than any others. While in the past Hezbollah has acted almost as a trip wire to protect Iran’s nuclear capabilities, now, unfortunately, while we may not see significant restraint, it has been showing significant restraint, given its capabilities. I am concerned about what we may see going forward.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Lady is outlining the scale of the challenge and the threats we face, and not just in parts of the middle east but in Africa and, as we know, Europe as well. Does that not bring home the responsibility we have to ensure that we have a strategic assessment of how we react to all of those threats, not just for those of us on these islands but for our partners as well? The threat we face today is perhaps greater than at any time since the second world war.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the right hon. Member—my friend—who is always generous in his thoughts and contributions to such debates. I agree entirely.
That takes me to my fundamental point: this may be a debate on the Red sea, but we are really talking about Iran. My assessment—colleagues may differ—is that Iran is willing to do everything but reach outright warfare. It will industrialise sub-threshold conflict and seek chaos wherever it can. My worry is that its current appetite—where it has set its threshold just below outright warfare—is too high. The message that we need to hear going out from our allies to the Iranians—I was pleased to see the Foreign Secretary meeting the Iranians to deliver this message—is that that threshold is too high and they must pull back. That must be our strategic priority.
I hope that the Government will bring people together. I am looking at putting together a half-day workshop for all MPs, at which we can look at what the policy solutions might be for tackling Iran, because all roads lead to Iran. My worry is that we are compartmentalising our response to Iran. It has nuclear ambitions and proxies, and it has given Russia the drones it needs. I believe that the relationship between Iran and Russia has become strategic; it has fully reversed from what we saw over the past two decades. We are seeing hostage-taking, assassinations, transnational repression and femicide at home.
We must stop treating those individual issues as if they can somehow be drawn away from each other and recognise that we need a strategic approach, working with our allies for all of them. At the moment, we see individual escalations in each of those areas and do not respond comprehensively. We see Iran massively increasing its drone production and giving them all to Russia, but we do not see a significant response. We see Iran taking more and more hostages, but we do not see a significant response. In isolation, all these things look like a small gradual ratcheting, but when we put them together, the situation is utterly untenable.
I hesitate to talk too much about IRGC proscription—I feel I would be stealing other colleagues’ sandwiches, so I will leave it with them—but I think the record is well known in this House as to the position. I acknowledge that it is not a straightforward decision. Yes, Iran will see it as an act of war. Yes, we will likely have to close our embassy on the ground. However, we need to take action against the IRGC. Only this week we saw on the BBC a video of sanctioned IRGC generals holding recruitment Zooms with British national student organisations. This is the same organisation that MI5 had to warn was conducting assassinations on our soil. And while I am here, I repeat my call for the creation of a special envoy or special Prime Minister’s lead for those who are arbitrarily detained, because we need someone who can focus on that throughout the piece.
I want to touch briefly on Iran at home, because I believe we are dealing with the most brittle Iran that we have had for a long time. The way Iran rules is essentially a protection racket and people have started to see through that. It is splintering, but it is too early to see the actors for change who will escalate the situation. Looking briefly to the diplomatic effort, there has been too much focus on the E3 plus US. We need an Arab-led solution. We need to bring our Arab partners into the fold far more. There is an anxiety that the west is not a long-term strategic partner; that we will conduct this isolated activity, which is absolutely right, but not stay and be committed long term. So, how do we demonstrate a commitment to build a broader coalition that can meaningfully push back against Iranian influence in the region to protect us not just there, but at home?
That leads me to the threat to the UK from Iran. I am gravely concerned that we are not yet taking it seriously enough. Yes, we have now seen the Islamic centre closed, under a review by the Charity Commission. Yes, I managed to get its education centre in west London to no longer be accredited, but we are not doing enough to tackle transnational repression in the UK.
These strikes are both legal and proportionate, and a response to hugely damaging attacks by Houthi rebels on the rule of law and global commerce. A failure to act would result in global economic hardship, huge damage to the British economy, a resurgence in inflation and the risk of a successful Houthi attack on a Royal Navy or British maritime vessel. This is about re-establishing deterrence, but it is also about sending a message to Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China. If we think that what we have seen over the past few weeks is concerning for global trade, it is absolutely nothing compared to what we could see.
I reiterate that these attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Gaza. We must reject that false narrative, which is designed solely to further the Houthis along their blood-soaked road to power in Yemen, and the Ayatollah’s dreams of regional domination. What unites the Houthis and the Iranian regime is their willingness to sacrifice innocent people in their pursuit of power and their readiness to inflict unthinkable violence on anyone who opposes them.
I ask the Government to avoid the mistakes of the past and to think long term and strategically about how we go from here. We all want to see a two-state solution and a Palestinian state. What we need now is an international Palestine contact group and to launch track 2 negotiations, bringing together civil society, women and academics. I also urge all colleagues—those of us who would quickly condemn anyone who denied Israel the right to statehood—to also condemn those who deny the Palestinians the right to their own state.
A true friend seeks to end the cycles of war, not add more fuel to the fire. Iran and the Houthis are no friends of the Palestinian people. I asked Baraa Shiban, the Yemeni democracy activist, to summarise what the Houthis have done to his country. This is what he said:
“The Houthis run a network of militias that terrorised the Yemeni people for more than a decade and their atrocities were ignored by the international community. The Houthis film themselves blowing up our houses and those of their opponents, and their top leaders have been sanctioned by the UK, rightly, for using sexual violence against women activists. The House of Commons should call for them to be held accountable, and recognise the plight of the Yemeni people.”
I hope we will not have to see many more strikes in the region, but I suspect that this is not the end of them. The Defence Secretary will continue to have my full support, because this is right and this is about bringing back deterrence.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is always good to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), and I actually agree with quite a lot of what they had to say—I might go into that in a bit more detail in the next few minutes.
It seems strange to be having a general debate of this kind on a Wednesday afternoon in Government time. As the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), suggested, a general debate on defence and security has morphed into a debate on the situation in the Red sea—a more current and certainly more substantive topic, but one that will, I have to say, allow me to make the same points that I was going to make in a general debate, albeit within the frame of what I hope I am wrong in thinking is looking increasingly like some type of long-term commitment.
Those of us who speak about defence on a regular basis—I see some familiar faces here today—can probably finish each other’s speeches by now, as Members will probably have seen on the odd occasion. Whether we are colleagues on the Defence Committee—and I see that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is present—or ordinary Members who are interested in the subject, we tend to be a very dedicated bunch. While I certainly do not agree with everything that everyone has to say, I certainly always learn a lot from the contributions of Members such as my friend the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is also present, and indeed the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who has left the Chamber. It is safe to say that when it comes to debates such as this featuring as the last item on a Wednesday, Members usually have to care to take the time to participate.
That is why it is so frustrating, from my perspective, that time and again the Government’s rhetoric in relation to our defence and security, the current situation being a case in point, so rarely matches the action taken—again, from my perspective—and why I sometimes wonder, if His Majesty’s Government pay so little heed to the contributions of those on their side of the house, who exactly they are listening to.
Before I explore that much further, and perhaps add to what was said by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, let me state the obvious: the Houthi movement is an obscurantist, antisemitic and theocratic death cult that has violated human rights and international law every step of the way. Not only does the Houthis’ current strategy continue these violations of international law, but they seek to use the suffering of the Palestinian people in a way that cannot be justified.
However, in my view—this is the point that may distinguish my remarks from not just those of the Government but those of the shadow Defence Secretary—the fact that current events in Palestine are not the cause of the Houthi attacks on shipping does not mean that they are not symptoms of the same phenomenon: namely, western indifference to the region, followed by periods of intense military involvement, and little effort made to address longer-term issues.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I just want to probe the hon. Gentleman slightly on his comments about the west not being involved in the region until something crops up. It was the Royal Navy, and other navies, that were protecting shipping from Somalian pirates, and it is the Royal Navy that has bases in Bahrain to support ships travelling through the strait of Hormuz. The west is involved in the region, and although that may be highlighted more now, I wanted the hon. Gentleman to clarify his comments: he is presumably not suggesting that we have not been involved in the region until now.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps he should refer to what was said by his hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee about the diplomatic effort. I thought that her point about Arab-led initiatives was well made. Perhaps the Government should listen to that as a future intention. I think that is more to the point than engaging in military action, which has been ongoing for some time.
My SNP colleagues and I gave the first round of strikes against the Houthi targets qualified support earlier this month, and we do so again in respect of the latest strikes, but as we begin to slide towards what seems almost like an inevitable longer-term commitment, it cannot be said often enough that the “what”, the “how’” and the “why” of UK grand strategy are, at least from my perspective, dangerously out of sync. Let us start with last week’s keynote announcement from the Defence Secretary, who I see is no longer in their place, that
“The era of the peace dividend is over and 2024 will mark an inflection point.”
On the surface, that is a pretty banal observation, but whether we call it the polycrisis or the age of grey-zone conflict, those of us who come to these debates on a regular basis have been talking about the possibilities of this type of thing happening at least since I arrived in 2015. I am not sure how 2024 will be anywhere near the inflection points that 2014 or 2022 were; none the less, that is a bold statement from the Secretary of State. It is important to say that he also backed it up with the announcement of a £405 million investment in so-called drone-killing Sea Viper missiles.
On the surface, it would seem that the Secretary of State has got his why and his what sorted. We just need a how, and that is where I think we begin to run into trouble. For all the high-falutin’ rhetoric from the MOD main building, I am not sure that anyone here really believes we are going to meet the how in the form of an increase in defence spending to meet these new threats, given the disastrous state of the MOD’s finances, as seen in the latest National Audit Office report.
We are in the middle of the cost of living crisis, as we all know well. Inflation seems to be coming under control; it is only worse in the defence sector, and the proliferation of US dollar-dominated contracts is not going to make things easier, especially with a soft pound and the reality that we are now living in one of the poorest countries in western Europe. Any increase in defence spending at this time means a cut elsewhere in the budget; that is simply a reality. Although there are those, particularly on the Opposition Benches, who are brave enough to say that they would like to make cuts elsewhere to do this, I have seen absolutely no indication from the Government that they intend to do so.
I am no economist—hard to believe, I know—but I believe that practitioners of that special art call it a “revealed preference”. An example would be when a potential leadership candidate advocates spending 3% of GDP, only to quietly drop the commitment when they become Chancellor. All our recent Prime Ministers have made all the right noises when it comes to the problems in international security, but none of them, at least from my perspective, has met that challenge with a significant increase. Indeed, I think we can all agree that if that redoubtable and dogged former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)—I let him know that I was going to mention him in the debate—was only able to secure an increase to 2.5%, and even then only by the end of the decade, I do not think anyone is expecting his successor to be any more successful.
I should point out—I say this as something of a sceptic about increasing the defence budget or even the value in such arbitrary targets—that we judge Governments based on their record, and this is what this one has. Once we start to scratch at the how in the UK strategy, the what and the why also start to come unstuck. Let us take the Sea Viper order: what was presented as an announcement to counter this new and specific threat has actually been on the table since 2012, only to be constantly shifted to the right because of pressures elsewhere on the budget.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am grateful, and I regard him as my hon. Friend too. Before he leaves the issue of percentages spent on defence, would he not agree with me that, crude though they are, these are indicators of a national priority? The trouble is that if we do not spend enough on defence in peacetime, and then a conflict breaks out—we are now beginning to hear talk of having to be prepared for major conflict in the next decade or two—we will be spending vastly more than 3% or 4% on defence. So how much better is it to spend a bit more in peacetime to prevent the conflict, and how much better than that is it that America should realise that investing in Ukraine’s effort is also helping to raise the deterrence threshold?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I both agree and disagree. Had the Ministry made sustained investment in capability, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to stay for my Adjournment debate on nuclear infrastructure, in which we might go into the number crunching in far more detail—he may try to pass on that.
Far from being a simple drone killer, Sea Viper is a sophisticated ballistic missile defence system that has been in development since the 1980s. Each Aster 30 missile costs £2 million a pop. Whoever in the main building thought it was a good idea to call it a drone killer evidently had not done the cost-benefit analysis on taking out mass-produced Chinese drones, costing £100, with a £2 million missile. That is before we even get to the platforms that deliver the capability.
The Minister might be able to correct me, but the MOD is now officially refusing to publicly disclose the size of its escort fleet, which the Houthis probably already know—maybe it is in one of the TikToks that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned. That refusal got a bit of play last week, although we should consider the why of it all.
If we can all agree that we are living in a world of increasingly complicated and interlinked threats, why is the Red sea important to the UK? I consulted two principal documents published since I became an MP—the 2015 strategic defence and security review and the 2021 integrated review—but, alas, there was no mention of the Red sea. Yemen was given a single cursory mention in each, and both in the context of other regional conflicts. The Government’s defence is that both documents were written before the Ever Given accident reminded us that the Suez canal and the Red sea are an important bottleneck for global trade.
Ultimately, neither document, one pre-Brexit and one post-Brexit, tells a compelling story about UK engagement in that part of the world, which makes it harder for me, and certainly for the public, to see why sustained engagement, if it happens, is in our long-term interest. Do not get me wrong: even as a committed north Atlanticist who believes that the primary commitment of Scotland and the UK should be to our northern European neighbourhood, I am open to being convinced. But the mood music throughout that time was on global Britain, without elucidating what that actually meant.
Do not get me started on the Indo-Pacific tilt either. The integrated review made the incredible assertion that the UK wishes to be the European state
“with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific”.
That claim received very little interrogation at the time. Again, as a committed north Atlanticist, I was perhaps never going to be on board with the idea of an Indo-Pacific tilt, but the more I try to find out about it, the less convinced I become.
The Indo-Pacific is a big place and is home to two of the three largest oceans in the world and three of the five largest states. Any tilt towards it would surely require some sort of prioritisation, but we have never heard any talk of this. The Red sea region could have been part of that, securing the freedom of maritime trade from the Indo-Pacific and bringing in European partners with a presence in the region, along with others, but there was a complete failure to communicate any of that to Members, never mind to the general public.
Forgive those of us who are sceptical about the what. With the strikes against Houthi targets, we can clearly see the how. The Royal Navy, which is doing a commendable job, is in its poorest and most diminished state for many years. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford alluded to that, and it is a consequence not only of budgetary pressures but of a complete failure of this and previous Governments to make the case for the why, be that in the Red sea or the North sea.
Instead, we have a manpower and retention crisis caused by over a decade of wage stagnation; the ongoing possibility that the two remaining landing platform docks will be mothballed, calling into question the long-term viability of the Royal Marines; and the admission in November that the entire fleet of SSNs was alongside at the same time. Yet if we were going by the MOD’s spin on things, all is well, because we can still field two carrier strike groups, even though everyone knows we would never have the manpower to do so at the same time; the AUKUS deal will allow Astute-class boats to operate in the Pacific ocean, even though, as we have heard, they sometimes cannot even get to the North sea; and—who can forget, from last week—we now have a space laser, or at least we will in 10 or 15 years’ time. So let me end with a general observation: when it comes to UK grand strategy in the Red sea, denial is not just a river you end up in if you take a wrong turn on your way there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As Members can see, 14 Members wish to participate in this debate. Although I am trying not to put a time limit on people’s speeches, if they could show some self-discipline, we will get everybody in with a decent amount of time. I call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have to say that I was disappointed by the approach the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) took to the operations we have had to carry out in the Red sea to protect international shipping. He makes the point, perhaps reasonably, that budgets and the finances of this country are under great pressure and that there has been a cost of living crisis. That crisis has occurred through instability around the world, whether we are talking about supply chains during the pandemic, Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine or, now, the threats to shipping at the key point of entry to the Red sea. Those all have a fundamental impact at home, so investment in defence is not something that just takes money out of the pot that the Government need to spend: it helps to build the security that our constituents need.
Through history, people have too often looked at distant lands and said, “That’s got nothing to do with me.” That view never was true, but today it could never be less true. We see that when we look at exactly how global supply chains end up with things in our supermarkets and when we look at the fuel crisis. Of course, it is not just the increase in the cost of shipping that will add to inflationary pressures, but the fact that modern industry works to a just-in-time system. Widget A may now take three weeks to get to widget B, which may only take a week to get somewhere. That will cause huge back-up production problems in the factories and production plants that move things on to the system. So the time constraints of having to go around the Cape to deliver the goods that are needed that have suddenly been hoisted upon global shipping will end up having a direct impact on our constituents once more. Therefore, it is important that we invest further, certainly in the Royal Navy.
I take issue with people in this House who want to do a disservice to the Royal Navy, which is one of the most advanced and finest navies in the world. We have replaced the vast majority of our capital equipment in this century alone. The technical ability of our Royal Navy outdoes that of a great number of countries, including in respect of many of the capabilities produced in the United States. The Type 45 destroyer was a visionary destroyer and allows wars to be fought in a way that was not feasible before. With the introduction of the Type 26s coming forward, the Type 31s, and the fact that we have renewed our hunter-killer submarines and are renewing Dreadnought, we have huge infrastructure. That is in addition to aircraft carriers, which have always had an important strategic aspect, especially when we are trying to operate alongside the allies. Comments have been made about it always being the USA picking up the burden, but Britain punches above its weight by having that capability.
Where I do think we run into a problem with the MOD and its funding is that, because of rules set by previous Chancellors and carried on as to the difference between borrowing for capital and not spending on revenue, and how that has worked out, it has always been easy to produce a capital spreadsheet in order to produce more ships, but no one ever looks at how much revenue we are going to need to keep those ships running, to keep them serviced and to crew them. That, in itself, needs to be addressed.
Be under no illusion: the situation in the Red sea speaks to the wider issue of the importance of maritime security, which affects the entire world. Although we are part of NATO and we can draw on the support of many allies from around the world to help police the situation in the Red sea, demand for such support will only increase, especially as the high north is used more frequently as a passage for trade during the summer months, in which China is already showing great interest.
The idea that an arc that seems to emanate from or be influenced by Iran is forming around the disruption of maritime trade cannot be dismissed. As has already been mentioned, Iran has an influence on the Houthis in Yemen and on Hezbollah, and we know it is arming Russia. The Russians are doing everything they can to stop grain getting out of Ukraine. The blocking of the Red sea will impede the ability of vital food stocks to get to many areas of the world, leading to starvation, not least in countries such as Lebanon, which is unstable as it stands and has a huge economic crisis. Lebanon has not recovered from the explosions at its grain silos and relies heavily on grain from Ukraine, but it would suit Iran’s overall objective in the region to cause instability in another country neighbouring Israel.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) made clear, we are not willing to tolerate these tiny activities in which Iran takes part. However, we have to be aware that we always look at the issues with western eyes. When those countries look east, they have allies—Russia has been able to trade with many counties to its south and east—and western sanctions only go so far.
I am confident colleagues want to speak in the debate and further develop these ideas. The situation in the Red sea is another flash-point warning that we must invest further in our maritime capability so that we can secure and keep open trade routes that affect the entire world. The investment that we make now has a direct impact on our constituents and their ability to deal with the cost of living crisis, because is not only those who are thousands of miles away who are affected by the situation; it has an impact on even the corner shops in our villages.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The freedom of navigation, maritime security and upholding international law are fundamental principles, and this country, along with international partners, has a duty to uphold them. We have heard about the economic consequences. The disruption caused by what is happening in the Red sea affects peace not only there but throughout the region.
As the Defence Secretary and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, there are complex and historical issues that will need political solutions in due course. These are long-standing disputes with complex origins, whether that be the interference of colonial powers in the past; communal, religious or ethnic rivalries; or the struggle for oil and other natural resources. I do not claim to be an expert, but there are certainly parallels with what happened in the 1960s, with the North Yemen civil war and the Aden emergency—UK forces occupied Aden from 1839 to 1967—and many of the issues have ancient origins.
However, I add a note of caution. I know exactly what has been said by many speakers so far in relation to conflating the actions of the Houthis in Yemen with what is happening in Israel and Palestine. Nobody should be so naive as to think that the motives of the Houthis are humanitarian or unselfish. As the Defence Secretary said, the Houthis are entirely opportunistic in what they are doing, but that is not necessarily the way that it is seen on the Arab street, or by our constituents, so we must address that issue head on. The priority given to dealing with attacks on shipping in the Red sea should also, as many of my constituents say to me, be given to dealing with attacks on human life in Gaza and wherever else, including in Yemen.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions. If I understood him correctly, he set a number of tests that had to be met before there could be a ceasefire in Gaza: all hostages should be released—presumably he means Israeli and Palestinian hostages; Hamas should disarm and disappear from Gaza, so as not to be in a position to threaten Israel or anyone else; and the Palestinian Authority should take over the role of governance there. Nobody would be more pleased than I if those three criteria were met. Indeed, I am sure that hostage release and swaps will be part of any ceasefire, even a temporary one, but how realistic is it to expect that Hamas will disappear overnight or that, to use their own phraseology, the Palestinian Authority will ride into Gaza on the back of Israeli tanks? I do not believe that that is a realistic assessment of where we need to go before a ceasefire occurs.
Today, the Prime Minister was asked by the leader of the Scottish National party—this question is often asked of the Government—whether he believed that war crimes had been committed in Gaza. That is not a difficult question. Yes, it is absolutely true that there are restrictions on journalists and international observers going into Gaza, but there is enough coming out of Gaza to see that it is not an exhaustive list. None the less, many leading international jurists have seen deprivation of life, collective punishment, arbitrary detention, denial of basic services including healthcare, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Simply to reply, as any Government spokesman does, that Israel should comply with international humanitarian law, is not sufficient. The question is: is Israel complying in that way?
Today, I noted that a 200-page opinion piece, published by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights but authored by independent jurists, found that in Gaza, persecution—a crime against humanity—had been committed more intensely since 7 October, but that it goes back to 2007, when the siege of Gaza began. If the Government’s position is to be credible they must address those events. What is happening in Gaza is extraordinary: 1% of the population—25,000 people—have been killed in three months under the most horrific circumstances. We heard the shadow Defence Secretary describe that in his opening remarks, and there are strong parallels with what is going on.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On international law, let us face it: international humanitarian law is the last resort, when other things have gone wrong. Perhaps the side that we politicians can take is that of morality. What is the right thing to do? What is the humanitarian thing to do? What should we do about human misery? That is why the immediate bilateral ceasefire is so important. There is a choice. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court will be looking at the war crimes, and it is right to let the courts do their job, but the Government could also have made a moral judgment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Andy Slaughter
I think I always agree with the hon. Member on this issue, if not on others. She has clear personal knowledge of it, and is under particular strain because her extended family are in Gaza. I pay tribute to her ability to maintain the objectivity that she has just shown in her comments.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We have just had a debate in Westminster Hall on human rights, and Gaza came up. During the debate it was revealed that the Foreign Office had sought evidence from its legal advisers on the legality of actions that have been taken by Israel, going back to 10 November. We did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister responding to that debate, but should the Government not publish that advice? I also understand that since the new Foreign Secretary arrived he has asked for a review of that legal advice.
Andy Slaughter
I also agree with my hon. Friend.
The deaths that continue to occur daily in Gaza have so far been mostly the result of military action, but we have reached a point where the number of deaths through privation and disease is overtaking them. There is a strong parallel with what happened in Yemen, where about 150,000 people—mainly civilians—have been killed over the course of the civil war that began in 2014. At least another 200,000 have died through disease and privation as a consequence of the civil war, and we are at that tipping point in Gaza. Yes, those are higher numbers, but they are from a much longer period. Many of the same arguments apply, and I do not think any Member present would not wish to see an end to the suffering in both Yemen and Gaza. We need a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, and pressure from the UK alongside partners could play a much bigger role in achieving that.
Secondly, we need aid and reconstruction, but that requires a more permanent peace, because many donors, including EU and UK donors, who have contributed to the reconstruction in the past have seen the money wasted as a result of further military action. Better governance is also needed, and support for civil society. One of the most cynical things that has happened since the terrible, tragic events of 7 October—we all feel for the people of Israel for what they suffered then—is that the response has been not just to go after Hamas but to destroy civilian neighbourhoods and civil society. Destroying law courts, destroying the Parliament, and destroying the records office appears designed to make Gaza ungovernable. That has to be addressed as well.
One could make exactly the same points in relation to Yemen. These are two of the great catastrophes going on in the world. There may be points where we do not want to link the two, but there are clear points where we do. What puts Gaza in a different category than Yemen, is that we are dealing with occupation. Following his statement yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister when the UK will recognise a Palestinian state. Unsurprisingly, he gave an answer that will be familiar to everyone present, and said that
“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that best serves the peace process.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 166.]
That time is now, or nearly now, because it is impossible to have serious negotiations towards peace unless they are between two sovereign states, notwithstanding conditions in Gaza and, increasingly, conditions in the west bank as well.
Let us not pretend that the recognition of a Palestinian state would put Israel and Palestine on an even keel, but without it as a precondition of the negotiations, they simply will not get off the ground. I hope we see that change in position. There is strong support not just for our military, but for the diplomatic initiatives that the UK is doing in the middle east.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have given the hon. Member a lot of latitude, as he is focused on one aspect, but the debate is on the situation in the Red sea. If he could direct his attention towards that subject, I would be extremely grateful.
Andy Slaughter
I should have taken your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than the advice of the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), at the beginning of the debate. You interrupt me at an appropriate point, because I am concluding my remarks. There is strong support from all sides, but we need to go further. Britain’s historical responsibility in the region requires us to make that additional diplomatic effort.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on a very wide-ranging speech, albeit somewhat remote from the situation in the Red sea, as you correctly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Defence Secretary, who is not in his place, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who both spoke with great care, diplomacy and sense. They fulfilled precisely what this place ought to be about, namely His Majesty’s Government laying out their views and the loyal Opposition scrutinising what they have done.
Before I say anything else, I make it clear that I strongly support the strikes in the Red sea and all the remarks made by my hon. Friends, most of whom are much better informed on these matters than me. I strongly support the strikes, the way they were carried out and the reasoning for them.
If I may, I will take a slightly different approach—rather than simply the diplomatic, foreign affairs and military approaches—and look at the way in which the strikes were ordered. Particularly after the first strike, a great many people, including a number of people in this House—perhaps we will hear from the Liberal Democrats later on—were of the view that it was quite wrong. “The House should be recalled,” they said. “We should have a vote in this House on whether the strikes were justified,” it was said. “It was quite wrong that Parliament should not have the opportunity to express our views on the most important matter facing us all, namely warfare,” it was said. I am glad to say that the Government resisted those calls, and the way in which the strikes were ordered seemed—I will come back to precisely why in a moment—to be absolutely right.
I have been talking about this subject for some time. Indeed, I wrote a book about it, which, if I may say so, is available in all good bookshops. When I expressed the view in a debate some 15 or 20 years ago that it was wrong that the House of Commons should vote on going to war, it was greeted widely with scorn. Everybody said, “That’s absurd; that’s a ridiculous thing to say.” We can check Hansard for that. Indeed, when Lord Hague wrote an extensive article on the matter, he said very straightforwardly and simply, “When we go to war, the House of Commons and the House of Lords must decide on it. It must be done by a vote.” I am glad to say that last week the noble Lord Hague went through a damascene conversion. He has changed his mind on the matter and now entirely supports my view. Equally in my view, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which wrote a report on these matters, got it wrong. It said that it thought the House of Commons should have a vote before deployment. I take a stringently different view, because there is a large number of very important reasons why that should not be the case.
First, all pretence of secrecy would of course be destroyed. We would have a debate in this place, and the enemy would know precisely what we were planning to do. Secondly, we could not take that kind of decision without consulting our neighbours. The decision might well be part of a NATO strike or, in this case, a joint UK-US strike. Are we ready to ask NATO, the United Nations or the US to wait while we discuss the matter here? What happens if we vote against it here, but those wherever else vote in favour?
Thirdly, we are galloping down a very dangerous road if we ask the Prime Minister to come to this House and share with us the secret intelligence, legal advice and strategic knowledge on which he makes these difficult decisions, as he would be exposing many of our professional supporters to criticism or, indeed, to attack one way or another. It would be quite wrong if he did so. I do not want to know the secret intelligence. I do not want to know the legal advice. I want the right to scrutinise what the Government have done after they have done it.
It is also extremely important that warfare should not be politicised. If we vote in this House either to go to war or not to do so, we as MPs are taking a view of it. We are sending people to war while squabbling among ourselves about whether the war is right, wrong or indifferent. That seems to me quite wrong from the point of view of the families, particularly of those who are killed, who would then say, “Well, one party or the other took a strongly different view from you.”
Before I come to the final reason for my strong views on this matter, I must point out to the House that, of the 274 wars that England has taken part in since 1750, we have voted in this House on only two. Only twice in all those years have we voted prior to deployment. The first time was in 2003, when Tony Blair asked this House to vote on Iraq and whipped the Labour party into supporting the war. The Conservative party was also whipped; I am glad to say I rebelled against the Whip, but none the less we were whipped into supporting the war, and what a bad decision that was—quite the wrong decision.
The second time in all that 300-year to 400-year history that we had a vote in this House on going to war was before a potential Syria strike in 2013, which did not then occur. The House voted against it, and very much of the bloodshed, the corruption and the disaster that we see in Syria to this day comes about as a result of those votes. America followed us the next day and equally did not strike against the use of chemical weapons. That was a wrong decision made by this House, as in my view was the Iraq decision of 2003, and those are the only two occasions when, prior to deployment, we have voted.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am afraid I do. I agree with my hon. Friend’s main thrust, that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Executive have the right to take initial action and seek support afterwards. Having said that, the case of Syria in particular has become a byword for a wrong and terrible decision, because the ghastly Assad remained in power, but the alternative would have been another Islamist swamp such as we saw in Libya. It was because there was a strong feeling in the House that Syria would have been another Iraq or another Libya that there was such pressure to have a vote. For my part, I think the result was absolutely right.
James Gray
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point: he thinks we should not have had strikes against Syria, and therefore he thinks we should have had a vote on the matter, because the vote went against the strikes. However, let us imagine there was some other very important or essential war, in the moment before a general election, with a very small majority on one side or the other. That war would then become political. He might well find under those circumstances that a war that he strongly believed in and wanted to support was voted down by this House, rather than by the generals or the Prime Minister.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Perhaps both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will agree that, while it can be risky and dangerous to intervene, it can also be risky and dangerous not to intervene. Perhaps they would both agree on that point.
James Gray
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I very much welcome him to the Front Bench. He is doing a good job standing in for the Foreign Secretary. I hope he will take note of the Procedure Committee’s report this afternoon on how a Secretary of State who is in the House of Lords should or should not be questioned by this House, and that the Government will accept the Procedure Committee’s proposal, namely that the Foreign Secretary should be called to the Bar of the House to take questions.
Bob Seely
I think I support what my hon. Friend says. Of the two times we voted on military action, the first time we were misled and the second time we were stung by having been misled, so we went the wrong way. As someone who was quite close to the Libyan conflict, as I saw it play out with ISIS in northern Iraq, I think we should have taken military action in principle over the use of chemical weapons. By not doing so, regardless of the outcome of the Syrian war, we weakened the idea of western resolve. I know it can be a bit of a cliché, but if we have a red line and dictators ignore it, we end up in a world of pain.
James Gray
Both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) are seeking to involve me in a debate about a matter that happened some 10 or 15 years ago and is well beyond the scope of the debate. My point is not about whether or not striking against Syria was right, wrong or indifferent, but about the fact that we in this House chose not to do so. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), was absolutely right to say that not doing something is often as bad as doing something.
We in this House had a shortage of information—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) knows a lot about these things, and I am ready to admit that I do not—of briefings, of secret intelligence and of legal advice, but we chose to take that decision. It seems to me that, in the extremely dangerous world that we live in, we will see an awful lot of these decisions taken in the months and years to come. The way in which matters were handled this time shows that the pendulum, which had swung from the divine right of Kings in the middle ages, whereby the King decided on his own, to the time in 2003 and 2013 when we allowed this House to vote, albeit not necessarily sensibly, has swung back to precisely where it ought to be—namely, that if this House votes on something, it is, by that means, diminished. We cannot then hold the Government to account; we cannot come back and say, “You, Mr Government, have got that wrong,” because we voted for it. And if we had voted for it, the Secretary of State would surely say, “But you voted for it!”
Our whole purpose in this House and this Chamber is to scrutinise what the Government have done, hold them to account and, if necessary, remove them when they do the wrong thing.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend mentioned the world becoming a more dangerous place. We have known throughout the history of the NATO alliance that deterrence is one of the best ways to keep the peace. That is why we have the continuous at-sea deterrence: nobody knows where or when it may be used. To further his argument, if we want to keep the peace, is there not far greater deterrence in a decision being taken immediately rather than with 24 or 48 hours’ notice?
James Gray
I am not certain that my right hon. Friend, whom, incidentally, I congratulate on his knighthood, has quite grasped the subtlety of the point that I was trying to make, which was not so much about the substance of defence but about the way in which we take decisions in this House.
The point I was making was that if we vote on something, as happened to the Labour party over Iraq in 2003, it then becomes extremely difficult to criticise the Government for what they do subsequently. It is right that we should scrutinise the Government, but we should not vote on these matters. We should have huge debates, statements and votes after deployment, but the moment that we allow ourselves to be forced into whipped votes before deployment, we are, by definition, emasculating this House. It is quite wrong from the point of view of defence and from the point of view of parliamentary scrutiny. We demand the right to scrutinise the Government, and we can do that only if we do not vote on the wars.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am getting slightly anxious about time. My advice is that colleagues stick to a maximum of eight minutes. If we cannot achieve that, I will have to put on a time limit, but I would rather not. I call Jeff Smith.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you will be pleased to know that I intend to be brief. Originally, I was going to speak about a number of issues, including the situation in Ukraine, but I am grateful to be able to comment briefly on the situation in the Red sea and the region.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) indicated from the Front Bench, Labour supports, as do I, the targeted and limited strikes on the Houthi military targets in Yemen. We should be clear about the nature of the attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, which were opportunistic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has just pointed out. We should reject the Houthi claim that UK and US airstrikes on their positions are related to the conflict in Gaza.
Nevertheless, there are things that we must continue to say about the situation in Gaza. We watched in horror the attacks on 7 October, and have watched in horror the level of suffering and deaths in Gaza since. We urgently need a ceasefire to end that suffering, we need the release of hostages, and we need urgently to address the biggest humanitarian crisis in that region in a generation. People are facing starvation and thirst, and are without medical assistance. I pay tribute to all the organisations that are carrying out humanitarian work in the most difficult conditions. I have been getting regular updates from Medical Aid for Palestinians, which does great work there given the impossible situation that some of its workers have been put in. Of course, the situation is made worse by the fact that Gaza is not somewhere people can get out of. I encourage the Government to keep pressing the Israeli and Egyptian authorities to open the crossings for aid, but also to allow the people who need to get out to do so. I have raised with the Minister the particular case of a constituent of mine whose wife and baby daughter are on the border at Rafah. We need to keep pressing for them to be able to get out of that crossing and out of danger.
On the specific issue of the Red sea and the strikes on Houthi targets, the UN Security Council was strong in its condemnation of the attacks on shipping by the Houthis, and we join in that condemnation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, we cannot afford for those attacks to continue and go unanswered, and there is a cost to non-intervention. Freedom of navigation is an important principle, and there are innocent seafarers from around the world on the commercial ships that pass through that vital route.
At this point, I need to declare an interest: I am very proud of my nephew, who is training to be a commercial nautical engineer. He is working for Maersk, one of the companies whose ships have been attacked, and as any family member from any country would, I want him and workers like him to be protected from terrorist attacks if they have to make a journey via the Red sea. Innocent commercial shipping workers from around the world are put at risk by the reckless and illegal attacks of the Houthis, and those workers need protection, as do our brave Navy personnel.
It may well be impossible to completely stop Houthi attacks. We know that the Houthis have been hardened by the long civil war in Yemen and have been subject to a long history of attacks by the Saudi-led coalition, so they know about being attacked, but that does not mean that we should not do what we can to degrade and limit their capacity to carry out attacks. Those attacks cannot go unanswered. However, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, we also need a diplomatic strategy to stop the risk of escalation, making it clear that these are targeted and proportional attacks that do not aim to escalate a wider conflict—that is something we need to avoid at all costs. Yes, we support targeted action to protect freedom of navigation and to protect civilians and our naval personnel, but we need a political process towards a sustainable peace and security in Yemen, in Gaza, and in the region. I encourage the Government to continue to work for that political solution.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to all of our armed forces personnel who have been involved in action in the Red sea. They always rise to any challenge asked of them with professionalism and courage, and are a great example of the fact that our armed forces are so much more than the hardware we invest in.
I accept the point that the Secretary of State for Defence made at the outset of the debate—there is no direct link between the conflict in Gaza and the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red sea—but we would be wrong not to accept that there is interconnectivity between the tensions in different parts of the middle east today, and we need to understand the context of those tensions.
Back in 2020, the Trump Administration brokered the Abraham accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and then Morocco. It was a great exercise in leadership to bring reconciliation to a part of the world that had seen too much conflict for too long. It has resulted in a big improvement: both economically, in terms of business and trade between the countries involved, and in people-to-people relationships. For example, around half a million Israelis visited Dubai in the past few years, something that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago.
However, there was always one country that did not want the Abraham accords to succeed: Iran. It did not want those accords to succeed because it did not believe in a two-state solution, because it did not believe that Israel should exist. Ayatollah Khamenei has been tremendously consistent in his views about the purity of the Islamic revolution, his detestation of the west, and his contempt for the existence of the state of Israel. Anyone who is interested should read the book “Reading Khamenei” by Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Iran was never going to want to see peace between the Arab states and Israel, because that threatened Iran’s hegemony—as it saw it—over the Islamic parts of the middle east.
The big question was always: what would Saudi Arabia do? It is a major player in the security of both the Red sea and the Gulf. When I saw the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia on Fox News saying that every day he believed Saudi Arabia was closer to peace and reconciliation with Israel, my first reaction was that Iran would react against it, whether through its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, funded and armed by Iran; Hezbollah in Lebanon, funded and armed by Iran; or the Houthis in Yemen, funded and armed by Iran. In fact, it turns out that we now see all three being active, and we need to understand that that “axis of resistance” against the west, as Iran calls it, is something it will keep going as long as it possibly can. It will not seek peace; it will resist peace at all times.
In the Red sea, we are absolutely right to say—as many Members have done, and I do not want to go over that territory again—that the Houthi threat is a specific one that we must deal with. Some 95% of UK exports and imports go by sea, and in the whole global trading environment, 15% of all global trade passes through the Bab al-Mandab strait. As many Members have said, not to act would leave international maritime law in tatters, and having no deterrence there whatsoever would risk a bout of global inflation. We saw what the disruption from the conflict in Ukraine could do, and the same would be true were there to be permanent disruption in the Red sea. We would have disruption of vital supply chains, including food and the medicines that so many people depend on. So we were right to take action.
However, we need to come back to understanding the role of Iran in this and other processes. We have seen Iran develop drones that are sent to Russia by Iran Air to oppress the people of Ukraine, yet Iran Air still flies out of Heathrow airport in the United Kingdom. Why is it tolerated? We have seen the money moved around the global financial system by Iran to fund its proxies, but we still have two Iranian banks trading in the City of London within a stone’s throw of the Bank of England. Why is that happening? As the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said, we have videos of antisemitic speeches by IRGC generals being investigated by the Charity Commission. The regulator is looking at footage of “Death to Israel” chants on an Islamic charity’s UK premises. Two of the videos show talks by IRGC leaders about an apocalyptic war on the Jews. Again as my hon. Friend said, the IRGC actually took responsibility this week for a military attack on a foreign territory, which is something they have not had the audacity to do before.
So I ask again: why is the IRGC not a proscribed organisation in this country? It is clearly involved in a wide range of activity that is dangerous to Britain’s national interests and our security. I have never once, when I have raised this issue in the House, been given a clear answer from those on the Front Branch about why we will not ban Iran Air, why we will not stop Iranian banks in the City and why we will not proscribe the IRGC. I live in a little bit of extra hope that we may get an answer tonight.
Sir Liam Fox
It is an answer, but it is not a very convincing one. I hope we will get a better answer from the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who I know is well capable of giving us answers in greater detail than that.
We face a choice in the Red sea and beyond: we are either going to deal with the political problems we face or, rather than the rosy future that the Abraham accords offered, we can go back to 1971, with a radicalised generation in the middle east and return to all the problems of hijacks, Munich and all the things we thought we had left behind us.
We need to drive a solution. As the Prime Minister said earlier this week, there must be a commitment to a two-state solution, and it is not acceptable for anyone to put a political block on that. We need security guarantees to be given for Israel and the Israeli people, who have a right to live in peace, and for any future Palestinian state. That will require an international peace agreement. It will require the United States, Saudi Arabia and others all to be willing to commit to that peace. It will require a new way of looking at politics in the region, and it is right that Hamas cannot be part of that if there is to be any way forward, and there will need to be massive economic reconstruction in the area.
In conclusion, let me say what I have said before in the House: when we look at the whole region, we see that peace is not just the absence of war or conflict, but the freedom from the fear of conflict, oppression or terror. It comes with concepts of rights that have to apply to all people—not just rights and dignity, but enforceable rights and dignity. Only when all the people of the middle east and the wider region have access to all those things will we have any chance of achieving the peace that is not just part of their security, but part of our security.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), because I agree so much with what he just said, and in particular with the way he set out how Iran decides to back many different groups that will cause chaos. That root cause itself needs to be addressed.
Although I am half Palestinian, we lived in Jordan for five years just after King Hussein passed away, and we were in Egypt just after the Arab spring, so my link to the region is not just by blood; we were there. When we talk about the middle east, it sometimes feels as though we are playing 3D chess, while spinning around most of the time, trying to understand who is in, who is out and what is happening. It is fair to say that the region has been poorly led and poorly served by its politicians for very many decades. Arabs are proud, intelligent, capable people who have every right to live in dignity and security, as does anyone else. I am sorry to say that there have been elements of the debate about Israel and Palestine that seem to forget that. When we talk about peace in the region, we often omit that Palestinians need to be at the heart of it as much as Israelis.
We talk about Arab-led, and yes absolutely—Arab-led. Let me draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I went to the Manama dialogue at the invitation of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. When we were there, we heard from the Bahraini Foreign Minister, who made clear the case for why peace and two states is not just in the interests of Israel and Palestine, but is in Bahrain’s interests as well. It is a regional interest, and the reason for that—this is linked to what previous speakers have said—is because this is the biggest toy that Iran and other mischief makers in the region have to play with, and they have been playing with it for their own nefarious ends for far too long. They have no real interest in the Palestinian people. Let me be clear: when I speak to other Palestinians, we know that. We know that they are jumping on the bandwagon now. We still talk about the paper tigers of the ’60s, and lots of Arab states will say when it is convenient for them that they will come and ride in our defence. But when at that final moment it comes to who backs us, the answer is, “Well, no one”, and so we rely on ourselves. That is the view of pretty much every Palestinian I know.
That said, it does not mean that we do not need help, so this is my plea for help. Two states is not just in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians. Let me emphasise Israelis as well, because the peace camp in Israel has taken an enormous blow. Let us remind ourselves that very many peace activists have been taken hostage and been disgracefully raped. Hamas is no friend to the Palestinian cause. But this war has driven ordinary, peace-loving people into the arms of the extremes of the debate, and when we look at the polls—one was done very recently—we see that people are now backing Hamas and backing Netanyahu, when before they did not. We must reflect on that.
Why has that happened? These are the same people as before 7 October. The reason it has happened is because we have allowed it to happen. The longer this war is waged in the way it has been waged, and in the way that it feels so one-sided, with the humanity at the centre of it not at its heart, by the western world in particular, the more abandoned ordinary people feel. And when people feel abandoned, that is when the centre ground where the dialogue happens is vacated.
My plea to this House continues to be to not forget the Palestinian cause. Yes, I am here with my Palestinian scarf and my blood, but I say that not for me but for regional security. I put it to the Minister that the cause is in Britain’s security interests, and we can see that for ourselves. When we say that the region is a tinderbox, we do not mean that one thing is causal on another, but that there are multiple flashpoints, and all it takes is for one thing to go wrong and we find that they all blow up at the same time. That is why the debate and earlier vote were important. It is true that the Houthis wanted this to happen, but that risk of escalation is real. There was a true and legitimate concern that we had to act, and not acting is also acting. We back what the Government have done, but what happens if things start to go wrong? What if that nuclear reaction starts to get out of control and we end up in a situation where that tinderbox has been set alight? The worry I have is that whenever we have questioned the Prime Minister on how we come off this ledge, we have not had that assurance on what the plan is. We still do not have that plan.
On plans, the recognition of the state of Palestine has never been more important. I talk about an immediate bilateral ceasefire to bring the people from the extremes back to the centre and to start to heal some of the wounds, but a ceasefire is not the end; a ceasefire only ever freezes a conflict. If we want to say, “This is the last time”—I sincerely believe that across this House there is broad agreement on that point—we need to get serious about how we bring the two states back to the table, and quickly.
We have only to look at what is happening in America and the chances of Trump coming back to see that our window of opportunity—that is in terms not just of public opinion, which is at its height, but of an America that is willing to be a willing partner—is fast diminishing. We know that the European Union is talking about a conference. We know that the Arab states are also talking. My question to the Minister is: who are we talking to? How quickly do we think we can get this twin track or whatever we want to call it off the ground? As part of that, I urge him, as I have in previous debates, to recognise Palestine sooner rather than later.
Putting my Palestine hat back on for a moment, all we Palestinians want is the power to have what all other countries have. We want our own votes at the United Nations. We want to raise our own money to rebuild and to educate our children. It is not the case that we are not capable; we just do not have the tools. What we want above all is to live in dignity alongside our Israeli cousins. It is the scars that we so sadly share that will bind us together. Like scars, they are not comfortable, but often when the bone grows back it is stronger than before. That is how both peoples feel. They need to be given the tools as equal partners to be able to resolve this conflict. Without a very early, full-fledged recognition of the Palestinian state—I argue that should be first, not last in the process—we will never get there.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). She spoke wisely on many of the issues, and I suspect the Minister will have listened carefully.
I start by thanking all our personnel currently operating in the eastern Mediterranean and east of Suez. Even in peaceful times it is an area that calls for the highest professionalism and alertness. When we are facing the challenges that we now have, the stress on them is even greater. Our interest in the area around Yemen predates the Suez canal because of its place in our original sea route to India around the cape. The Aden protectorate, where I was born, was a major trading base. That has continued, with 15% of world shipping and 30% of global container traffic depending on freedom of navigation in the Red sea through the Bab al-Mandab straits.
We must be realistic about the Houthis’ motivations in their attacks and piracy. The forgotten civil war in Yemen has been going on since 2013, with a ceasefire in place for much of the last 15 months, yet Yemen—even more so the Houthis—seemed to explode into our consciousness in this country only with the attacks on shipping, although it is regularly debated in this place.
The ceasefire in Yemen has not been perfect. Acts of violence have carried on at a low level. The Houthis have gained much from the peace talks, although they have an appalling human rights record, using sexual violence against women and the exploitation of children—the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about that. I am concerned that the entire ceasefire is now jeopardised because of the Houthis’ actions and our response. In addition, the Houthis are clear that they see a linkage between their actions in the Red sea and the situation in Gaza. I say to them that attacking ships will not help the Palestinian cause.
Targeted strikes by the US, the UK and allies will continue to protect shipping. However, the consequences of a prolonged series of strikes on the Yemeni people will be appalling. I cannot stress enough the catastrophe that will follow if the Houthis shut out humanitarian aid, if the ceasefire collapses or if navigation around the Yemeni coast becomes impossible. Yemen imports 90% of its food, and 17 million people are already at risk of famine. Seventy per cent the Yemeni population live in the areas that the Houthis currently control, and financing of the UN humanitarian response plan dropped from 55% of requirement in 2022 to 38% in 2023—and it has not even been announced for 2024. Most of Yemen’s imports come through the Hodeidah port, so if the port becomes inoperable, the consequences will be severe.
I urge extreme caution about any move to proscribe Ansar Allah, because there is a risk that the following humanitarian effort may be destroyed. Fifty per cent of humanitarian funding comes from the United States, and most of that is needed in Houthi-controlled areas. The United States has been mindful of that in applying its special designation on the Houthis and, having raised that with the Prime Minister yesterday, I am sure that our Government will be cautious, too.
Even with a ceasefire in place, the threat has remained to everyone in Yemen because the economy is so badly damaged. Collapsing and insecure societies breed radicalism and become threats to global security, so we must keep up our diplomatic efforts to save the ceasefire, and we should be cautious about seeing Iran behind every action that the Houthis take. Iran does not have full control of their actions—they very much act independently—although Iran could stop providing intelligence, weapons and finance and work towards de-escalation in the area.
The Houthis are an organisation that includes many people who defected from the previous Yemeni regime, sadly trained and armed by the west. The remains of western munitions are being used against the coalition supporting the Yemeni Government. The Houthis co-operated with the UN on the Safer tanker, which posed a huge pollution threat to the entire Red Sea, and they have been allowing humanitarian agencies to carry on their work. It is therefore concerning that they are now threatening to shut those out agencies.
Equally, we must ensure that any sanctions that we impose do not stop humanitarian access. The UK has been a leader in aid, and I am grateful to the Government for their support for the Yemeni people. I pay tribute to the UN special envoy Hans Grundberg, whom I met last year, and who is working incredibly hard for a final peace process.
How we respond to a crisis at the pinch points either side of Bab al-Mandab will be watched by other potential transgressors eyeing other opportunities. This is a key test of our return east of Suez. It is a strategy that commits us to respond to threats on the Malacca strait, the South China sea or the seas around Taiwan. It requires our alliances such as AUKUS to be militarily effective and not just defence export opportunities. Those alliances need to be founded on a belief by our partners that we will show up to bolster them when they are the first line of defence.
We can only project power from a secure base in the UK. We are responding to our personnel challenges with the excellent work done by Rick Haythornthwaite. However, we need to see results, and the major issues of service accommodation persist, along with niggly things such as lack of free access to of wi-fi on bases. Our personnel need secure and happy family lives at home. When they deploy, their effectiveness depends on knowing that their loved ones will be cared for. If we want people to fight for our values, we must ensure that they feel valued themselves. Ships, tanks and aircraft without crews are useless.
Finally, while we are right to act to deter Houthi violence against international shipping, I urge the House to remember that this is one chapter in a long and tragic civil war. So far, our attitude has been supportive to the Yemeni people who are suffering so much. I hope that will continue.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). I hope the Minister and the House listened to her wise insights.
I think there is a broad consensus across the House that we are absolutely right to take action to defend international shipping. The Houthis have been called out this afternoon and it is right that we do so. We also need to recognise the humanitarian crisis that exists in Sudan and Yemen, and the wider security concerns that we have in the region. There have been no honourable actors in Yemen and it is the population of that country that has suffered. Famine has gone hand in hand with war in that country.
As has been mentioned by others, we need to guard against any threat of escalation across the region. We need to think about the nature of the threats we face together with allies, and the importance of leadership not just in dealing with terrorist threats from the Houthis but in diplomatic action across the region. Acting together with our friends and allies in Europe and, as has been mentioned, through the agency of the United Nations, we must recognise the dangers of sleepwalking into wider conflict and the bad actors we face; the intentions of Iran; the challenges we face with Putin and Russia; and the challenges we face with China and North Korea.
It is important to ensure that we deliver peace and stability throughout the world. When we add to that the threats of disinformation and misinformation, and the polarisation that has been seen through much of our politics, these are issues that go beyond the Red sea. It is important, whether we are talking about Yemen or the middle east, that we win hearts and minds, because we have to challenge the spiralling regional instability.
Today, when we consider the Red sea, it has to be seen as part of a broader landscape of instability and the geopolitical threats we face around the world. There is no link, as has been said by many others, to what is going on in Gaza, but we do need to reflect on what is going on there. The awful events of 7 October last year will forever remain with us all, and of course there must be peace and security for Israel, but it is time to recognise that Palestinians have rights and that the Palestinian state must be recognised. Dealing with that threat and removing Hamas does not mean having to flatten Gaza. We are now living with the humanitarian crisis that we see as a result of that.
It should shame us all that we are now talking about in excess of 25,000 Palestinians who have perished since last October—innocent civilians who have been targeted for what? We must not lose sight of the legitimate rights of the Israelis and Palestinians to find peace and harmony together. To deliver a two-state solution is the only way to resolve conflict in that war-torn region. We must redouble our efforts to make sure that, out of this crisis, we deliver peace and hope for the Palestinians, Israelis and all of us.
Over the last few months, we have watched the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East seek to continue its valiant efforts to provide sanctuary for people in Gaza. Sadly, too many UN personnel, as well as civilians, have lost their lives in this conflict. The UN humanitarian agencies have done their best on the frontline, but the UN Security Council has been paralysed, as it has been for decades, through the power of veto. The time has come to provide proper leadership and to question how these agencies should operate.
How should we get the collaboration necessary to deal with the challenges in the Red sea, Gaza and elsewhere? We need to recognise that the effectiveness of the UN to deliver has been blunted by the power of the veto. My contention is that the UN faces barriers that inhibit its delivery. At its core, the problem is so often a lack of leadership and the use of the veto by any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
When we consider that the provision of the veto was not part of the UN charter, it is right that we now question its use. When we consider that this power sits only with the five permanent members of the Security Council, we have to question the suitability of the existence of that power. Surely it is time to reform the Security Council and its membership, and it is certainly time to remove the power of the veto. We should bear in mind that four resolutions on the subject of Gaza have been stymied during the last few months.
When we look at conflict around the world, we should remember the threat that the influence of bad actors, be they Iran, Russia or China and North Korea, present to the maintaining of world order. The challenges in the Red sea cannot be seen in isolation; we face multiple threats across the globe. We must remind ourselves that in Europe, Ukraine must prevail against Russian aggression. We need to work in a spirit of collaboration, within Europe, with our NATO allies and globally through the United Nations, to support Ukraine.
We also need to recognise that democracy itself is being pushed back and is under attack in so many parts of the world. Tellingly, when so many people in the world face elections this year, faith and trust in democracy, and—let us be under no illusion—democracy itself are under threat throughout the world. The electoral cycle this year has enormous implications for co-operation, peace and security, but also for economic prosperity, for dealing with the challenge of climate change and making this an opportunity for sustainable economic growth. That is important here, and it is important in Yemen.
For us, NATO has been instrumental in providing peace and security in Europe, but now we face a threat of decoupling from our largest ally, the United States, on the back of indifference from political leaders in that country. When political leaders in the US are questioning supporting the cause of peace and stability in Europe against Russian aggression, alarm bells should be ringing. The question of UK and European leadership and the need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine ought to be self-evident. We need to recognise that taking it for granted that the US is an ally of Europe against Russian aggression in Ukraine may no longer be the default position, and we need to provide the support necessary to enable Ukraine to prevail. Ukraine must ward off Russian aggression, because failure to do so is not just a threat to the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, but a threat to the rest of Europe.
What does this mean for us in these islands? Europe and all of us in these islands need to think about our own strategic autonomy, and thought must be given to the mechanisms and forums that will allow that to take place. The first and most pressing priority is supporting and arming Ukraine. The central question must be this: what will it take for Ukraine to restore its sovereignty and independence, and how will it do that? We must go beyond the necessary announcements of support for now, and think through the strategic initiatives that will help Ukraine to win. Putin can never win. To put it simply, we provide the resources for Ukraine to win, and those in Ukraine provide our peace and security in Europe. That is the deal. Failure to secure Ukrainian freedom takes us into territory where our wider freedoms in Europe and around the world will be under threat, with an emboldened Putin pushing his expansionist agenda.
I have argued that we in these islands have a part to play in showing leadership, along with our partners and allies in Europe. We have a mutual self-interest in strengthening the capabilities of the United Nations in these challenging times. The risks to peace and security are at a level that we have not witnessed since the second world war. There is the situation in Europe, with the people of Ukraine bearing the brunt of Soviet aggression. There is the crisis in the middle east, in Gaza, with the potential for an ever-widening conflict. There is unrest in many parts of Africa. The drumbeat for war is ever increasing. Democracy is under attack, and indeed in retreat, in much of the world.
Intolerance and division are on the rise. We have to be a voice for good and a voice for reason. Standing up against tyrants and seeking peace, security and stability in a fractious world is the responsibility of all of us. Such leadership is greatly needed both here and abroad, and it is important in that regard that we have a full and informed debate here, and seek to build consensus here and leadership globally with others. History will judge us on how we accept our responsibilities to deliver peace and security in the Red sea and elsewhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind Members of my eight minute guidance.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will try to wind up after seven minutes. I am mindful that lots of others want to get in. Lots of good speeches today; I just want to start by referring to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I completely agree with what she is saying about a two-state solution. Those friends of Israel who give Netanyahu and the Israeli right an easy ride on this are no friends of Israel, as far as I can see, because all they are doing is making Israel’s long-term future significantly more precarious. Israel’s existence is accepted and guaranteed when there is peace with the Palestinians, and until there is peace with Palestinians, Israel is always going to be under threat of some kind.
Where I differ from the hon. Lady is on her optimism. I would have agreed with her in the 1990s, but there has been so much more awful water under the bridge since then. On Palestinian statehood, I cannot see a good reason not to do it now, but if we had Palestinian statehood now and Hamas immediately took over that Palestinian statehood in the west bank, it would simply undermine the cause of Palestinian statehood. There is a significant problem there and, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) rightly pointed out, Iran is behind so much of this.
I want to make a few points in the brief time I have. I want to make reference to the excellent speech made my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and also the speech of the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). There appears to be a growing, significant, provable link between the use of proxy warfare and non-state actors, often used by other states, and the rise in conflict-related sexual violence, which in some parts of the world and some conflicts is now endemic. We saw that with ISIS, which is a non-state actor, and arguably nobody’s proxy, in the use of Yazidi women effectively as the spoils of war until they were raped to death. We have seen it with the abuse of Israeli women by Hamas, but Hamas are also increasingly intolerant in their Islamist attitude towards women in their own society. We have also seen it with the Houthis, with Wagner in Ukraine and with Russian troops. It occasionally involves state troops, as well as non-state actors and proxies, and there is an increasing casualness with which sexual violence is used in conflict, which I think should disturb us all.
The world is moving to a more dangerous place; that is quite clear. It has been becoming more dangerous since 2010. Putin declared his new cold war in his Munich speech in 2007, but we did not want to notice. Unfortunately, everything since then has progressed quite logically from Putin’s point of view, although we have still feigned surprise. I do not know why we do that. Since 2015 we have had a growing China problem with an increasingly intolerant regime under President Xi. There is a battle for humanity under way in the 21st century between open societies and closed societies and between societies where AI and big data will hopefully be used to improve the quality of human life and places such as Iran, China and Russia where AI and big data will increasingly be used to control people and societies and, effectively, in an Orwellian state, to prevent people from rebelling because it will be possible to use algorithms to identify when they are about to rebel or fight back and do something about it. That is the bigger picture that we are dealing with.
It is particularly concerning at the moment that in several areas of the world we have conflicts between united axis powers, if I can call them that. Out of three potential conflicts that are under way at the moment or about to be, Ukraine and Russia is a hot war where the Russians believe that we are directly involved although we believe that we are indirectly involved. That war is fought with cyber, disinformation, espionage and poisoning, and some of that has been happening in the UK. We also have the expansion of China, with it trying to take territory in the South China sea and presenting an increasing threat to Taiwan. Xi has told his army to be ready to take Taiwan within the next three years, if I remember correctly.
In the middle east, Russia’s ally Iran is behind much of what is happening, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset so eloquently said. Iran now has 22 proxies. In Bahrain it has two or three and in Iraq it has at least six, some of which are rocketing UK and US forces. Where else? In Lebanon it has Hezbollah, which is potentially its most powerful proxy. It is strongly aligned to the regime in Syria. That is not a proxy but the regime has been heavily dependent on Iran to fight its wars. Throughout the middle east, the Iranians have built up a web that is a significant threat to us.
We have had conventional wars that we prepared for and fought for, or that we prepared our armed forces to fight and hopefully win, and we have this very black-and-white notion that we are either at peace or we are at war, yet the nature of war is changing. We are living in a world in which we are effectively in a perpetual state of conflict with some nations. Russia sees itself in perpetual conflict with us. There will be periods of hot war and periods of cold war, and we must be prepared as never before. Likewise, we are effectively waging an indirect war against a series of Iranian proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and whoever was rocketing us this week in Iraq. China’s power is more economic, but it is using “little blue men” to seize territory in the South China sea—that is in contrast to the “little green men” the Russians used in Crimea. In these key areas of the pre-global war phase, we are beginning to see a form of total war being waged by our adversaries in Ukraine, the middle east and the South China sea.
The Foreign Affairs Committee recently heard some interesting evidence on how Iran is, in many ways, both more unstable and more powerful than at any other time. It has 22 proxies, and it has the material to build and prepare a nuclear weapon within a week. Iran is at a potentially frightening stage but, at the same time, we know it is very unstable and we know that its young people, especially its young women, are hostile to the regime, as never before. Many people in Iran wish ill of the regime, so we are dealing with an Iran that is more aggressively adventurous in its foreign policy, potentially because of its weakness at home.
We have arguably not had enough deterrence, and we need more. Various Members have talked about that in greater deal than I have time to go into now.
All these things—the growing number of black swan moments and the growing instability in the world—are an argument for having a greater sense of strategy. Many people talk about strategy, and there are so many think-tanks in the UK dedicated to strategy. It would be wonderful to see politicians from both sides of the House engaging more in strategic thinking. One of my suggestions for global Britain is that, as well as having a National Security Council to deal with current problems, we should have a national strategy council that is always looking five, 10 or 20 years ahead to identify problems as they come.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I fully agree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). We need those structures.
Before you came into the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, we discussed the nature of this debate and whether we should have a vote. We are taking military action in a region that has been described as a tinderbox by virtually every Member who has spoken. There are just over 20 Members present, and I say this with respect and affection, but most of them are the House’s defence nerds. The reason we do not have more Members present is that this is a discussion, not a debate. There is no decision to be made at the end and, as a result, I do not think the House is taking its responsibilities seriously. I think we are on the edge of real danger in this region, and it could spill over and affect the lives of our constituents. If we are to take military action, I want to take some responsibility as a Member of this House. I want to be able to go back to my constituents and explain how I have exercised that responsibility, which is why I believe we should have a vote.
I was in the Chamber one afternoon when, with even fewer Members present than now, John Reid reported that we were sending troops to Afghanistan. He gave the impression that not a shot would be fired in anger. There was hardly any debate and very little reporting back, but we lost 400 British troops in Afghanistan and tens of thousands of others, and the war went on for more than a decade.
I was also here for the vote on Iraq—we did have a vote then. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, “Yes, look at that, we made a huge mistake.” It was a huge mistake, but the mistake was that it was a whipped vote. I think that had it been an unwhipped vote, we would not have taken that decision. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned Syria. I was here for that vote, when I think we made the right decision, because we could have been getting into another Iraq situation and still be stuck there, with a huge loss of life—a loss of British life, as well as of others. That is why I believe that on these issues we should be able to vote and decide on when to take military action. We should exercise our own judgments, on the basis of our own views and consciences, because no more significant decision can be made than to send someone to where they could lose their life. That is why we should vote on these occasions. I think we will have to have a vote at some stage in the coming period, because I fear that this situation will go on and on.
Unrelated to that issue, I wish to make a plea. The International Court of Justice’s interim decision will be coming out soon, perhaps today, as some have said, or on Friday, and when it does come out it is important that we have a debate in this House. That would enable the Government to tell us what they will do in the light of that decision. The interim decision will almost certainly attach some conditions to the activities of Israel in particular, and it is important that we debate that in this House. It is also important that we have a decision-making process—a vote—on how we as a country can ensure that such a decision and its conditions are abided by and implemented.
My second brief point is that, time and again, the Prime Minister and others have said that there is no link between the Houthis’ actions and what is happening in Gaza. That argument is unsustainable. I agree with everything that has been said, by Members from across the House, about the Houthis—I condemn them outright. The basis of their beliefs, as far as I can see, has to be condemned. Their actions in Yemen and what they are doing at the moment have to be condemned. What they are doing is horrific, it is putting lives at risk and they are undermining their own people, but to say that it is completely unrelated to Gaza is unsustainable.
People have said, “Well, maybe it is ‘connected’ to Gaza,” As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, what is happening in Gaza is mobilising the Arab street across the middle east, and understandably so. People are watching the reportage of the human suffering and reacting aghast at what they are seeing on the ground in Gaza. As a result, they are putting pressure on their own regimes, right the way across, for some form of action. It is because both the US and the UK have not taken effective action that desire for action gets distorted in other forms—it is the Houthis’ excuse for their actions.
That leads us to the fact that we here have to accept our responsibility. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) talked about the House being shamed by the number of deaths—the 25,000 deaths that have taken place. We are shamed by witnessing on our television screens the operations and the amputations of children’s limbs without anaesthetics. We should be shamed, but we should be more shamed by our refusal to act soon enough. I think we were complicit with Biden in basically saying to the Israelis, “You have more time to sort this out with military action, rather than looking at a real strategic plan for the future.” We have a responsibility because of our history over the past century and a half in the region, so we should come forward with our own proposals soon. Some have been mentioned already and I do think that the recognition of Palestine is important, because that sends a message to Israel and elsewhere—
John McDonnell
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to try to keep within the time if I can.
Recognition of Palestine will send a message to Israel that it has to come to terms with that reality at some stage. I know people have said that we have to get rid of Hamas, but, as soon as we can secure peace, Palestinians should be given the opportunity to vote for their leadership and be allowed to exercise democracy. I think people will be surprised at how the Palestinians will vote; I think they will vote for peace and for those who advocate peace. That might give us the opportunity to consolidate the Palestinian people, who have been so divided by Israel between the west bank and Gaza. We need to think creatively, for example like that, before we blunder even further. I hope the Government will now come forward with a more constructive plan, and let us vote on it.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I will keep to time, Madam Deputy Speaker, as two hon. Friends will give me a seven-minute bell.
I strongly support the Government’s move and the strikes they are taking in the Red sea. In The Sunday Times at the weekend, there was a rather amusing cartoon of Lord Nelson, with the telescope placed to his bad eye and the words “I see no ships” emblazoned across the top of the page. Hon. Members can guess that the article was about the lamentable size of our Royal Navy.
Over a week ago, the Defence Secretary, to his great credit, kindly asked me to attend a major speech he was making at Lancaster House. He warned that we were in a “pre-war” period, with the west facing very real and growing threats from around the world, as we have heard in the House tonight. The head of our Army is warning about calling up the public in the event of war—that is probably the likes of me, because there ain’t anybody else. NATO Admiral Rob Bauer went even further, saying we should prepare for “all-out war” with Russia, and Germany is predicting Putin could attack NATO in as little as five years. With all that in mind, why does the Royal Navy have only 18 frigates and destroyers, with only a small number able to deploy at any one time?
Having had the pleasure and honour to sit on our Defence Committee for four years, I could provide a number of answers to that question, but I fear many in the House are aware of them already and I do not want to labour the point. To be fair to the Government, some 13 new warships are planned and £31 billion is being spent on upgrading our nuclear submarine fleet, but we will not see those for some years to come. The threat is now and, as I have said, very real.
HMS Diamond, the latest Type 45 destroyer, and her crew are doing a courageous and professional job in the Red sea. They are an example of our armed forces at their very best, defending a vital international route that much of our trade goes through. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Richard Drax
I will keep going, if I may, because we are getting to the end of the debate and others want to speak.
The enemy are a rag-bag bunch of rebels using cheap drones, which the ship counters with £1 million Sea Viper missiles and, on occasion, 30 mm cannon. The operation is exactly why we have a Royal Navy. Meanwhile, the RAF is flying operations from Cyprus, a round trip of 3,200 miles. I ask the Minister: why? We have two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers lying in Portsmouth, equipped with the latest F-35 stealth fighters. It is true that we have only a few of those aeroplanes at the moment, but will the Minister explain why neither they nor the aircraft carriers are being used?
The current very effective threat to a vital international trade route is sobering. These are Houthi rebels, not some sophisticated peer adversary. What if they were? I accept that in that scenario we would be part of a NATO force, with the US doing much of the heavy lifting, but this relatively minor excursion in the Red sea is yet another wake-up call.
For 13 years in this place, I and many others have called for more money for defence. For 13 years, various Prime Ministers have reassured us that our armed forces are in good order and ready to fight. I have no doubt at all that our brave men and women are ready for just that, but do we have the resilience, numbers, reserves, ships, planes and armoured vehicles to fight a sustained conflict?
Richard Drax
I will, if I may, just keep going. Forgive me, but I do not want to go over my time.
This debate is about the situation in the Red sea. That puts the spotlight on the Royal Navy, which is so short of sailors that some ships are having to be retired early. As both my grandfather and father took great pride in reminding me, the Royal Navy is the senior service, and there is a good reason for that. There is no doubt that a very large fleet during the second world war played a significant part in saving this country from invasion and in keeping our vital trade routes open, not least to the US.
The much-reduced Royal Navy again played a vital role in re-taking the Falklands in 1982. Unfortunately, the peace dividend has continued to take its toll and the Royal Navy is critically short of ships and sailors—to the point that we are endangering the security of our country.
Expenditure is a matter of priorities, and this is where the Government have to state priorities. Can we please have no more arbitrary targets on defence? I am tired of hearing 2%, 2.2% or even 2.5%. Can we ask the military what it needs to play a prominent role in NATO and to defend our country and its dependants? Once we have that worked out, we can then see what we can afford. If we cannot afford it, I suggest that we reignite the economy, get growth going, raise the tax revenue by lowering taxes, and put more money into our armed forces.
In conclusion—I am within time—let us adhere to the warnings of a growing number of eminent people and prevent the situation in which we found ourselves in 1939.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Undoubtedly, it is our duty to protect freedom of navigation not only for our own self-interest, but to defend a core tenet of international law. The question is how we go about it. First, we must recognise the limitations of our short-term interventions and remain focused on a long-term peaceful solution to the civil war in Yemen. That remains the best route to stability in the region. Secondly, we must build durable and lasting coalitions to maintain freedom of navigation in the Red sea and beyond.
The Houthis have been engaged in a decades-long civil war. Even in the face of extensive aerial bombardment by the Saudis and the Emiratis, the Houthis continued to make territorial gains, import more and more sophisticated weapons, and fire rockets at Saudi and Emirati cities, all this while thousands of Yemenis starved to death or were killed in the crossfire. Despite all their firepower, boots on the ground, understanding of the region, support from the UK and US, and ample political will, the Saudis and Emiratis have failed to weaken the Houthi movement. We should therefore be realistic that our actions will almost certainly not be a limited containment or restore a deterrent. All the signs point to escalation; it would be foolish to ignore them. Therefore, peace offers the clearest durable long-term solution to the Houthi attacks in the Red sea.
In recent years, considerable progress had been made in negotiating a lasting ceasefire in the country. There was true momentum to talks, which had reduced violence, ended almost all strikes in Yemen and in the Arabian peninsula and forced the Houthis to moderate their behaviour. A negotiated peace to the Yemeni civil war remains our best hope for forcing the Houthis to abide by international law, let alone end the untold suffering in Yemen. But the brutal events of 7 October have derailed peace efforts. It is clear that only our strategic rivals have anything to gain from escalating conflict in the Red sea. Iran in particular has much to gain from crippling the peace process and demonstrating the havoc that it and its proxies can unleash on international shipping. Peace in Yemen pulls the rug from under those who use instability and conflict to increase their own power.
We must recognise that targeted strikes are highly unlikely to stop the Houthis in the long term and, instead, redouble our efforts to kickstart peace negotiations. On that basis, our Government should engage more closely with partners in the UN, the EU and our long-standing allies in the region.
I reiterate the importance of the UK upholding international law. However, the current American-led coalition is far too limited and looks too vulnerable to short-term political change. If the UK is to remain a true defender of freedom of navigation, we must start building broader alliances. The USA is becoming increasingly isolationist and is tiring of its role as the world’s policeman—a trend that goes back to Obama and is embodied by the “America first” doctrine of the current frontrunner in the US election. While America remains one of our most closely aligned partners, we must foster other coalitions if we are to guarantee the long-term upholding of international law. There needs to be much greater involvement by regional powers in policing international laws in the Red sea. So far, only Bahrain has joined the coalition.
A coalition with greater regional and Arab involvement would undercut the Houthis’ claim that they are supporting the fight of the Palestinians against America and the west. Greater engagement from big Arab states in defending international law would have the added benefit of not only making interventions more effective, but creating broader international norms that attacking non-military shipping cannot be a legitimate act of war. The UK should utilise its considerable influence in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Cairo to push those countries into joining these efforts. Additionally, we must engage with our European partners, who have a like-minded and long-term interest in guaranteeing the free flow of global trade.
Lastly, I urge the Government to consider the successful global fight against Somali piracy as a model for what a longer-term project to protect shipping in the region could look like. The situation in the Red sea is unlikely to be solved in the short term by a few missiles. The Government must therefore consider long-term solutions to ensure enduring stability in the region.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I rise to take what is obviously a minority view in the Chamber, given the views of Members from all parties, other than a few individuals. It is not, however, an insignificant view within the wider country. There are those who oppose an escalation in an area that is already a tinderbox, worry about a rush to war, and seek instead a push for peace. Of course we condemn the actions of the Houthis —that has been done, as people have said, by the UN Security Council—as we rightly condemn Hamas. As I will go on to say, the issues are inextricably linked. This is, however, an escalation. We have not been bombing Somalia with regard to piracy, or Eritrea. Although it is a while since President Obama launched cruise missiles on al-Shabaab, it seems to be the Houthis who are being picked on at the moment, albeit they are breaching international law and have to be held to some account.
It is an escalation against a country that is already one of the poorest in the world, and this will inflict further harm. This country has endured 10 years of bombing from Saudi Arabia, which has been armed with the finest munitions that the US and UK could provide it with—and that has not managed to destroy the Houthis. Somehow, despite Saudi Arabia being provided with all that equipment, to the great benefit of many private corporations, the Houthis have continued to be able to cause harm and destruction. That will obviously continue—we have already had one set of strikes, and we are now on to a second. How many more sets of strikes will there be before there is either an escalation or a call to halt them?
I think the Minister himself stated that surface-to-air missiles had been taken out. I do not claim to have any military expertise, but surface-to-air missiles do not seem to me to have any logical relation to the Houthis attacking shipping; they appear to be more related to the USA defending its vested interests. This is a lurch towards wider war.
We have heard comments from Members across the House—shamefully, I would say—about Iran, and conflict with Russia and China. My grandfather fought in world war one. My father fought in world war two. Both fought to try to ensure that their children would never have to fight in another conflict. I do not wish to see my children or grandchildren end up in world war three, yet there seems to be an almost “Dr. Strangelove” tendency among some who are pulling us in that direction.
Even if we do not go down that precipitous route, with all the disaster that would envelop it, we also face a legacy of hatred, which we have seen from Afghanistan and especially from Iraq. We should not think that people will view this as neutral. People—not simply the Houthis, but people in the Arab world, the Muslim world and in our own country—will see this as one-sided, judgmental and picking upon one side, yet failing to do anything about the fundamental issue of what is happening in Gaza. We run the risk of worsening terrorism, both abroad and, indeed, home-grown.
That takes us to the question of why the Houthis are doing this. It is risible to say that it is not connected to Gaza—of course it is. The timeline speaks to that. Trade was going, although not without difficulties, prior to 7 October. The timeline dictates that that was the cause of it. Indeed, the Houthis have told us, in their almost webcam invasion of landing on the tanker, because they even flew the Palestinian flag. It was reminiscent of when Britain took a helicopter and landed somebody so that we could have a flag on Rockall. The Houthis made it clear that what they were doing related to what was happening in Gaza. That is why in order to get peace, as I said after the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this week, we are required to look in conflict resolution not simply at the manifestations, but the fundamental root, and at the root is what is happening in Gaza.
We have heard today that the purpose of the airstrikes is to preserve international law. International law also covers stopping genocide. We have heard from other speakers eloquently pointing out that 25,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza—1.1% of the population, and 70% of them women and children. What would that be in UK terms? That would be almost three quarters of a million UK citizens wiped out since 7 October. Do we think that would go unnoticed? Yet what has happened? We have said, “Netanyahu is maybe going a bit far,” and, “Maybe Israel has to call it all back.” We should be supporting South Africa and other countries in pushing this at the International Court of Justice. I believe and expect that on Friday the International Court of Justice, as people have suggested, will rule against Israel, because what Israel is doing is fundamentally wrong, and we need to call that out.
If we want to ensure that we get maritime trade going, which we do, and ensure that we protect seafarers—not so much UK seafarers, because there was no rush to protect the P&O workers when they were gruesomely treated, and most of those sailing on the ships, of which only one had a UK flag, were not UK seafarers—we have to solve the problem in Gaza. That is where the solution lies, and that is why we must not rush towards escalation; we must have a push towards peace. In terms of enforcing international law, it is not enough to enforce international maritime law and the freedom of movement. What about protecting the rights of women and children—even children who are having amputations carried out without anaesthetic? We cannot pick and choose on international law, and it is about time that the UK stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the Government for granting the debate, and to the Defence Secretary for setting out at the beginning of the debate the reasons for British military action in the Red sea region. He is right that this action was indeed limited, necessary and proportionate; in self-defence; using minimal necessary force; and for the freedom of navigation. I agree with all that, and it is good that it was set out in that way. Where I take issue with the Defence Secretary is that there is no vote associated with the debate. I know that a couple other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the business of whether there should be prerogative powers or parliamentary approval for military action, and that is what I want to make the focus of my contribution.
I think it was the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) who talked about how only twice in 200 years has Parliament had a say before military action took place. I am not advocating for military action to take place following a vote. I recognise that there are plenty of occasions when parliamentary approval needs to happen retrospectively, after the event. Those scenarios include reasons of operational security and the deployment of special forces, which are definitely within the domain of the Executive and not necessarily the business of the legislature, and our international treaty obligations, as he said.
We can think of many scenarios and emergencies where there needs to be a decision by the Executive and the Government need to say what is going to happen, without consultation in advance. In those scenarios, however, there is no reason why we cannot then come back to the House and have a retrospective vote on that action. If that were happening today, I would very happily vote in support of the military action that has now taken place twice in the Red sea.
James Gray
There are two problems with retrospective votes. The first is that the action would already have happened, so if the House has voted against it, what would we do about it? The second is that they emasculate this House, because if we voted for military action, how could we then criticise it? Only if we do not vote for it can we do what we are doing today and scrutinise what the Government are doing.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I intend to set out in my contributions the answers to both, so I hope he will listen out for them. He is very welcome to intervene at the end if he does not feel that I have answered them sufficiently.
If the Government are confident in their case, what is there to fear? Why can we not have a vote on military action if the Government are confident in their case and make that case in front of Parliament?
My particular concern is that this action sets a precedent for the future. We have gone over many times in this debate why it is the bread and butter of the Royal Navy. Freedom of navigation is something we can be very proud that the Royal Navy has secured for us for hundreds of years, but this could set a precedent for future military action where there is no prior vote or indeed retrospective vote.
I think that can be explained in part by the Foreign Secretary’s experience, which others have talked about, of seeking parliamentary support for military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria but failing to get it. I think the opposition of some MPs in 2013 was reflective of the concerns of their constituents, who at the time felt a reticence due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We could see the 2013 vote as an overreaction or perhaps over-reticence.
Under this Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, we now risk overreacting in the other direction, by looking back at that 2013 vote and deciding that we are not going to have retrospective approval at all. Surely the lesson from the 2013 vote is that Governments must do better at explaining the necessity of military action, not only to MPs, many of whom are not experts in this area and would rather defer to people with more expertise, but, crucially, to their constituents. We need to convince the British public that military action is necessary. That is particularly the case after the debacle of 2003 and Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
I appreciate that there are situations, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire spoke about, in which we do not have sight of secret intelligence and therefore the Executive need to make a decision without consultation. I appreciate that, but I think there is still a scepticism amongst the British public about the notion of secret intelligence and saying, “You can’t know; you need to trust us.” Again, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has created a very cynical public on that subject.
The counter-insurgencies of the early part of this century have damaged trust. To restore that trust, we need this House to be able to vote retrospectively on military action.
Richard Foord
I will give way at the end, if I may.
What sets the UK and our western allies apart is that we practice democratic control of our armed forces. This is all about setting us apart from our adversaries, but we also need to demonstrate to our own service personnel not just that they can be assured of the support of their Prime Minister and their Executive, but that they have the British public behind them. It is not just about support for the troops—we all support the troops—but about support for the cause, which is so important too.
We need to guard against a future scenario—one that Members might be able to imagine—in which the Prime Minister is threatened by dissent on his own Back Benches. Imagine a future Prime Minister who seeks to distract from domestic challenges by exercising military force abroad. We might call it “domestic distraction”. I have no confidence that every Prime Minister will operate with the foresight to anticipate what escalation British military action might trigger.
As Clausewitz said, war is a dialectic. In 21st century terms, the enemy gets a vote. This is not just about the Houthi militia; it is about the Iranian sponsors of the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, and about Iran’s partner and customer, Russia. We must be cognisant of all that context when we take military action. For that reason, we must return to the House and get parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
James Gray
Let us imagine that the strikes have happened—as they did last week and earlier this week—and that the House had a vote on the matter today and voted against them. What would then happen?
Richard Foord
The point of a retrospective vote is that it gives guidance to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on what action the British people think should be taken in future. That is very relevant in this case because, as we have already heard, these two occasions of military strikes are not likely to be isolated, and we are likely to see future British military action in the Red sea.
When we talk about future British military action, the Defence Secretary needs to think carefully about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. At this stage, as we have heard from Conservative Members, he risks having armed forces that are too small, and misplacing the stick and shouting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I am concerned that not everybody who has contributed to the debate is here for the wind-ups. It is important that contributors do the House the courtesy of returning to hear the responses, because that is what they are: responses to the debate and the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made. I hope that that will be fed back, yet again. I call the shadow Minister.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate. It is true that it has been wide-ranging on occasions, but it has also been thoughtful, frank and, at times, passionate. I certainly hope that the Defence Secretary will take the trouble to read Hansard tomorrow to at least be aware of the excellent contributions that have been made.
It has been interesting to listen to the contributions about whether Parliament should have a say on military action beforehand or retrospectively, and I am sure that we will return to that debate in earnest. I give a commitment to read what I am sure is an excellent book by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray).
Wayne David
I will make no comment about that.
This debate is seriously important because, as I think we all agree, there has to be Government accountability for the action that they take. I am therefore genuinely pleased that the debate has taken place, and hope that further such debates take place in future.
Richard Drax
On the point about voting, which I think is ridiculous, during the bad period of the second world war when Churchill was very unpopular, if a vote had been taken in the House, I suspect that, on some occasions, he might have lost. What on earth would we have done then?
Wayne David
I am sure that Members have noted the hon. Gentleman’s comment, and am sure that when we have a detailed debate on that issue, his comment will weigh heavily on people’s minds.
This debate is important because accountability is vital. As we have made clear on a number of occasions, the Labour party supports this limited, targeted action. We do so because it is important to protect international commerce and to ensure security for maritime shipping in the Red sea. We uphold international law, and believe it would be quite wrong to ignore the disruption to the flow of goods, foods, medicines and much else, as well as the threat to human life, that is being caused by the Houthis’ actions.
I agree with the comments of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—with which many other Members also agreed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)—that the Houthis are a truly appalling terrorist organisation, and are most definitely no freedom fighters. It is also worth noting that the Houthis’ actions are harming Yemen itself, the country that has experienced the worst starvation in modern times. As the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) mentioned, 90% of Yemen’s food is imported, and those imports are clearly at risk.
Let us not forget, too, that the Houthis’ actions have terrible consequences for other countries along the Red sea. Eritrea relies on fishing, farming and mineral exports, all of which travel by sea. For Sudan, the Red sea is vital for aid, which has come to a virtual end since the Houthis’ attacks began. Further up the Red sea we have Egypt, a country experiencing severe economic difficulties. It stands to lose millions of dollars in revenue from the Suez canal—money that is desperately needed—if the Houthis’ actions are allowed to continue.
Sir Liam Fox
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For the sake of completeness, would he also like to add that the Houthis have fired missiles into Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are sovereign states?
Wayne David
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which reinforces the essential point that action is not only justified and lawful, but necessary to prevent that kind of violence and aggression by this rag-tag of terrorists called the Houthis.
It is significant that the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom have logistical support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, because the international community must be and act as one. It is worth stating that on Monday evening those four countries put out a joint statement, along with the UK and the US, which said:
“Recognising the broad consensus of the international community, we again acted as part of a coalition of like-minded countries committed to upholding the rules-based order, protecting freedom of navigation and international commerce, and holding the Houthis accountable for their illegal and unjustifiable attacks on mariners and commercial shipping.”
It is also important to acknowledge that the UN Security Council agreed a resolution that unequivocally condemned the Houthis’ attacks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) specifically referred to that resolution.
With Britain taking this targeted military action, it is important that the House recognises the professionalism and bravery of our armed forces—I am sure we are all united on that. I am referring, of course, to those who are serving on HMS Diamond and those flying RAF Typhoons. Of course, we recognise that military strikes can reduce and perhaps eliminate the immediate threat to free navigation but, as a number of Members have indicated, there needs to be a wider political strategy. The Defence Secretary touched on that subject at the start of the debate, but will the Minister indicate more precisely and in greater detail what the strategy is?
We all know only too well the horrific suffering that the people of Yemen have experienced over the past few years, with the terrible civil war and the appalling humanitarian crisis that unfolded as a result. The UK has a historical responsibility in the area, and we also are the UN penholder for Yemen, so I would appreciate it if the Minister elaborated on the Prime Minister’s comments to the House yesterday about what further assistance can be given to the people of Yemen to help to alleviate their suffering.
A number of Members referred to the terrible situation in Gaza. The situation is truly terrible. I do not accept, however, the Houthi claims that attacking ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. There is a desperate need for a humanitarian truce leading to a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza. Indeed, we must move as quickly as we possibly can to a two-state solution. That is in everyone’s interests, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said very clearly.
It has to be said that the actions by the Houthis in the Red sea are an attack on the international community and the rule of law, and they should be seen for what they are. Let me be clear: Labour supports proportionate airstrikes, but I would welcome clarification from the Minister on the points that I have raised.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
This has been a thoughtful debate and, I think, a united one, and I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points made as I can in the time I have.
As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made clear at the start of the debate, the Houthis’ illegal attacks on commercial shipping and British and American warships in the Red sea are completely unacceptable. Despite repeated warnings from the international community, they have carried out more than 30 attacks since 19 November. As I think all hon. and right hon. Members across the House have said, this is unacceptable, illegal and dangerous, and it cannot stand. That is why, amid the ongoing and imminent threat to British commercial and military vessels and those of our partners in the Red sea, the Prime Minister ordered the Royal Air Force to carry out targeted strikes against military facilities used by the Houthis, first on 11 January and then again on Monday. We acted alongside our US allies and with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Bahrain. The strikes were limited, necessary, proportionate and legal. We acted in self-defence, consistent with the UN charter and in line with international law to uphold the freedom of navigation.
On the specific issues raised in the debate, let me try to respond to the speeches we heard, starting with that by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). He mentioned his agreement with and support for what the Government are seeking to do, and we are most grateful for that. He also called for a wider defence debate, and I completely take his point. However, he will also accept that, under the changes that took place, the Government basically gave that time to the Backbench Business Committee, so the Backbench Business Committee itself is the most likely target, in addition to the Government, to provide that extra time.
James Gray
Does my right hon. Friend not accept that His Majesty’s Government have an absolute duty to provide debates in this House in Government time to discuss defence? Just to say that the Backbench Business Committee may or may not provide it if someone applies for a debate is not enough. We want proper debates here in Government time.
Mr Mitchell
No, no—I completely accept what my hon. Friend is saying. I am just pointing out that the reform made in relation to the Backbench Business Committee has eaten into that time.
I very much thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne for his support for the Government’s strategy on Ukraine. It is a great strength, I think, that there is full and total unity across the House on that matter. He asked me about the two landing platform docks Albion and Bulwark, and asked for an undertaking that they will not be scrapped. I am able, on behalf of the Government, to give him the undertaking that neither of them will be scrapped. I know that will come as a relief to the great friend of many of us, particularly on this side of the House: Lord Llewellyn, His Majesty’s ambassador to Italy, who is the honorary ship’s captain of HMS Albion.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was covering the point about the United Kingdom Government’s strategy to degrade the Houthis. Looking at all the levers that we have militarily, economically and diplomatically, our key ally the United States has taken a specific decision that the United Kingdom has not taken yet. The United States has proscribed the Houthis as a terrorist organisation, with that coming into effect in 30 days’ time. Why have the United Kingdom Government not done that?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend will understand that we would not give a running commentary to the House on the issue of sanctioning proscriptions ahead of making any such announcement, so I cannot give him an answer to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mitchell
I will give way in a moment; I just want to finish dealing with the comments by the shadow Secretary of State. He also asked whether HMS Diamond will be replaced on the station. The answer is yes, she will be replaced by HMS Richmond, but he will accept, I hope, that I cannot give any operational details about that.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of Israel and Gaza, which is adjacent to this debate if not directly part of it. That issue was similarly raised by the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), whose son we thank for his service, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and by the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Colleagues throughout the debate have raised this point, and I reiterate that there is no link between our action of self-defence in the Red sea, and the situation in Israel and Gaza. The Houthis are using events in Israel and Gaza as an excuse to destabilise the region further. They are trying to paint themselves as protectors of the oppressed, but their own track record of oppression shows them in a very different light.
Britain wants to see an end to the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible. We are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, and as a vital step towards building a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to destruction, fighting, and loss of life. To achieve that, we need Hamas to agree to release all the hostages. Hamas can no longer be in charge of Gaza, and an agreement must be in place for the Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza.
While I am on that point, may I say to the hon. Member for East Lothian a word or two about the reference to the International Court of Justice? The Government believe that the referral by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is unhelpful, but of course we respect the role and independence of the ICJ. I say to the House, particularly on Holocaust Memorial Day, that the suggestion that Israel is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people is both wrong and profoundly offensive. I make it clear on Holocaust Memorial Day that we also remember the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in Bosnia in 1995 and in Sudan in 2003, as well as in Cambodia in the 1970s. If I may update the House, the ICJ has announced during the course of the debate that it will deliver its decision on South Africa’s request for provisional measures at 12 o’clock UK time on Friday 26 January.
Let me return to the excellent speeches made by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members, and I will turn first to the speech by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—
Sir Julian Lewis
My right hon. Friend is, as always, the model of courtesy. For the avoidance of any lingering doubt—I am sure this can be avoided as I am getting very positive signals from the Defence Secretary sitting to his left—will he confirm that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, whose planned out-of-service dates are 2033 and 2034 respectively, not only will not be scrapped ahead of time, but will not be mothballed either?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to detect the supportive view of the Secretary of State for Defence.
James Sunderland
As a former serviceman, I have a simple view that quantity has a quality all of its own. Can the Minister please assure the House whether the FCDO has asked the MOD for additional platforms to be sent to the region with a view to offering deterrence against aggressors and ensuring the safe passage of British shipping?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s words explaining what the strategy is and how we are implementing it, and I can tell him that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are perfectly joined in every sense in pursuing that strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, who in these matters is something of a poacher turned gatekeeper—perhaps it is a gamekeeper turned poacher, because she was previously a distinguished member of the diplomatic corps—delivered trenchant support for our actions. She spoke up for Arab-led initiatives in the region, and I thank her very much also for agreeing to organise a workshop on Iran in the House of Commons for half a day.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) asked who we are listening to. The answer is that we are listening to the House, and he will have heard today a House united. He set out the challenges facing the defence budget, and many in the House will understand and agree with him that the challenges are significant, but we are tackling those challenges.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke warmly and rightly about the Royal Navy. We thank him for his support, and he gave the House a geopolitical discourse, in particular on the challenges to the global food chain, and the whole House will have heard what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) reminded us of the excellence of his book, and we authors must stick together. He also explained, as the Prime Minister did, why Parliament was not consulted in these circumstances. That point was also visited by two Opposition Members, and I will come to that in a moment.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
There has been concern about the change of registration for vessels going through the Red sea, notably those changing to the People’s Republic of China. If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, will he write to the Defence Committee or its Chair, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), on how many merchant fleet vessels are changing their registration from their country of origin to the People’s Republic of China, and whether Chinese-registered vessels have been targeted?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman asks me a detailed question, and the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence will have heard what he said. I am sure they will be happy to write to him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset spoke about the danger and the nature of the Iranian regime, and he eloquently set out the threat to international maritime law. As I have said, I cannot give a commentary on IRGC proscription, but I can tell him that we have heard his views and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Sir Liam Fox
My right hon. Friend will recall that I have asked on several occasions why Iran Air is still flying from Heathrow and why Iranian banks are still trading in the City of London. Those are separate issues, but none the less important alongside the proscription issue.
Mr Mitchell
I will ensure that my right hon. Friend has a detailed answer on where we stand on both those issues.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke movingly and compellingly on the importance, as I think the whole House agrees, of a two-state solution being in the interests not just of Israelis and Palestinians, but of the wider region and all of us here in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) gave powerful warnings about the dangers of starvation in Yemen; that point was echoed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) supported working more closely with the region and mentioned the importance of tackling wider examples of instability. The whole House will have been grateful for his remarks, and in particular for the wise words he spoke about Ukraine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) talked about the impact and the effect of Iran’s proxies. He spoke with both experience and knowledge about the risks of warfare and the need for a greater sense of strategy, looking in particular at the work of the National Security Council. Some of us were involved with that when it was set up. I took a careful note of what he said.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned that he thought he was joining a debate with defence nerds. I want to assure him of a warm welcome to our number. He, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), spoke about the importance of having a vote. The Government have made it clear that it is neither practical nor sensible to publicise such an action in advance as that could both undermine the effectiveness of the action and potentially risk the lives of armed forces personnel involved. My view is that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire had the better of their interesting inner debate.
Mr Mitchell
I think that was the point he raised, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire answered with great eloquence.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) spoke using his detailed military knowledge to the advantage of the House, with considerable historical analogy. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) warned the House about the importance of defending international maritime law.
Richard Drax
I did ask why the aircraft carriers are not being used in the Red sea, and I would be grateful if some answer could be given.
Mr Mitchell
The use of the aircraft carriers, one of which is heading to a NATO exercise anyway, will be kept under review. If the assets that they would bring to bear on our central aims in this matter are appropriate, of course the right decision will be taken.
I think I have already answered the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wilshire engaged with specifically. I therefore think that I have covered every speech made, so I will draw my remarks to a close.
We have sent the clearest possible message that we will continue to reduce the Houthis’ ability to carry out these attacks, and we will back our warning with actions. The Houthis should be under no misunderstanding: Britain and our allies are committed to holding them to account. Yesterday’s statement from 24 countries condemned and demanded an end to the Red sea attacks.
Military strikes are just one part of our wider response. First, we are increasing our diplomatic engagement. The Prime Minister spoke to President Biden about these issues on Monday night. The Foreign Secretary, who even now is in the region and will be visiting a number of different countries, has a meeting today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he met his Iranian counterpart last week. He made it clear that Iran must cease supplying the Houthis and use its influence to stop Houthi attacks.
Secondly, we must end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthis. We have intercepted weapons shipments in the region before, including components of the very missiles used by the Houthis today. Those who supply such weapons to the Houthis to conduct these attacks are violating UN Security Council resolution 2216 and international law. Thirdly, we will use the most effective means at our disposal to cut off the Houthis’ financial resources where they are used to fund these attacks.
Finally, we need to keep helping the people of Yemen, who have suffered so grievously as a result of the country’s civil war. The Houthis’ actions make that suffering worse. We will continue to deliver humanitarian aid and to support a negotiated peace in that conflict—that is the position—and Ministers are absolutely committed to keeping the House fully informed, as the House sees fit.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in the Red Sea.
Business without Debate
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nuclear Defence Infrastructure: Parliamentary Scrutiny
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not know I was so popular with Government Back Benchers.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Now, now, now. We are not having any of that. That is not fair. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) is popular and it is very good that there are so many Members here to listen to him. We will tell him why later.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am very grateful for the opportunity that Mr Speaker has given me to raise an issue that I think we can all agree deserves wider attention and scrutiny. I do not think I have ever done an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday—or one so well attended, I have to say—and I am glad to be doing so at a relatively decent hour, not least because I know something is happening afterwards in this very Chamber.
I want to start with an appeal to those on the Government Front Bench and to anyone else who might be thinking of intervening. It is clear that I am a member of the Scottish National party and that this is a debate that concerns the UK’s nuclear enterprise. On that level it might be fairly predictable, but I hope that in preparing for this debate the Minister left at home or in the Ministry of Defence all the customary stuff usually reserved for SNP Members discussing nuclear weapons in this place. It may be tempting to play to our bases and paint this debate as yet more—forgive me for saying it, Madam Deputy Speaker, so close to Burns night—haggis-munching, burst-bagpipe whingeing, but I hope we can all agree that the trigger for this debate was some very serious allegations from a senior official. People across these islands who live beside, or in the vicinity of, nuclear-regulated sites deserve to hear a response to those allegations. I am glad to see the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) in his place as well.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Not right now; if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue for a moment.
I am going to set aside my own and my party’s well-known and understood standpoint on the morality and utility of the nuclear enterprise, in order to focus on the specifics of the allegations made in the blog of 30 December by a well-known former adviser, Dominic Cummings. I hope that the Minister will reciprocate and show the House the respect it deserves. As another small caveat, let me make it clear from the outset that I understand three things about Dominic Cummings: that he certainly has his own well-publicised agenda when it comes to issues with the civil service, especially in relation to civil service reform; that he is demonstrably not as clever as he thinks he is; and that he has also been known to present “dead cat” arguments as a distraction from his own shortcomings—in this instance, the fact that the Prime Minister chose not to rehire him as an adviser.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman and I have different opinions about nuclear capability—I believe that we should have it, and the hon. Gentleman says no—but I think we agree on the issue of nuclear safety. Does he recognise that our nuclear defence is imperative to the security of the nation and to fulfilling international obligations, and also that that cannot be achieved without substantial investment? This is not optional; the money must be found, and found now, to ensure that we have not only nuclear safety but, just as importantly, nuclear capability.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he might as well stay for the rest of the debate to hear my view on that.
I have to say that Mr Cummings’s former role, and the nature of the allegations he has made, are such that it is bizarre, frankly, at least from my perspective, that the only attempt to scrutinise them is taking place not in a parliamentary Committee but in what, I have to say, is usually the graveyard spot of parliamentary business. Parliament is sovereign in everything, I guess, apart from the nuclear enterprise.
I will, I am afraid, quote from Mr Cummings’s blog quite extensively. I hope the Minister has already read it, but it is important for it to be read into the record of the House. There are two principal aspects to which I would like the Government to respond: first, the state of the defence nuclear infrastructure across these islands; and secondly, the decision-making process in the civil service and how it relates to democratic oversight. I should also say, before the Minister uses up some of the time for his response to say it, that I am not expecting him to comment, in any shape or form, on operational matters. I understand that much that is to do with the nuclear enterprise cannot be discussed publicly.
So let us begin. Unfortunately, I cannot leave out all the internal machinations of the Conservative party’s psychodrama, as some of it is quite pertinent. Cummings begins:
“I did have two conversations with the PM, the first in 2022 just after he became PM.
The PM wanted an actual plan including how to grip power and get things done, a political strategy and a political machine to change the political landscape and beat Labour.
In 2022 I said I might do it but my conditions were the ability to ensure that urgent action is proceeding on a range of fundamentally critical issues including:
the scandal of nuclear weapons infrastructure which is a dangerous disaster and a budget nightmare of hard-to-believe and highly classified proportions, and which has forced large secret cannibalisation of other national security budgets,
building defences for natural and engineered pandemics,
the scandal of MOD procurement, ignored despite (even because of) the biggest war in Europe since 1945,
AI and other technological capabilities,
the broken core government institutions including the dumpster fire of the Cabinet Office.”
Cummings ends this section by saying:
“In all of these areas I started crucial work in 2019-20. Most of this has stopped, slowed, or reversed.”
Not all of that is pertinent and, particularly in that last line, we see Cummings’s own agenda coming through. None the less, I would say that points 1, 3 and 5 are of the most interest to us here. Let us start with points 1 and 3, and return to point 5 later.
Cummings continues:
“For example, in 2020 we agreed (via a secret ‘tunnel’ process with the services, HMT and Cabinet Office, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and me, but kept secret from Wallace) the first agreed-by-everyone-to-be-honest MOD budget numbers since before 2010, agreed how to plug the massive black hole partly created by the nuclear enterprise disaster, agreed a range of disasters that should be stopped immediately (e.g AJAX, Challenger), and agreed a plan for procurement reform and new capabilities to build. (Also NB. the Army did NOT lobby for a bigger army—in the world that seemed possible in 2020 of a serious plan and honest numbers and procurement reform etc, they preferred a smaller army with real capabilities to a ‘bigger’ but increasingly Potemkin army.) Instead, the MoD has been allowed to:
pocket the money for the black hole,
avoid stopping the disasters,
continue pumping more money down the drain of legacy disasters creating a new black hole,
continued to allow critical parts of the nuclear weapons infrastructure to rot creating further massive secret budget nightmares as well as extremely serious physical dangers (cf. the recent near disaster with a submarine),
continue as normal with disastrous procurement policy and practice, instead of taking industrial capacity seriously,
continue sacrificing critical new capabilities to fund legacy failures,
shred the honest budget numbers and return to the fraudulent numbers, and”—
most critically—
“continue lying even more to MPs and media about it all.”
Let me repeat that I do not expect the Minister to comment on operational matters or give away classified information, but can we at least agree that these are serious allegations on both a specific and a more general matter? Specifically, can the Minister comment on the suggestion that the nuclear enterprise is causing the
“large secret cannibalisation of other national security budgets”?
To add a little bit of context, while it would be tempting to pass this off as the ranting of a jilted former senior adviser, this tallies with a lot of what we have heard from recent National Audit Office reports. The latest report, received just in December, revealed not only that the plan was “unaffordable”, that the MOD acknowledged this fact and that the funding gap could range between £7.6 billion and £29.8 billion, but that
“Nuclear and Royal Navy Costs show the greatest increase compared with 2022”—
the Navy of course being the service that is responsible for the continuous at-sea deterrent.
Furthermore, paragraph 16 of the report’s key findings stated clearly:
“The creation of a ring fence around nuclear funding helps protect the MoD’s highest defence priority but puts greater pressure on programmes not included in it.”
Does the Minister acknowledge that the ringfence is putting pressure on the rest of the conventional budget? If so, do they think this is sustainable? Can they also tell the House what plans the Government have to mitigate the dead hand of ringfencing? There is an unfortunate logic to this nuclear ringfence within the Government’s well-intentioned ringfence around defence spending, be it at 2% or 2.5%. At this moment, every penny spent on the nuclear enterprise is a penny less spent on conventional assets, at a time when conventional threats are proliferating —a point I made in this very place only a few hours ago.
Cummings adds a dash of colour to the NAO’s necessarily black and white findings about MOD mismanagement and dysfunction. Taken together, they are a damning indictment of where Defence finds itself, and it is a shame that there is something of a taboo around discussing the contribution of the nuclear enterprise to this predicament. There are undoubtedly massive consequences and contingencies that need to be developed surrounding as large a transition as the one the nuclear enterprise is undertaking just now. We know this because His Majesty’s Government already went through a similar transition from Resolution to Vanguard. Because of “The Silent Deep”, the excellent and definitive official history of the Royal Navy submarine service, written by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks and released in 2015—a book I recommend to Members—we also know that extensive plans were made for worst-case scenarios during that transition, including
“moving a Polaris submarine into Loch Long, where it would dive and remain in a static location on Quick Reaction Alert.”
Again, I am not asking the Minister to comment on operational issues, but a pattern is emerging of events and scenarios that are consistent with reports and papers written by nuclear analysts dealing with the consequences of an ageing platform, against the backdrop of a defence budget put under pressure by an increasingly dire economic situation.
Whether it is the accident involving a Vanguard-class submarine, which we spoke about in November—an accident that Cummings attributes to poor infrastructure —or the pitiful sight of another Vanguard-class boat returning to HMNB Clyde in September, looking rather the worse for wear, only for the MOD to release a statement praising the crew for the longest SSBN patrol, something does not quite add up.
We sometimes stray too close to specifics, so I will return to another aspect of the Cummings blog—an aspect that, if anything, is more worrying. It brings me to the parliamentary aspect of the title of this evening’s debate:
“Since we left, No. 10 has allowed and even encouraged all this. The cycle of disaster, cheat, lie and classify even more has continued through successive defence reviews (e.g. the infamous ‘Heywood wedge’ overseen by Heywood, Osborne and McPherson in 2015). We drew a line under this systemic lying and delusions in 2020. After I left the line was immediately deleted and business as usual has continued. The system is preparing to give Starmer the same horrific choices on above-STRAP3 yellow paper and continue the cycle of classify, punt, and lie with everything becoming ever more hollow-Potemkin as a result.”
That is a lot, so let us focus on the idea that
“The system is preparing to give Starmer the same…choices”.
It is nothing more than an insinuation that senior members of the civil service and the armed forces, according to Cummings, seem to be planning to manipulate an incoming Prime Minister who, if recent polls are to be believed, will have a significant mandate. Not only that, but it insinuates that they have used the protocols and security around the nuclear enterprise to manipulate the current Prime Minister and his predecessors, and have sought to remove any aspect of Cabinet decision making by excluding the then Defence Secretary from those discussions.
As I said, my party does not agree with this, or with the nuclear weapons policies of this Government and previous Governments. Regardless, this debate is not about that; it is about the way in which His Majesty’s Government implement their own declared policy. It is an unfortunate but inescapable reality of the nuclear enterprise that many of the discussions around it cannot be held in public—[Interruption.] I will come to a conclusion. Do not worry, the Minister will have his 10 minutes—and then his photograph.
The whole number of discussions must therefore be taken in an increasingly tight series of concentric circles. The one fig leaf for our parliamentary democracy has always been that, at the end of it all, there is an element of democratic oversight, with the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and, on occasion, the Foreign Secretary having input into the nuclear strategy.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I must say to other Members present that it is simply rude to talk. If whispering has to be done, then whisper.
Deidre Brock
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a crucial issue. He talks about secrecy. Does he know about the MOD’s response to my recent questions on safety at its nuclear bases? The response confirmed an alarming trend, with the number of incidents at Faslane and Coulport jumping by a third in 2022, and the figures for the start of 2023 suggesting further rises. Does he agree that surely we have a right, as Members of Parliament, to know why safety records are not improving, as well as the nature of these incidents and their effect on local residents and the environment?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I could not disagree with my hon. Friend at all.
Of course, if any of the allegations made by Dominic Cummings, crucially those on senior Ministers being manipulated, are without merit, I would be glad to hear it. Alternatively, those civil servants themselves should address them directly.
Let me bring my remarks to a close with a final plea for the Minister—[Interruption.] I know that Members are here to have their picture taken—it might be useful, as it might be the last parliamentary one they ever have. Let me bring my remarks to a close with a final plea for the Minister to stick to the substance of some basic questions I am asking him. We know the opinion about the nuclear enterprise, so let me make this a bit easier and keep to just two questions, if the Government do not want to address anything else that I have said. First, what are the Government doing to ensure that the nuclear enterprise does not continue to exert undue pressure on the rest of the defence budget? Secondly, what safeguards are there to ensure that there remains a robust and genuine democratic oversight of all aspects of that enterprise?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on securing this important debate. It is true that we differ fundamentally on the issue of the deterrent. Indeed, there is such passion and commitment to it among Conservative Members that we have a fantastic turnout this evening. The key theme of his speech was parliamentary scrutiny. He said that Parliament is sovereign everywhere, except in the nuclear deterrent. So let me remind him that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) became Prime Minister in 2016, one of the first key votes in this House was on the renewal of Trident, and the majority was 355 in favour.
To be clear, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a matter of the highest priority for the Government, as is borne out by the support on our Back Benches today. I welcome the opportunity to set out our approach and policies in this area. Our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our national defence, and it is central to the Government’s national security strategy. We place the utmost importance on the upkeep of all our nuclear defence infrastructure and its upgrades. His Majesty’s naval base in Clyde has an establishment management plan with a 40-year horizon that covers both the Faslane and Coulport sites. The Government seek to be as transparent as possible about our nuclear defence infrastructure, within obvious national security constraints.
Deidre Brock
The Minister talks about transparency, but in 2017 the publication of the annual reports of the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, the Ministry of Defence’s internal watchdog, were stopped under his Government. Why was that?
James Cartlidge
I have enjoyed the fact that the hon. Lady has tabled a number of written questions on these matters. I have always answered them as transparently as possible, setting out the full facts, and will continue to do so. Indeed, the very point of being here is that we are transparent in Parliament about our deterrent. We engage fully with Parliament, including the Defence and Scottish Affairs Committees, and we will continue to do so. We publish transparency data for all major defence programmes annually, including nuclear infrastructure, and, in line with industry good practice, our nuclear sites have well-established and transparent systems for raising what are known in the industry as nuclear site event reports, about which the hon. Lady has asked a number of written questions. This open documentation of human error, procedural or documentation failings, and equipment issues provides the strongest illustration of our commitment to transparency. More importantly, it fosters a culture of continual improvement and enhances the rigour of our collective approach to safety.
The safety of our nuclear defence infrastructure is paramount. Our nuclear establishments fully adhere to current—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I have said this before but everybody seems to think it is funny to ignore it. It is fine to whisper if you need to communicate with one another, but it is simply rude to talk at the top of your voice, so that I can hear what people are saying on the Back Benches but I cannot hear the Minister. It is simply discourteous.
James Cartlidge
I think they are very enthused, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our nuclear establishments fully adhere to current regulatory and operational requirements. They are subject to a painstaking programme of maintenance by highly trained experts. To ensure their reliability and safety far into the future, we are carrying out a £1.4 billion upgrade of our nuclear facilities at HMNB Clyde, which will ensure they are ready to receive the next generation Dreadnought class of submarines. As colleagues would expect, all these improvements are being made in line with current and foreseeable future regulatory requirements.
To conclude, we cannot look after our nuclear infrastructure without highly trained people. To support our future submarine programmes, we are investing around £200 million in world-class training for our current and future submariners. The Government have robust maintenance programmes in place to deal with some of the challenges to non-nuclear infrastructure at HMNB Clyde. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that our nuclear deterrent infrastructure both keeps us safe and continues to adhere to the most stringent safety and regulatory standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Before I set out the effect of this instrument, I will explain the legislation that underpins it. The Legal Services Act 2007, which I will refer to as the LSA, established the Legal Services Board among other things. The LSA made provision for the Legal Services Board to oversee legal services regulators in England and Wales, which regulate persons carrying out reserved legal activities.
Schedule 4 to the Act designated a list of bodies as approved regulators for specific reserved legal activities including probate activities. The Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulators) Order 2009 added the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, which I will refer to as the ACCA, to this list for the regulation of probate activities. Although it was designated in 2009, the ACCA only started to authorise individuals and firms for probate activities in 2018. In 2019, the ACCA conducted a review of its regulatory activity and found that only 99 probate practitioners held the ACCA authorisation, and the ACCA considered it unlikely that its regulated population would grow.
The review also found that the arrangements that the ACCA would need to make to comply with the Legal Services Board’s internal governance rules of 2019 would be disproportionate to the size of the ACCA’s regulated population, and that there were several monetary costs to being an approved regulator. Specifically, those included: levies paid to the Legal Services Board and the legal ombudsman; staff resources to conduct regulation; costs associated with the regulatory framework; and the cost of complying with the Legal Services Board’s internal governance rules.
In 2019, the ACCA council approved a plan for the ACCA to withdraw from the legal services regulation market and provide a pathway for eligible members to continue practising probate by transferring to CILEx Regulation as CILEx-ACCA probate practitioners. In October 2021, the ACCA applied to the Legal Services Board under section 45 of the LSA to cancel its designation as an approved regulator. The LSB carefully assessed the application and required the ACCA to make a revision to confirm that all of the 99 ACCA-regulated probate practitioners had already ceased practising probate or had transferred to CILEx or another approved regulator. The LSB then approved the application in May 2022, and made the recommendation to the Lord Chancellor in July 2022 to make an order to cancel the ACCA’s designation as an approved regulator for probate activities. That is what this statutory instrument sets out to complete.
The ACCA has not accepted a new application for probate authorisation since 2021, and sent cessation letters to all 99 affected probate practitioners in January 2022. All those 99 practitioners have either ceased practising probate or already transferred to CILEx Regulation or another approved regulator. In conclusion, cancelling the ACCA’s designation as an approved regulator for probate activities is a necessary measure to formalise the ACCA’s voluntary and orderly withdrawal from the legal services regulation market. It ensures that the ACCA will no longer face regulatory or financial burdens associated with its designation and provides legal certainty about which entities are approved regulators for reserved legal activities.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister for outlining the measure before the Committee. I will not keep colleagues very long, as we do not oppose it.
We all know of the stress on our legal services and on those providing them; anything that can be done to make them better will have our support. A well-functioning legal services market is a key contributor to access to justice. A strong and competitive legal services market can lead to a reduction in the price of services and ensure greater access to justice for all, including the least well off.
The Minister outlined a measure to amend the Legal Services Act 2007—the legislative framework for regulating legal services in England and Wales. Under the 2007 Act, only individuals and businesses authorised by an approved regulator or those exempt from the requirement to be authorised are entitled to provide reserved legal activities. The six reserved legal activities are: the exercise of a right of audience; the conduct of litigation; reserved instrument activities; probate activities; notarial activities; and the administration of oaths. This order cancels the designation of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants as an approved regulator under part 4 of the Act, “Regulation of Approved Regulators”. That means that it is no longer permitted to authorise and regulate persons in relation to probate activities. The Minister outlined its small workload in that regard.
As I said, we will not oppose the measure, but we would be interested to hear whether the Minister expects further measures to be introduced to reform the Legal Services Act. The merits of the Act are heavily debated by those inside Parliament and even more so by those outside. As legislators, we need to ensure that practices and services are kept up to date. We recently had Bar Council chairman Nick Vineall KC in front of the Justice Committee. He described the 2007 Act as “fit for purpose” but pointed out that there was originally supposed to be a triennial review of the Legal Services Board. That has not happened. Does the Minister plan to review the LSB any time soon?
We do not oppose the order but hope that everyone in the Committee will recognise that much needs to be done by working with the sector to drive not just improvement, but capacity.
Mike Freer
I am grateful for the support of colleagues and Opposition Members. I suggest that the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton North on a wider review of the LSB is a tad out of scope of the statutory instruments, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with him. Given the consensus on this draft statutory instrument, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairman-ship, Mr Hollobone.
This draft order, laid before Parliament on 27 November last year, proposes amendments to schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control or ban 15 substances as class A drugs, four substances as class B drugs, and one substance as a class C drug under the Act.
Members will have seen the ruinous effect of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States where they devastate lives and communities. As part of the Government’s continuing efforts to mitigate the threat of synthetic opioids in the UK, this legislation will control 15 additional synthetic opioids as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This will include 14 nitazenes, some of which are even more potent than fentanyl, as class A drugs under the 1971 Act, following recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its report of 18 July 2022 and addenda of 19 December 2022 and 6 October 2023. I want to put on the record my thanks to Professor Owen Bowden-Jones, who chairs the ACMD, and all the members for the work that they have done in this area and in others.
Three of the synthetic opioids, isotonitazene, metoni-tazene and brorphine—I can see the shadow Minister smiling; I look forward to his pronunciations later—were controlled under schedule 1 to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, to which the UK is a signatory. Following this, the Government commissioned the ACMD for its advice on the appropriate classification and we are now following that advice.
The ACMD looked at some other substances as well. Cumyl-PeGaClone, a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist—SCRA—was added to schedule 2 to the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances in April 2021. That will be controlled as a class B drug under the Act. Many SCRAs are currently class B under a generic definition in the 1971 Act. However, owing to the structure of that particular substance, it falls outside that definition, which is why we are adding it here.
Also to be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act by the order are three stimulants—diphenidine, ephenidine and methoxyphenidine. Again, this follows international control of diphenidine under schedule 2 to the UN convention that I have mentioned already. That happened in 2021, after which the Government commissioned the ACMD. In its report of 25 May last year the AMCD noted the involvement of those substances in a number of drug-related deaths worldwide and recommended that we control them, which we are now doing.
Finally, remimazolam, a benzodiazepine, will be controlled as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Remimazolam is the active ingredient in a product given marketing authorisation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but the ACMD recommended in December 2022 that it should be controlled as a class C drug because of the potential harms that it can cause.
According to the ACMD’s advice, all of the substances are psychoactive and therefore may be subject to the offences under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which contains various offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, and import or export of a psychoactive substance. The control of those substances under the 1971 Act will make it an offence to possess them and imposes higher penalties and stronger enforcement provisions for the supply and production offences.
Although many are caught under the PSA, the sanctions, including for possession, are now much stronger. Those who supply or produce a class A drug could face up to life imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Meanwhile, those found in unlawful possession of a class A drug could face up to seven years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Members of the Committee will see that the controls, under the 1971 Act, are much stronger.
One of the substances I have mentioned, remimazolam, has known medicinal value and has been given a marketing authorisation by the MHRA. It will therefore be placed in part 1 of schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by a statutory instrument made under the negative procedure to make sure it can be used for legitimate medicinal purposes. The other 19 substances will be placed in schedule 1 to the 2001 regulations by that same negative SI owing to their lack of known medicinal value. Those substances, excluding remimazolam, will therefore be added to part 1 of schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. Controlled drugs are designated when the Secretary of State believes it is in the public interest for production, supply and possession to be wholly unlawful or unlawful except for research or special purposes, or for medicinal use of the drug to be unlawful, except under specific licence.
The drugs we are scheduling today under the 1971 Act all have potential to cause enormous harm. We know that synthetic opioids are powerfully addictive. They are very potent; often far more than heroin, for example. We have seen the devastation synthetic opioids have caused in the USA and are determined to avoid the same thing happening here in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the measures we take today in the order are just part of the work the UK Government are doing to protect our citizens against the harm that synthetic opioids can cause. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I do not intend to detain the Committee until 4 pm—although colleagues are encouraging me, so who knows—but I have a few points I want to go through with the Minister.
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I will start by saying that we support the changes. We all recognise the devastating impact mentioned by the Minister that synthetic opioids have had on communities in the United States. That epidemic has seen incidences of overdoses rise dramatically, lots of lives lost, families torn apart and entire communities riven with the problems associated with their use. It is good news that we have not experienced the crisis in that way, but sometimes we are just behind rather than having avoided such challenges, and so we need to be vigilant in acting where necessary to ensure that the law keeps pace with developments.
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and its fine work, both generally and in this regard. We are grateful for that work; it is helpful. However, might the Minister take the opportunity in summing up to say, beyond his conversations with the ACMD, what the Government’s views are of the picture of the development of new synthetic opioids and the prevalence of their use in the UK? We will have to monitor that. It is right to put them in their classifications, but there will still be an illicit market for them, and knowing what we can do about the intelligence would be of interest to the Committee.
I turn to an important point about drug treatment services. It is right that we have classifications for synthetic opioids, all of which, and particularly class A, have profound possible legal sanctions. It is right that those who manufacture, trade and profit from synthetic opioids face significant penalties because of the devastation they wreak. Can the Minister talk a little about drug treatment services and whether there will be a need to develop services in concert with those penalties to pick up need as a result of the development of the use of synthetic opioids? The Minister and I are currently engaged in the Criminal Justice Bill and we talked a little about drug treatment services last week or the week before—time merges into one on such Bills—and the figure for drug treatment services is still about half of what it was a decade ago while drug deaths have doubled. What assessment has the Department made of that?
On a final point, when this order was debated in the other place, the Government spokesperson referred to the Government’s drugs strategy and the increased availability of naloxone nasal spray, a life-saving heroin antidote. The Government have committed to updating legislation to enable greater access to take-home treatment for people who either are themselves or are close to someone at risk of possible death by overdose. I have tabled a new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill on this matter, which we will probably debate on Tuesday. It is based on the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendation that police officers in England and Wales carry naloxone. In Scotland, they already do. I believe the Government only partially accepted the recommendation. Given the recognition in this order of the importance of opioids and the risk of controlled substances, is it not now time to revisit that recommendation, to save lives and mitigate some of the harm that can be caused?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is typical of the diligence of this Minister that he has brought this instrument to the House. He is right to do so, for he will know that it is vitally important, in the terms of the 1971 Act, that the regulatory body concerned has a dynamic function. Like all diligent Members of this House, I have a broad familiarity with the Act; he will have a more detailed one. It was always envisaged that the ACMD would have a dynamic role, and that becomes particularly important as drugs have been used for spiking and for various recreational purposes in a way that could not have been imagined back then in 1971, but was anticipated structurally, in that this body was set up to do exactly what the Minister has recommended today.
Knowing his diligence, I expect the Minister will have no trouble dealing with my single query and my one suggestion. My query is on enforcement. I note that he says that it will now be a criminal offence to possess these drugs, with serious consequences. Could he say a word about enforcement and how police forces will be well informed and equipped to update their understanding?
The suggestion is that following today he might let Committee Members know of the terms of reference that govern the ACMD in looking at these things, as I guess that we may well come back to a similar Committee of this kind in times to come as new substances become available, with the same malevolent effects.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for my tardiness—as colleagues explained, I inadvertently got stuck in a lift trying to get to Committee today and I missed the beginning of the Minister’s statement.
I am pretty sceptical about these orders adding more dangerous drugs to the already quite long list of dangerous drugs and about the effect that will have. Adding drugs to a list certainly does not prevent or deter people from taking them. The analysis of the risk at paragraph 79 in the impact assessment from the Home Office states:
“The analysis does not consider any deterrence effect in which indivduals stop misusing the controlled drugs as a result of the intervention. This is not included due to a lack of evidence on the likelihood of a deterrence following drug control both across all controlled drugs and the specific drugs controlled in this legislation.”
I would be interested to hear from the Minister why he thinks that adding these drugs to the list will stop people taking drugs. The very nature of drugs is that they are quite moreish, and people tend to keep taking them. That is the history of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
I also reinforce the findings of the Home Affairs Committee report, which asked the Government, among other things, to look again at the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is a very outdated and largely ineffective piece of legislation. I very much agree with that point.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned the significance of naloxone in tackling opioids and in reversing the effects of opioid overdoses. That has been used to great effect in Scotland. It is carried by the police, and I and my office staff have been trained in how to administer it, not just the nasal form but the injectable one. It is available in Scotland for people to have training on. The Scottish drugs agencies help to make sure that people can get that training in the community, which is really important, given that drug addiction and overdoses are, sadly, still too prevalent. I would encourage all Members to take up the opportunity if it is available to them, because it is important to be able to make that intervention and to save lives where we can. I will not oppose the order, but I certainly remain sceptical about the effect that it will actually have.
Chris Philp
Let me briefly respond to the points that have been made. I welcome the support for the order from both the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson, who have said that they will not oppose it. On the shadow Minister’s questions regarding the use of synthetic opioids, it is a real concern. We have seen what has happened in the USA. We have not seen widespread problems in the UK; we have seen some issues, but nothing like the scale in the US, and we would like to keep it that way. How will we do that? One way is through very careful monitoring—for example, by looking at post-mortem toxicology reports. Wastewater analysis is another way. We are also significantly increasing surveillance at the border to detect any attempts to import either synthetic opioids or their precursor chemicals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about enforcement, and he is quite right to say that the law is only as good as the enforcement that accompanies it. We have had a number of conversations with the police to make sure that they are aware of the systemic threat that synthetic opioids pose, particularly nitazenes, including those being banned today. I specifically discussed this issue with Richard Lewis, who is the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on drugs, to make sure that he is fully appraised of the risk that synthetic opioids pose, particularly nitazenes. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to press the police to make sure that they enforce hard against these drugs.
We need to have a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of illegal drugs, and synthetic opioids are at the top of that list because of the harm they cause. I therefore respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on her suggestion that banning drugs has no effect or is a foolish undertaking. Where drugs are highly addictive, devastate lives and cause people to die, it is right that Parliament legislates to ban them. I am sure we will debate this issue at greater length at another time, but we have seen some American cities essentially decriminalise drugs and public drug consumption. They have then seen an explosion in drug consumption, particularly of synthetic opioids, but of other drugs as well. In fact, some of those same cities, which are very often run by extreme liberal administrations, have now begun to think again and look at reversing some of the liberalisation that they instituted because they have seen the effect it has had.
Alison Thewliss
On the point about synthetic opioids, many charities are concerned about the impact that the stymieing of the flow of drugs from Afghanistan may have on the development of synthetic opioids in Europe, because they do not need to be transported; they can be made right here. That is a risk factor should the supply of heroin into the UK be stopped as a result of the action taken in Afghanistan. What assessment has the Minister made of that risk?
Chris Philp
We have assessed the risk. We are aware of the new Taliban policy to ban opium production in Afghanistan and the consequent likely reduction in the heroin supply into western Europe and North America. It will take a while to filter through the supply chain—it will not have an immediate effect—but we are aware of the problem. The hon. Lady identifies one of the risks, which is why staying ahead of synthetic opioid importation through surveillance, border control and a zero-tolerance law enforcement approach is particularly important—more so than it would ordinarily be because of the substitution risk that she rightly refers to.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about the ACMD’s remit. The Home Office is able to commission the ACMD to look at various matters. Whenever a matter of concern arises, we commission ACMD to look at it, and monkey dust is an example of that. A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, raised that issue, and we commissioned the ACMD to take a look at it. We can take action whenever a new harmful illegal substance pops up.
The final question relates to treatment. Although members of the Committee will discern from my comments that I believe in having a strong—indeed, a zero-tolerance—approach to enforcement, treatment is also important. Naloxone should be used as routinely as possible because, as Members know, it combats the effect of opioid overdose. It is successful and effective at doing that, but treatment is also important for getting people off drugs. We have invested £532 million over three years in creating 55,000 extra treatment places, and we are tracking the uptake of those places. I am encouraging the police to refer addicted people into treatment in addition to prosecuting criminals, and I am encouraging the courts to do the same thing. A combination of strong enforcement and referrals to treatment can keep our society free from drugs, and today’s order is an important part, but only a part, of that fight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Murray.
Business rates are a crucial element of the UK’s tax system. They raise over £20 billion per year, which goes to help local authorities fund our country’s vital local services. While business rates provide crucial revenue, over the past few years the Government have taken extensive action to hold the tax rates steady and target support towards those ratepayers who need it. At autumn statement 2023, the Government announced a package of cuts worth £4.3 billion over the next five years to support small businesses and the high street with local tax cuts, including freezing the small business multiplier for the fourth consecutive year and extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme at 75% for 2024-25.
It is essential that the business rates system runs smoothly, with continuity and stability. These regulations ensure exactly that: they are crucial to maintaining a healthy, stable system for the financial year 2024-25 and beyond. Their primary purpose is to maintain the threshold between the two business rates multipliers. There are two multipliers in the English business rates system—the higher, standard rate multiplier and the lower, small business multiplier. The threshold between the two has stood at a rateable value of £51,000 since 2017, but due to the passing of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 these regulations are required to preserve it at the same level from 1 April 2024 onwards.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will know that, certainly in Torbay, things like the discount on tourism and retail are very much welcomed. But will he confirm that the effect of these regulations not being passed would be that thousands of small businesses across the country would end up paying more business rates?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend has embarrassed me, because he just summarised my eight pages of notes in one paragraph. He is absolutely correct. If we do not do this, hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country—those with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000—would effectively have to pay far higher rates than they otherwise would, and that is the core purpose of the discussion today. I should probably sit down there, but I will carry on just a little bit for the edification of others who probably do not get the principles as keenly, enthusiastically and quickly as my hon. Friend.
The secondary purpose of the regulations is to extend the scope of the small business multiplier to include unoccupied properties, charities and properties on the central list—which I will explain in a moment—with a rateable value below £51,000 and which do not currently receive full rates relief. This will level the playing field for all types of properties, promoting consistency in the system; in other words, it is a simplification. Those properties that move to the small business multiplier for the first time will also receive a tax cut worth around £5 million in total per year.
Hon. Members may appreciate a very brief reminder of the business rates multiplier and what it is. The multiplier is the tax rate used to calculate business rates. The relevant multiplier is multiplied by the yearly rental value of a property, known as rateable value, to calculate its business rates bill before any reliefs are applied. As I have mentioned, there are two multipliers in operation—the small business multiplier and the standard multiplier. The legislative default is for both multipliers to rise by consumer price index inflation each year, but the Government took action at autumn statement 2023 to freeze the small business multiplier for the fourth consecutive year, protecting over 1 million ratepayers from an increase in bills.
The regulations must be made as a result of the passing of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 in October.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that these regulations, and the overarching principle on business rates that he is leading, are helping to secure more jobs in our communities, particularly in constituencies like Witham, where small and medium-sized businesses are at the forefront, with a presence on the high streets, recruiting and employing people? That is, of course, vital to our economic health and wellbeing.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I know, and have experienced in many debates, what a champion she has been for small businesses, including in her constituency. She is absolutely right: we want to ensure that the tax level is appropriate but not overly burdensome. Some reliefs that we have given in retail, hospitality and leisure over the past years have been precisely to ensure that such businesses can operate on a level playing field, operate efficiently, and create jobs, economic activity and the all-important tax revenues that we need for a sustainable economy. At the heart of the matter is business success and jobs—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—and that is what this Government are laser-focused on delivering.
The Non-Domestic Rating Act implemented important reforms to the business rates system, which were announced following the 2020 business rates review. The headline measure of the Act was more frequent revaluations. It also introduced a new improvement relief for those who raise the value of their properties through qualifying improvements and several other measures. Most relevant to this debate, the Act made a series of changes to the administration of the business rates multiplier to streamline and improve the system. One such change granted the Government the power to set the threshold for which properties pay which multiplier in secondary legislation; and as these new reforms will come into force from the 2024-25 financial year, the Government must bring forward these regulations in order to maintain the threshold for which properties pay which multiplier at its existing level: £51,000 rateable value.
If the regulations were not passed, the small business multiplier would instead only apply to businesses in receipt of small business rates relief, which would constitute a tax hike for hundreds of thousands of businesses whose properties have a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay.
The regulations also widen the eligibility for the small business multiplier, including unoccupied properties, charities and central list properties within its scope for the first time. That brings those properties in line with occupied properties, maintaining consistency across the entire system. The proposal to bring unoccupied properties and charities within the small business multiplier was initially made in the technical consultation following the business rates review, and the Government committed to the change in the summary of responses to that document in March 2023. To promote consistency, we have decided to bring properties on the central list—the centrally managed list of properties that span multiple local authorities areas, including, for example, utilities pipelines—within the scope of the small business multiplier. There are a relatively small number of such properties, but we believe this point of consistency is important.
What this instrument does therefore is very simple: the regulations continue and extend Government policy, setting the threshold for which all property types pay the small business rates multiplier at below £51,000, unless they are subject to full relief. Properties of £51,000 or above will be subject to the standard multiplier. In short, the regulations will largely maintain the status quo for the vast majority of ratepayers. The £51,000 threshold will remain where it has been for the past six years. The regulations will ensure continuity under the legislative reforms made by the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I welcome the opportunity to address the draft regulations on behalf of the Opposition.
As we know, business rates are determined according to the formulas defined in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The rates are calculated as the product of the property’s rateable value, as determined by the independent Valuation Office Agency, and the relevant multiplier. As we heard from the Minister, this statutory instrument continues the existing policy under which the majority of occupied properties with a rateable value below £51,000 pay rates calculated by reference to the small business multiplier, and extends it by making charities and unoccupied properties eligible for the small business multiplier too.
Specifically, as the Minister set out, the statutory instrument seeks to do three things: first, to maintain the threshold for the small business multiplier to be applied at below £51,000 of rateable value, which, as the Minister notes, has been Government policy since 2017; secondly, to give effect to the announcement that charities and unoccupied properties will be eligible for the small business multiplier; and thirdly, to implement the Government’s decision to extend the small business multiplier to central list properties below the £51,000 rateable value threshold, of which we understand there are seven.
We will not oppose this statutory instrument. However, I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds, he could provide further detail about his and the Government’s understanding of what constitutes an unoccupied property. As he will know, the Government consulted on business rates avoidance and evasion in July last year. In the consultation document, the Government made it clear that Ministers were concerned about potential abuse of empty property relief by owners who use a brief period of apparent occupation to reset their property’s eligibility for that relief. The consultation document that I am referring to made clear that,
“There is no statutory definition of what constitutes ‘occupation’ of a property, and minimal occupation possibly of no material benefit to the occupier, except as a method to avoid paying rates, may be sufficient to allow ratepayers access to a further rate-free period.”
As there is no statutory definition of what constitutes occupation of a property, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what definition the Government are using to identify unoccupied properties for the purposes of this SI.
I would also be grateful if the Minister would confirm when the Government intend to set out their response to the business rates avoidance and evasion consultation, and when they plan to bring forward any actions they intend to take to combat avoidance and evasion in the business rates system.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the shadow Minister and others for their participation. As I said, the Government are committed to ensuring that the business rates system is fair, equitable and as streamlined as possible, and the regulations have been drafted with that in mind. As is usual practice, further guidance will be provided with regard to the policy’s roll-out.
We are well aware of the issues of avoidance and evasion across multiple tax systems; the hon. Member for Ealing North will know that that is an important matter that the Government consider. The inclusion of unoccupied properties is to try to create a level playing field. Nobody wants to see unoccupied properties on high streets or elsewhere, and the intention is to try to ensure that they are not empty for any longer than needed. The definition of an unoccupied property is established in case law, and there is a degree of local authority discretion to decide—but, as I said, further guidance will be forthcoming. The shadow Minister also asked about the response to the consultation; we will be responding in due course.
Ultimately, the regulations promote consistency and stability in the business rates system—important tenets of any tax system. Through them, the Government will continue to protect about 90% of properties by placing them on the small business multiplier, which is now open to a greater range of property types than ever before. The regulations are crucial in ensuring the smooth, consistent operation of the business rates system for the financial year 2024-25 and beyond, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
On-call doctor provision at Westmorland General Hospital
Ceasefire in Palestine
Westminster Hall
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hedgerows: Legal Protection
(10 months, 4 weeks 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
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered legal protections for hedgerows.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Elliott. I welcome the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its consultation last June, which sought to ensure that protections for hedgerows will continue, following the end of cross-compliance protections this January. I thank the Minister for her engagement on the issue and, as an advisory board member of the Conservative Environment Network, I thank the network for its help in relation to this debate.
Our green and pleasant land has been a source of national pride for centuries. Looking at the gently rolling hills of my North Devon constituency, it is easy to see why. The land is a green patchwork, stitched together by hedgerows. I am proud to be one of the 85 MPs and peers who are hedgerow heroes for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, continuously calling on the Government to commit to significant hedgerow planting and restoration.
The Government have made many welcome steps towards protecting hedgerows. The Environment Act 2021 introduced a mandatory biodiversity net gain requirement for new development, along with local nature recovery strategies to target the best places for nature recovery and wider environmental benefits. In January 2023, under the refreshed 25-year environment plan, the Government announced a target to create or restore 30,000 miles of hedgerows by 2037 and 45,000 miles of hedgerows by 2050. That target will result in 360,000 miles of English hedgerows, which is 10% above the 1984 peak.
Other positives include clear regulations prohibiting the removal of countryside hedgerows without approval, and our countryside stewardship schemes, which help to maintain and restore over 10,000 km of existing hedgerows and plant an additional 4,000 km across the country. Countryside stewardship provides financial incentives for farmers, foresters and land managers to look after and improve the environment. Under grant type BE3—management of hedgerows—farmers will be paid £13 per 100 metres for one side of a hedge. That is available for the countryside stewardship mid-tier and higher-tier options, and will go towards improving the structure and longevity of hedgerows and maintaining them as distinctive and historic landscape features.
Healthy hedgerows are visually appealing, but they are also unsung heroes. Their roots absorb excess water and help to reduce the risk of flooding. Their leaves provide a source of shade for livestock in the summer and shelter in the winter. Their thick, tangled branches are home to countless iconic British species, from the humble hedgehog to bats, turtle doves and yellowhammers. Hedges are also home to precious pollinators, without which we would all go hungry. Over 1,500 invertebrates, including bees, beetles, spiders and hoverflies, have been identified in hedgerows in the UK. Spring-flowering trees and shrubs, such as blackthorn and hawthorn, which are often found in hedgerows, can be important sources of spring foraging for wild bee species in intensively managed landscapes.
The National Trust is very keen that I highlight its annual BlossomWatch campaign. Blackthorn and hawthorn blossom hedgerow is some of the most spectacular to be found anywhere in our countryside. The National Trust highlights that since 1945, the UK’s hedgerow network has shrunk by about 50%. That is concerning because hedgerows are not just an iconic feature of our landscapes, but critical habitats for our wildlife that clean our air and help with carbon capture and reducing flooding. The National Trust welcomes the Government’s target to create or restore 30,000 miles of hedgerows by 2037 and 45,000 by 2050.
According to the Government’s independent adviser on climate change, the Climate Change Committee, hedgerows are key to meeting our legally binding commitment to reach net zero by 2050. The committee has recommended increasing the length of hedgerows by 40% by 2050. Studies suggest that England’s hedges could already hold as much as 9 million tonnes of carbon. Unmanaged hedgerows are estimated to sequester over 140 tonnes of carbon per hectare, compared with 169 tonnes for a 30-year native woodland. If hedgerows are properly managed, they could sequester even more, both in their woody stems and in the roots below.
I am a genuine believer in our farmers as the best custodians of our countryside. However, we have lost nearly 118,000 miles of hedgerows in the UK since the 1950s, when farmers were encouraged to increase the intensity of their production.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She mentions the importance of the farming community and what they do to secure, promote and enhance hedgerows in our nation. Does she agree that we need to do as much as we can to support them in their much-needed task, which people often forget about and take for granted?
Selaine Saxby
I agree entirely, and I will speak further about what more we can do to support farmers. My North Devon constituency is home to a large number of farmers.
There are few legal protections to prevent poor hedgerow management practices. When I was a councillor, I was contacted every year without fail about the cutting of local hedgerows. The problem is that the lack of a landscape criterion means that locally distinctive hedgerows are not protected and local authorities are often powerless to retain them. According to CPRE, more than half of local authorities feel that existing exceptions for built development lead to unacceptable or avoidable hedgerow loss.
Prior to the UK’s departure from the EU, cross-compliance rules governed eligibility for the EU’s common agricultural policy and provided basic environmental protections. The UK has now replaced CAP, and the rules ceased to apply as of 31 January 2023. It is worth noting that the majority of rules under cross-compliance are now covered by domestic legislation, but although the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 protect some hedgerows from being removed, there are now no regulations to protect hedgerows from harmful management practices such as ploughing too close to the base, spraying them with chemicals and cutting them at the wrong time of year.
Perhaps this is an apt time to mention the no-cutting period. The Big Garden Birdwatch—the world’s largest garden wildlife survey, organised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—is happening this weekend. Every year, hundreds of thousands of nature lovers take part and help to build a picture of how garden birds are faring in the UK. If hon. Members have not signed up already, that is something for this weekend. A no-cutting period would ensure that hedgerows are not cut back during the important bird nesting season from early spring to late summer. Any reduction or loss of the no-cutting period would place severe additional pressures on farmland bird species that are already facing spiralling declines. A no-cutting period would benefit not just birds, but bees.
Colleagues have told me that there is a problem with highway authorities cutting grass verges and roadside hedges at the wrong time of year. Cutting roadside hedges destroys all the wild flowers, which have great benefits in helping bees to pollinate. It is also important to recognise that hedgerows need management, and that should be incorporated into any scheme, as many birds nest inside the hedgerows to protect them from predators, not on the bits that need trimming.
One of the UK’s very rare bumblebees, the brown-banded carder bee, was spotted in Braunton last summer. Maintaining road verges with pollinators in mind can create a network of habitat that can connect populations of bumblebees, allowing them to find suitable flowers to pollinate. I want to give a big thank you to Braunton parish council and the local volunteers at the Bumblebee Conservation Trust for their work.
Recent research by CPRE has found that planting hedgerows on arable land can boost the production of pollinating insects, increase crop yields by 10% and reduce pesticide use by 30%. The study examines what it would mean for farmers if the UK’s hedgerow network were expanded by 40% by 2050. It calculates that for every £1 invested in hedgerows, farmers would see a £1.73 return from higher crop yields.
A petition supported by North Devon residents states:
“All hedgerow cutting or trimming and non-essential tree felling should be banned between March and August to give declining bird species a chance to breed undisturbed by human activity.”
The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 offer limited legal protection, as they apply only to narrowly defined important hedges. Broadly, a hedgerow is considered important if it is at least 30 years old and meets criteria based on the number of plant and animal species it supports, its historical significance, and associated hedge features such as a hedge bank, ditch or tree.
The 2023 DEFRA consultation on protecting hedgerows included questions about ensuring continued protection for hedgerows after the end of cross-compliance. That meant that to receive the basic payment scheme, farmers and land managers were required to maintain overall standards and put in place hedgerow management measures. However, although the Department held a consultation last June on the shape of future regulations, no amendments have been made since their introduction in 1997. The Government have yet to respond, and they missed their deadline last year to replicate the previous rules in UK law. The Department has stated:
“We are determined to protect and restore vital wildlife habitats and have recently consulted on continuing hedgerow protections after the end of cross compliance and will publish a summary of responses as well as outline our next steps shortly.”
I hope that the Minister can clarify when “shortly” is, as the delayed Government response to the consultation risks a regulatory gap in the protection of hedgerows under basic hedgerow management standards.
Farmers make countless sacrifices to produce the food we eat, and they care deeply for their land. They are as much a part of the landscape as they are custodians of it. Farmers are integral to rural communities such as mine in North Devon: they help to stitch them together, create jobs and produce high-quality food, all while caring for our much-loved countryside. I will always champion our great British farmers and ensure that their voices are heard.
I welcome the good news from the Secretary of State this month regarding the latest upgrades to the UK’s farming schemes since Brexit to help support our farmers, including a 10% increase in the average value of agreements in the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship schemes. A streamlined single application process for farmers to apply for the schemes is also to be warmly welcomed. I am pleased that the process has been made simpler for British farmers to access. Those upgrades underpin the Government’s commitment to support farmers and take actions to boost sustainable food production while delivering positive outcomes for the environment.
Now that we are outside the EU, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a bespoke system of farm support that better rewards farmers, protects our natural environment and is unique to our national circumstances. The new environmental land management schemes are a step in the right direction. ELMS deliver much greater value for taxpayers’ money and create a new revenue stream for farmers to complement the money they receive for food production. ELMS also help in tackling long-term threats to our food security by encouraging more sustainable farming practices and improving key assets for food production, such as soil health, water quality and healthy hedgerows.
It was great to visit the farm of my constituent David Chugg in Kingsheanton with the National Farmers Union and see the work being done to plant small trees into hedgerows as part of an ELM scheme. I am glad that the new ELM scheme means that farms such as David’s will have their management of hedgerows funded, in recognition of their historic, cultural and environmental value to our countryside.
The Government’s target is for 70% of farms to sign up to the sustainable farming incentive by 2028, and I welcome the good progress being made towards that goal. However, even if the target is met and all those farms sign up to the existing hedgerow options, it is estimated that 120,000 km of hedgerows will be left with little meaningful legal protection. The Government’s primary focus on incentivising good environmental stewardship over punitive enforcement is the right one.
Farmers have three relevant options as part of the sustainable farming incentive under ELM, with payments on offer for the measurement, management and planting of new hedgerows, but some level of legislative protection for our most precious natural assets is necessary. I therefore urge the Government to update the Hedgerows Regulations to include protections against harmful management practices. That is essential to replace the protections lost with the end of cross-compliance. We should also broaden our ambitions and think more carefully about the type of regulatory environment we want to create.
In 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) commissioned the Stacey review. The review set out to rationalise the basis on which future farming regulations should be made to safeguard animal and plant welfare, ensure good land management and prevent hazards. Proportionate, smart regulation enables farmers to fulfil those goals, and the review contained a series of wide-ranging recommendations to strengthen and simplify regulation. Unfortunately, the Government have still not issued a formal response. I call on the Minister to do so.
Farming is an unpredictable business, and the hundreds of farmers whose land still lies under water after Storm Henk are a testament to that. It is our duty as policymakers to provide them with certainty and the tools they need to strengthen their resilience. North Devon residents have also signed a petition to make the protection of hedgerows a condition of ELMS and BPS subsidies. We need to ensure that farmers have the confidence to engage with that process. To ensure that farmers have that confidence in ELMS, to restore our natural world and to boost our food security, the Government should at the very least increase the ELMS budget in line with inflation and index future budgets to inflation. Consumer price inflation ran at an average of 4.18% from December 2019 to October 2023. The £2.4 billion annual budget should therefore increase by at least £400 million to restore it to its original value.
Whitehall could also be less prescriptive in the payments that it makes available to farmers. I would like to see more market-based payment rates for ELMS, reflective of our environmental needs and the demands from farmers. Options with the greatest environmental benefits or those with the lowest sign-up rates should have their payment rates boosted to increase uptake. To meet the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations to increase the length of hedgerows, SFI options for the planting and careful management of hedgerows should be included.
Farmers also need greater advice on how to access the opportunities available. After speaking to farmers in my constituency, I know how important that is. I hope the Minister will look to appoint regional and local farm champions to provide peer-to-peer advice and training on sustainable and profitable farm practices.
To sum up, I have a few suggestions for the Minister. We should introduce a landscape criterion in the regulations to give local authorities more discretion to protect hedgerows that are important to the local landscape character, but might not meet the current criteria for importance. We should improve the Hedgerows Regulations so that they are easier for local authorities to implement: any simplification should strengthen hedgerow protection, not weaken it. We should consider a closed season over winter for when hedgerow removal notices can be submitted to local authorities. That would allow comprehensive surveys of the hedgerow to take place, as required, before removal is permitted.
The key point that I want to stress is the need for those regulations that have been lost under cross-compliance, which relate to the management of hedgerows. Although I know that hedgerow planting is not a silver bullet for agricultural carbon emissions, it can play a significant role alongside good soil management, agroforestry and uptake of low carbon fertilisers.
We have just found out that our Lib Dem-run district council will miss its 2030 net zero target after having reduced its greenhouse gases by only 16% in the last four years. I hope that the Government can facilitate our farmers in filling some of the gaps that the Lib Dems have left, and secure, enhance and extend our stunning network of hedgerows across North Devon and the country.
I trust the farmers in North Devon to look after their hedgerows. They understand the link between good hedgerows, better biodiversity and improved productivity, but we must look at the next steps on protection. It is important that we boost our biodiversity to strengthen our rural economies and maximise the benefits of our beautiful countryside. We need to ensure that our hedgerows are legally protected.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate and for her technical recommendations, which should certainly help to improve things for hedgerows.
Hedgerows are essential to our agricultural heritage and the protection of our natural environment and landscape, as well as being essential carbon sinks to help us meet our COP and convention on biological diversity commitments. I welcome CPRE’s research, which found that expanding the hedgerow network by 40% would create more than 25,000 new jobs over the next three decades, and that for every £1 spent on hedgerows a return of as much as £3.92 can be expected from the associated ecosystem services and economic opportunities.
I went to see Richard Bramley’s farm near Tadcaster—he is the chair of the National Farmers Union environment forum. He had planted hundreds of metres of hedgerows and it was great to see the biodiversity increase, with the associated carbon benefits. He said that he wanted more hedgerows on his farm, but the barrier was the lack of a skilled workforce. That and other areas of green skills need to be tackled if we are to see an expansion of our hedgerow network.
I would like a national nature service to be brought in for young people from teenage years, to give opportunities for activities such as hedgerow planting and to work with agricultural colleges to widen and broaden the curricula, which would bring forward new skilled workers to undertake activities such as hedgerow planting and management. We need to invest in those skills and skills-based activities if we are to see the necessary hedgerow planting and maintenance to meet our existing targets.
Hedges produce crops and provide food for people and animals. The protection and management of the natural environment is crucial for the agricultural sector and the environment, especially under the growing challenges imposed by the rise in temperature and the climate crisis, with continuing chaotic weather patterns. As a CPRE hedgerow champion—I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned us—I signed up to call on the Government to commit to significant hedgerow planting and restoration and to increase the extent of the UK’s hedgerows by 40% by 2050, as recommended by the UK Climate Change Committee. Under the nature recovery Green Paper, the Government have said that they are committed to protecting hedgerows, including through the ELMS scheme, but I would like to see them specify how they will encourage the creation of more.
When I attended the convention on biological diversity —the UN biodiversity conference—at COP15, Governments agreed a new set of goals for nature over this decade. Unfortunately, the UK is one of the most severely nature-depleted countries worldwide, and we have heard successive Government Ministers admit that that is the case. The Natural History Museum’s biodiversity intactness index, probably the best indicator of global biodiversity, has revealed that the world has crashed through the “safe limit for humanity” for biodiversity loss and placed the UK’s 53% score in the bottom 10% of all countries, well below China and last in the G7—not a record that we should be proud of. The Conservatives’ Environment Act 2021 target on species abundance, which they were forced to concede by Opposition amendments, promised only to “halt the decline” in species by 2030. Just halting the decline—or getting a “net zero for nature”—is not good enough. Our ambition should be to be nature-positive, both at home and when working internationally. Going forwards, we need to focus on improving our rewilding, reforesting and biodiversity targets in which hedgerows are preserved, utilised and renewed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) will tell us that Labour will take a different approach, which I will agree with. We need to be the change that we want to see. Action at home has showcased to the world how nature-positive policy can be practically delivered across Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell us that Labour will have a robust, net zero and nature-positive test for every policy—we must do that now—and a green prosperity plan, with an investment of £28 billion in the latter half of the next Parliament, including funding for nature restoration. I hope that that green prosperity plan includes significant funding for the green skills needed for us to restore hedgerows and our nature-depleted environment.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), because I know from prior experience as the DEFRA Minister responsible for nature that she really is a hedgerow hero. She was persistent and effective in implementing increased recognition across DEFRA of the importance of hedgerows. That was certainly recognised by Ministers, including my good friend the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), and the Farming Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), and by all the officials working for DEFRA, and by Natural England and the Forestry Commission.
I am delighted that we published the environmental improvement plan on 31 January 2023 because it really recognised, across 277 pages, what we are doing to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and increase its abundance thereafter. Hedgerows most certainly featured in that, and the revised standards earlier this year featured not just their planting and protection, but their management and assessment and the earthy banks on which they grow. I commend DEFRA for recognising the benefits of stone walls, because in areas such as mine in Copeland, across the Lake District and throughout Cumbria, stone walls are incredibly important for biodiversity and provide the windbreaks and shelters also provided by hedgerows. I am really pleased that DEFRA has recognised that they are more than just something for our much-appreciated tourists to enjoy. They are more than the cultural landscape: they actually provide a real benefit for nature and will help to contribute to the halting of nature’s decline, which is so important.
Think about the hedgerows that have featured across our landscape for thousands of years, initially formed for windbreaks, as divisions and as shelters. To divide the land in such a cost-effective, long-living, bountiful and beautiful way was a wonderful thing that our ancestors did. Grubbing up may have been Government policy many decades ago when the priority was to feed our nation in post-war Britain, but we have come a long way in appreciating that it was a bad idea to sacrifice hedgerows. I would argue that it was one of the worst environmental harms that our country has done to the countryside.
It is right to have an emphasis on farms and farmers, because on our relatively small island, which is densely populated, about 70% of our land is agricultural—is farmed land, so if we are truly to see the benefits that we need for biodiversity, it is right that ELMS and that £2.4 billion investment from Government prioritises farmed land. We are catching up, because the environmental improvement plan introduced that commitment to the planting of more hedgerows, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon set out, and the increased protections. I look forward to confirmation of that.
The new and improved standards will take us a long way, and there are now fantastic examples of farmers coming together. I give a particular shout-out to my farmers in the West Lakeland Community Interest Company, consisting of 50 or so farmers who have come together because they recognise that they can play a key part, predominantly in the Wasdale and Ennerdale area of west Cumbria, which is a truly outstanding landscape—Britain’s best view and Britain’s best farmers.
The farmers in the CIC recognise that working together, featuring more hedgerows and looking after the water quality in the area will not just be of benefit to nature and our environment, but make good business sense for them. The reason they see the business opportunities is that, across DEFRA, we have recognised the benefits of nature-based policies. One that I will reference now is biodiversity net gain. In early February, I hope, biodiversity net gain will be coming out for large developers, and for other developers thereafter. That will drive further appreciation of hedgerows—of not taking them out in the first place; of ensuring that they are protected during development, in that two-year window; and of putting hedgerows back in, because the credits for hedgerow planting are considerable.
I also draw the House’s attention to the benefits of gardeners and the role that gardening can play to increase hedgerows. To replace a fence with a hedgerow will go far in carbon sequestering, in cooling and in air quality. Hedgerows also offer a fantastic benefit for pollution capture, in particular in urban areas where about 10% of hedgerows are found. Hedgerows are of course bountiful —we can all forage from and enjoy them, and wildlife can forage and enjoy the shelter that hedgerows bring—and let us not forget their benefits in preventing soil erosion, as hedgerows will prevent flooding because their roots dig deep into the ground. The reason that hedgerows are so fantastic, however, is that they are often mixed, and that is where the benefits of gardening are as well.
A garden is a diverse landscape, which encourages multiple different plants and different layers to grow at different rates—but it is managed. The act of gardening, similar to farming, means that a garden is managed. Studies, especially those from the Royal Horticultural Society centre, RHS Wisley, now show that the benefits of our 30 million gardeners getting behind nature are absolutely phenomenal. We all know about the benefits of carbon sequestering, and if we are to fulfil our commitment of achieving net zero by 2050, gardeners will play a key role.
To conclude, I will talk about the benefits to physical and mental health from hedgerows. As the third most obese country in Europe, we have a way to go to improve our nation’s health. About 25 limbs are amputated every day as a result of diabetes, and at the height of the pandemic, on one of the worst days for hospital admissions, 4,500 people were admitted to hospital on one day; but every day, on average, 3,000 people are admitted to our hospitals due to obesity-related issues. To go for a walk along a hedgerow—I cannot imagine a nicer way to spend the day.
As we dare to dream that spring is on the way, and as the hedgerows start to get colour and liven up, we can look forward to the bird nesting season. We absolutely need to protect our hedgerows. Most importantly, we can look forward to the sights and sounds that we find in our hedgerows, and find an excuse to go for a walk and enjoy the great outdoors, which is the most wonderful thing about this country. It is absolutely essential if we are going to tackle the obesity crisis and all of the many preventable diseases that are caused by having a less active Britain.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate, and the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) for her beautiful words about hedgerows and the joys of walking around the countryside. She really brought the scene to life.
My constituents know that I am proudly from a farming family. I am able to trace my ancestors back to North Cadbury, in my constituency, as far back as 1763. My family are rooted in the soil we live on. Like other small family farmers up and down the country, they are guardians of our beautiful countryside.
Hedgerows provide wildlife corridors and stimulate predators, which can reduce the need for pesticide use, improve soil health and sequester carbon. They may be artificially created, but they house and shelter some of the most enigmatic and endearing animals, from natterjack toads and horseshoe bats to tawny owls and hoverflies. The People’s Trust for Endangered Species recently counted 2,070 different species of plants and animals in one hedgerow in Devon. It recorded an average of 3.6 woody plant species in 885 km of hedgerows nationwide. Some 84% of birds found in UK farmlands need hedgerows. Over half of them live there primarily, along with 500 native plant species and over 1,500 insect species.
I have spoken before about the importance of cider in my part of Somerset, and one of the best pollinators for cider apples are red mason solitary bees, which need hedgerow shelter to thrive. I recently spoke to a farmer who told me that he had seen the first nightingale on his farm in living memory in the last few weeks, and that he regularly enjoys seeing barn owls patrolling his hedgerows. We must dismiss the myth that farmers want to tear up our hedgerows and destroy key habitats. Encouraging farmers to actively manage and preserve hedgerows is vital for future conservation and the associated benefits but, as of 31 December, there is no cross-compliance in place.
Another farmer told me:
“It’s all voluntary, it’s all optional—I personally can’t spend the required time submitting the silly forms.”
The RSPB figures show that the arrangements could risk the management of 120,000 km of hedgerows. It is rarely a lack of community spirit or ecological sympathy that prevents farmers from conserving hedgerows; instead, it is because of the lengthy and laborious digital system, which is beset with flaws, and a poor return on investing time in maintaining hedgerows.
I commend the Department for the generous payments for planting new hedgerows, but £3 per 100 metres to assess hedgerows, or just £10 per 100 metres to manage them, is ludicrous. My brother recently shared some of his calculations with me. He estimates that assessing 100 metres of hedgerow would take him 10 minutes of his time, not including the travel to the site across the farm or recording the data. Admittedly, recording the data has been made a bit easier because we are lucky enough to have fibre broadband on our farm, but that is not the case for many. Managing 100 metres of hedgerow would take approximately 20 minutes. Going back to his calculations, if he valued his time at £50 an hour, he reckons that he would receive just half of what he should be paid. He said:
“The costs far outweigh the payments…SFI rates just do not compensate for the time that is required to do a proper job.”
It is a shame that the Government did not include hedgerows in their welcome improved payment rates, which were announced recently at the Oxford farming conference. We all know that farmers are the most qualified and experienced people in this country to manage our hedgerows. However, we cannot take for granted farmers or, indeed, the volunteers in citizen science projects such as the Somerset Hedge Group. We need to increase sustainable farming incentive rates for surveying and maintaining hedgerows and have all digital and data issues ironed out with a dedicated support team.
Our hard-working farmers are going through some of the toughest times of their lives. Yes, we need legal protections for our network of hedgerows, but we also need appropriate, accessible and worthwhile accompanying incentives to actively support our farmers to preserve hedgerows, thus contributing to landscape conservation, biodiversity and sustainable agriculture.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Elliott. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who made a fantastic speech, and others who have spoken commendably in the debate so far, especially the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).
There is feverish political speculation at the moment, with all sorts of discussions about demographics, electoral movements, and blocs in the countryside or around the country. There is talk of how people will vote—red wall, blue wall—but we are very much focused on the dry stone wall where we come from. That is a particular Lib Dem demographic.
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who raised an important point. People think about the lakes, the dales and Cumbria and they think of dry stone walls. Those walls are not all in open landscape. Many are historical, many are ancient and many are in the midst of what was once pasture but is now quite mature woodland. There is an awful lot of that around the Kent estuary near where I live, for example. Huge biodiversity benefits come from dry stone walls and they are also incredibly important to our cultural heritage, as has already been said. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that we still have miles and miles of hedgerows in Cumbria, which are of enormous significance.
I have been involved in judging hedge laying competitions at Arnside and Stainton, where I assure you, Ms Elliott, that I was guided by people who actually knew what they were talking about, as well as considering just what seemed nice to me. Also, the Westmorland County Showground regularly has national and international hedge laying competitions, so it is a major part of our culture, as well as being part of the agricultural skillset that it is so important we protect, export and maintain.
There can be no doubt that hedgerows are of enormous significance to our country and our nature. They are teeming with life and are vital. I will focus most of my words on hedgerows in agricultural areas. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, 70% of England is agricultural, so the land on which we farm will be a huge part of protecting, maintaining and expanding our hedgerow network. It is also worth bearing in mind, however, the importance of residential hedgerows in built estates, in people’s gardens, and in public spaces, parkland and so on. We need to make sure that we have planning laws and regulations that support and promote those, and I might come on to that subject if I have time towards the end of my relatively few words.
If we think about the scale and size of Britain’s hedgerows—there are more than half a million miles—they would stretch to the moon and back. They are of great significance, bearing enormous biodiversity. They are an important wildlife habitat in their own right and the most widespread semi-natural habitat in the UK. They support a large diversity of flora and fauna and make a great shelter for animals and flowers. Their berries and nuts are a vital source for what are believed to be 1,500 different species of invertebrates in the UK that have their homes in our hedgerows. I think of the Government’s biodiversity action plan and the 130 species that are closely associated with hedges, including lichens, fungi and reptiles. Many more use those structures for food and shelter, at least during some point of their life cycle. Bank voles, harvest mice and hedgehogs all nest and feed in hedgerows, alongside birds that include blue tits, yellowhammers and whitethroats, while bats use them as what we might call “commuter routes”. We talk about nature corridors—they are so important.
There are many things we can say, and I will say, about the transition to the new ELM schemes. For those who have been able to get into them, there is the prospect of local nature recovery. Many farmers and landowners are involved in the project from Kendal to Penrith, which will potentially provide a continuous corridor, much of which is based upon the extension and maintenance of hedgerows. It will bring huge benefit to our biodiversity, by tackling climate change, and by providing an improved home for nature. Let us be honest, they are important boundary structures and really effective for efficient land use.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out so well, the loss of cross-compliance is really key. Like a lot of the current transition, a foreseeable mistake has been made. Alongside all sorts of other legal obligations, until last year every single one of the 85,000 farmers who receive basic payment also had an obligation through cross-compliance to maintain their hedgerows and do other environmental goods. I am not defending the direct payment schemes, but I will push back a little against those who said they were universally awful. They were not without environmental gain, and that was achieved through cross-compliance. I support the transition, but I think it is being done badly.
Under cross-compliance, 85,000 people were obliged to maintain their hedgerows, and 5% of them would have received an inspection from the Rural Payments Agency every year—so farmers knew it was coming. Now, barely 10% of people are in SFI. Of the 1,100 farmers in my constituency, fewer than 100 are in SFI schemes, and a minority of those will be in hedgerow options. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out very well, they are laudable and good, but they are also impractical, bureaucratic, and do not replace the money that has been lost. It is good that the options provided through countryside stewardship are there, but they will only be available to a very small minority of farmers, and a very small minority of Britain’s current and potential hedgerows. We are losing a lot to gain a little.
I do praise the Minister when it comes to the development and granting through Natural England of the Kendal to Penrith countryside corridor—that is a really great thing. For every one of those, however, I can name several that got turned down. The Lynster Farmers’ Group in Meathop and Ulpha bid for a scheme to protect their hedgerows from the totally avoidable flooding caused by the failure in managing the River Winster to follow its proper channel out into Morecambe bay. I would really love the Minister to look again at that, to ensure those farmers can protect their wildlife, both flora and fauna, including hedgerows.
The hedgerow options and the approach to hedgerows through the ELM scheme transition is emblematic of lots of other aspects of this transition. While they are laudable and good, they are not remotely capable of replacing a fraction of the income that farmers are losing. I was with farmers in Appleby recently. The least badly affected of them reckoned that through the various ELM schemes he could replace 60% of what he had lost. The average figure for which farmers thought they could replace what they had lost through the transition was less than 10%.
What do those farmers end up doing? Well, they go bust or their mental health ends up in a terrible, terrible state. I am truly frightened for the state of the mental health of many of the farmers in my communities—really frightened. This is not helping at all. The pressure will also lead them to make poorer decisions. If someone sees their income receding, what do they do? What do they have to intensify? They may feel against all their better instincts that they have to rip out hedges in order to maximise short-term value from the land, which I fear is happening. While these are laudable schemes, they are not even remotely attractive enough to draw people into them. They are bureaucratic and do not replace the genuine income that has been foregone, and so people are voting with their feet—like I say, 10% are in SFI. Meanwhile, my upland livestock farmers have lost 41% of their income under the Government in this Parliament.
What are farmers? Principally, they are food producers and stewards of the countryside, and they are proud to do both those things. They do not need beating over the head or to be given huge wads of cash to do things that are instinctive to them. It is really important in all of this that we do not allow people to demonise our farmers, who are doing their best with what they are given—but they are being given far too little.
I have a few words to say against those who may well be “more” culprits—our developers, who will always ask for more lax planning rules to allow them to do whatever they want. I am the opposite of a nimby, but the evidence in the lakes and the dales is that if we are really prescriptive in planning law and say what developers can and cannot do when it comes to affordable homes, zero-carbon homes and protecting and extending nature, they will grumble for a bit, but then realise that that is the only game in town, and they either build or do not build. If the Government were to give to local councils, and not just national parks, the power to be far more prescriptive about protecting and extending hedgerows, local authorities would have the power to do that.
What are the options? We can give planners and local authorities those powers, and we can extend legal protections, as the hon. Member for North Devon rightly said, but let us also think carefully about whether in the short term we need to roll over cross-compliance, so we do not lose all the good that people have done over the past few decades for the sake of a mismatched and botched transition. Ultimately, we are seeing something that is an unintended but totally foreseeable consequence of the transition. The Government can do things now to protect our hedgerows, and I pray that they will.
10.16 am
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and to listen to all the contributions this morning. It has occasionally felt like a DEFRA Front-Bench speakers’ reunion, but I have enjoyed all the speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who helpfully contributed to Labour’s internal discussions. I can assure him that we will always be nature-positive in our approaches.
I also listened with great interest to other hon. Members’ speeches, particularly the last one. I can assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that whether it is the blue wall, the red wall or a dry stone wall, Labour’s ambitions are boundless now. I listened very carefully to what he was saying about the issues around the environmental land management scheme, and I found myself very much in agreement with a lot of what he said. I also enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke).
Most of all, I enjoyed the introduction from the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). Before the debate started, I was slightly intrigued because I always wonder what it is that motivates hon. Members to bring a debate to Westminster Hall. I was wondering which of the proverbial five tribes of the Conservative party the hon. Lady sits in. I always thought of her as belonging to the more beleaguered, sensible part of the Conservative party—I am sure that that is where she sits. I was hoping that probably means the Minister has something exciting to tell us at the end of this debate—that she will produce a proverbial rabbit out of the hedgerow, and explain how she is going to deal with what is not at all a good news story for the Government, for the reasons that have been explained.
I thought that, in her normal powerful manner, but gently, the hon. Member for North Devon introduced a considerable range of quite pertinent criticisms of the Government’s record. I will go back and read her speech closely, and hon. Members may find me echoing some of those criticisms in addition to my own.
I welcome the chance for us to discuss a way forward on the agricultural transition that enshrines the necessary protection required for hedgerows, ensuring that they continue to play their vital role in our natural environment. As we have heard, hedgerows are much more than just markers that neatly divide up our countryside and farmlands. They are highways along which wildlife of all shapes and sizes flow, and home to insects that thrive on the pests that are sometimes fond of farmers’ crops. Crucially, they also store carbon and work as a natural means of reducing the risk of flooding.
Experts from the Woodland Trust tell us that two activities are particularly bad for the health and resilience of hedgerows: first, the spreading of agricultural chemicals up to the foot of the hedges; and secondly, poorly timed and over-zealous cutting—already mentioned in the debate—that physically damages the hedges and their ability to play their role as a habitat at crucial times of the year.
We have heard about the cross-compliance rules. I remember the discussions that took place during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, when some of us talked at length about good agricultural and environmental conditions, the standards of GAECs, and the fact that there were good standards under the old basic payment scheme mechanism. We all have our criticisms of those schemes, but as has already been explained, they did at least produce a structure and a system for 85,000 producers. That scheme ensured that land managers kept a buffer strip within two metres of their hedges and banned the use of pesticides in those spaces. To protect the crucial nesting period, land managers were also prohibited from cutting hedges for six months of the year, between March and August.
None of what we have heard comes as a surprise. We were talking about this during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020 some four or five years ago; the Government knew the cross-compliance rules would come to an end on 1 January this year. I have regularly reminded both the current Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), and his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), of these points and of the benefits of cross-compliance. Despite knowing the potential consequences, the Government have dithered, delayed and failed to act. Perhaps the first thing that the Minister can do today is explain why we find ourselves in this situation.
The consultation was carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year, but the Department has still not responded. We were told the response is to come early in 2024. Well, here we are—early in 2024. Will the Minister tell us when we are going to get that response? Frankly, it is only a response to a consultation. With no cross-compliance rules, protection for hedgerows is now substantially weakened. Does the Minister accept that point? Can she make an assessment of how much damage is likely to be done between now and when new rules are put in place? Because, although I entirely agree with the previous comments and do not expect farmers to be abusing the situation, some can, and I fear some will. What assessment has been made of the damage that will be caused by the Government’s negligence?
We are left with the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, which do offer some protection but only to “important” hedges. Sadly, the definition of “important” is so narrow that it rules out many hedgerows. The soonest we can hope to have greater protection—unless the Minister tells us something in this debate—is summer this year; that is not good enough. If the Government choose to introduce primary legislation to protect hedgerows, as some have suggested, we may have to wait until 2025 before protection is restored.
Of course, it is not just hedgerows. Cross-compliance rules on minimum soil cover, prevention of soil erosion and pesticide-free green cover near watercourses have all fallen by the wayside. History tells us that, without those protections, it is harder for us to meet legally binding targets on carbon and nature. Last week’s report from the environment watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, shows that the Government are already failing to meet almost all their environmental and nature goals. They should hang their head in shame at that report. We can scarcely afford to make the situation worse. It is interesting that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned the Stacey review of some years ago; that was another example of things being promised and not delivered. I found myself thinking during her speech that there have been lots of targets—targets are all very worthy, but it is about delivery and action and measuring what is actually going on.
If the decline in species abundance is to be halted, the contribution made by hedgerows will be necessary. They also play a role in meeting the carbon goals that the environmental watchdog warns are in danger of being missed. Not only are they crucial stores of carbon in themselves but, as evidenced in research from the University of Leeds, the soil beneath hedgerows works as a sponge for carbon, capturing an average of 30% more carbon than intensively managed grassland parcels.
Two-metre buffer strips around hedges, which were protected by those cross-compliance rules, are also important to nature restoration. The strips host many threatened species and ensure the resilience of hedgerows. They act as corridors in what can often be inhospitable terrain for invertebrates and mammals. Significantly, buffer zones can also help stop the movement of pesticide and fertiliser away from their intended place of use and reduce run-off into our water system. Given that the Government have once again reneged on promises on neonicotinoids this year, that remains an important issue.
This is a sorry saga. The Government must act swiftly to provide clarity to the sector in the interests of land managers and nature. The first step should be finally to publish the consultation response on the future of hedgerow regulation. It is not good enough that we have yet to see it, over six months after it began. Legislation should also be brought forward at the earliest opportunity to, at a minimum, restore the protection that hedgerows enjoyed under cross-compliance rules. With support from wide across the sector for these measures, including voices such as the NFU and the Wildlife Trust, I urge the Government to move quickly on this issue. Every day without regulation risks more damage being done to these natural marvels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair for this fascinating debate, Ms Elliott.
We have our differences, but here we are obviously all true hedgerow lovers, having all got up to get here for the 9.30 am debate on hedgerows. All of us present can be proud of the hedgerows in our area, as well as our stone walls and the other beautiful and iconic features of our landscapes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate. She is passionate about hedges and has done a great deal of work with the CPRE, whose information I have read; I know that a number of other Members present are also hedgerow champions with the CPRE. Of course, I also thank the former nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for all she has done on hedgerows. She has shared a great deal of knowledge with us this morning.
I grew up on a Somerset farm, and hedgerows are something that was ingrained in me, which is why I have been working very hard in the Department to ensure that we have the full understanding of hedgerows. We have great officials working on this as well; the Department does recognise the importance of this issue.
The farm I grew up on was mixed livestock: we had dairy and arable rotations and so forth. My father, Michael Pow, who very sadly died just over a year ago, was a great planter of hedgerows. Wherever he went out in the Land Rover—I was very often with him, because we were constantly moving cattle from field to field—he would carry bits of baler string, which he would put round trees and hedges to mark them so that the hedge cutter left them and they would not get cut. We now have wonderful standard trees growing out of the hedges on the farm. My father was way ahead of his time in that he cut the hedges only every other year, to leave one side to grow, which is what we are advising farmers to do now, decades on! When I go home to the farm, it is just a burgeoning froth of blossom of hawthorn, as someone mentioned, blackthorn and all the other wonderful blossoms. The National Trust runs a wonderful occasion— I do not know whether it is a day or a week—to recognise blossoms in the hedgerows. They are so valuable to wildlife.
Members really do not have to tell me how important hedgerows are, because I absolutely recognise that. The Government recognise that too. Many colleagues have mentioned the benefits we get from hedges: they provide habitats and wildlife corridors; they are great for holding the soil and stopping water run-off; they are wonderful habitats for our pollinators to shelter and hibernate in; and of course they sequester carbon. Interestingly, hedgerows were not planted for those reasons; started off as boundaries to keep our livestock in, but they have morphed into this wonderful feature that brings so many more benefits. They are so important to our landscape. They have also become important as we adapt to climate change, because they are part of our net zero commitment. They store carbon, and they are really valuable for that.
It is for all those compelling reasons that our environment improvement plan is supporting farmers to create and restore 30,000 miles of hedgerows by 2037, and 45,000 miles by 2050. That will enable all of those multiple benefits to be multiplied even more. We have calculated how much carbon can be sequestered by all those hedges, and we have the figure for 2037. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon mentioned that her own Liberal Democrat council has failed its net zero target on hedges. It should probably look to its hedges and to see what it could do to get there. My hon. Friend is right: hedges can make a real difference on that agenda.
I will run through the strong legal protections for hedges that we have in law already. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 prohibit the removal of most countryside hedgerows, or parts of them, without first seeking approval from the local planning authority. Important hedgerows with wildlife, landscape, historical or archaeological value cannot and must not be removed, and local authorities have powers to act should anybody break the law. Also, all wild birds, their eggs and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prohibits killing, injuring or taking wild birds or taking or damaging their eggs and nests. Taken together, those legal protections safeguard most countryside hedgerows and farmland birds.
However, as we leave the EU’s common agricultural policy and move to our new and, I would say, better system for paying for environmental benefits, we have considered whether we need additional protections to manage hedgerows in law. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon mentioned, we ran a consultation last summer asking stakeholders how best to protect hedgerows through effective, proportionate regulation as we leave behind the EU’s cross-compliance system, with which the Labour party is still very much aligned. The response to that consultation should not be a surprise to anybody here, because it showed how much members of the public and farmers share our love for English hedgerows. We received almost 9,000 responses—a huge amount. It will be published imminently—the shadow Minister asked about that—but the information in it has already been looked at and used to inform the recent rise in SFI payments.
We are analysing all the data. There was overwhelming support from farmers and non-farmers alike for maintaining our legal protections. The support and enthusiasm for good hedgerow management shown in the responses from the farming community—from both individual farmers and the industry—show how much hedgerows are valued.
We have to trust farmers to do the right thing. There have been one or two damning comments today about farmers wanting to rip out hedgerows, spray all over them or plough right up to them, should there be a tiny window in which the protections are slightly different from what they were under the EU system. I live among farmers; that is how I grew up, and my husband was an agricultural auctioneer. We have to trust them. As has been said, they are the custodians of the countryside. It is disingenuous to suggest that the farming community will go out and spray, or plough right up to, hedgerows after they have created these wonderful buffers with burgeoning wildlife.
Tim Farron
The Minister is talking to a straw man. I do not think anybody here has said what she suggests. A number of us have said that if farmers are pushed into a situation where they have no other source of income, they will make decisions that they do not want to, but nobody has said any of the things that she mentioned.
Rebecca Pow
We have to be careful. There is a suggestion that what I said might happen if there is a gap. I certainly got that impression from one or two comments, but that may not be how the hon. Gentleman understood them, and his point is on the record.
We recognise the importance of the legal protections in place to prevent any of the concerns that I outlined. We do not want any of those things to happen. Those concerns come from both stakeholders and farmers. I want to make it very clear that, as a result, we will seek to regulate to maintain hedgerow protections as a matter of priority, when parliamentary time allows. That is the rabbit that I am pulling out of the hat today. I hope that will be welcome news, because I think we all agree that this is a priority. We want to make sure that regulation is fair and proportionate to farmers. That has been very clear in all our consultations. We want to get the support of farmers, and we want them to comply with the law where they have to; but we want to work with them, not against them.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned that advice is important. Advice is critical, so that farmers know what they have to do. There must be guidance that ensures that they can protect hedgerows, and we should reserve sanctions for the most serious offences. On many occasions when I have been out and about, particularly in farming areas and protected landscapes where designated advisers were working with farmers, I have seen how useful it is for farmers to have someone to talk to. I met an adviser recently in the Kent downs area of outstanding natural beauty—now called a national landscape—who was an ecologist. She said that meeting and chatting with farmers was the best way to encourage them to sign up to the levels and different options in the SFI. It can seem a bit scary, or feel like there is too much paperwork, but we have simplified the whole scheme; we have listened to our farmers on that point.
There was a bit of negativity from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the increased payment levels that we have just given for hedgerows. I thought she might have welcomed that. Although they have all gone up, we need to remember that farmers can apply for lots of different levels. It is not just one sum; they can get a sum for recording the hedgerow, a sum for managing it and so on—there are various amounts that will add up, given all the other things they can apply for in the SFI. The idea is that cumulatively the scheme will be attractive; we really want farmers to understand that and apply.
Daniel Zeichner
I loved the Minister’s reference to “burgeoning froth”. I think it could be her epitaph, frankly, because this is burgeoning froth. Will she tell us how many people, of the 80,000-plus who were protected through cross-compliance, have picked up on SFI and are receiving it as we speak?
Rebecca Pow
That is a good point. First, let us look at what is happening in our other schemes; this is not just about SFI. We have seen a huge appetite for our country- side stewardship schemes. There are now 49,000 miles of hedgerow that have one or both sides managed under the countryside stewardship or environmental stewardship options; and famers have already signed up for 2,300 agreements, including 5,474 hedgerow actions.
Lots of farmers have opted to do a number of actions through the SFI. Remember that this is a new scheme; farmers are rolling off their countryside stewardship schemes on to the new scheme, which is expanding every day. The best thing to do is to be positive and encouraging, rather than negative and damning. I think the former nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, would agree that we need to be positive about what is going on. This is a new, positive scheme. Please encourage farmers to apply for it, because the money and the options are there. We want our farmers and land managers to make the most of their hedgerows, and we support them in taking actions such as assessing and recording hedgerow condition, rotational cutting, and even leaving some hedgerows uncut altogether, which is obviously great for our nature and wildlife, and for those frothing, burgeoning hedgerows full of blackthorn and hawthorn. As I have said, farmers and land managers created or restored 8,450 miles of hedgerow through countryside stewardship capital grants, which is a great addition to our reaching our targets.
I have a few minutes left to cover some other points. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made a good point about skills. We obviously need skills; we are aware of that and have a green jobs taskforce, with which I am involved. Through a lot of our tree strategy and action plan to plant trees, we have a big focus on skills, training and apprenticeships, including Forestry Commission apprenticeships; new funding of £4.5 million from the nature for climate fund was put towards this issue. Last year, 1,000 people undertook training in skills connected with trees, which inevitably includes skills connected with hedgerows. That is really ramping up. Those people will be out there, working together, and able to help and advise on schemes.
Trudy Harrison
There has been an awful lot of good discussion about the importance of farming, but could I draw the Minister’s attention to the importance of encouraging gardeners? There are 30 million or so gardens and gardeners in the country already bringing benefits, but they could do even more to plant and protect hedgerows in those gardens. She recently visited RHS Wisley, which I have also visited. I was blown away by the knowledge of Professor Alistair Griffiths there, who talked about the physical and mental benefits of horticulture. I would also like to draw attention to the work of the Horticultural Trades Association and the all-party parliamentary group on gardening and horticulture in this area.
Rebecca Pow
That gives me a great opportunity to talk about gardening; I used to be a gardening presenter and journalist. In my garden, I garden for wildlife. My hon. Friend makes such a good point. Our gardens in this country equate to a million hectares of land. Think how important that is as a wildlife habitat. I urge everyone to look after nature in their gardens and plant those trees. They should also take part in the big garden birdwatch, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon.
The shadow Minister was somewhat damning about nature, but we have a plan for nature. I cannot work out what Labour’s plan for nature would be. It is all very well to keep saying that Labour will integrate its approach, but we do not know where its £28 billion, which keeps being bandied about, is coming from. We have a plan, which started with the Environment Act 2021 and the targets set in it, and includes the environmental improvement plan, which has been so well referenced by colleagues. That is a plan with a framework and targets. Without targets, there is nothing to aim at. The targets inform the policies.
Intense work continues at DEFRA on the biodiversity targets. We have to gather all the evidence on insects, birds and plants. That is an ongoing enormous task that is ever-changing, but we are doing that, day in, day out, to inform our policies. Where we need to tweak polices—for example, if we need to up the SFI payments for a certain sector that is not delivering enough for nature while also producing food—we will be able to do so. That is the beauty of this system. Nobody else has a system like this; it is globally leading. It is very complicated, because it involves nature and is ever-changing. It is not as easy as, for example, dealing with emissions from industry. A bit of credit for that would be welcomed. People out there need to understand that we are on the side of nature, and we genuinely think we could hit the target of halting the decline of species, if we got everything lined up in the right place, and had the positivity of parliamentarians behind us.
There was a quick reference to Dame Glenys Stacey’s report. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon that since that review, our work on regulation has responded to many challenges. There has been a huge amount of work on how we make farming regulation clearer, fairer and more effective—issues to which she referred. The Government have not published a formal response to Dame Glenys’s report. However, in both the agricultural transition plan published in 2020 and the recent update published this month, we outline our vision for a regulatory system that helps the vast majority of farmers who want to and try to do the right thing, and supports them when things go wrong.
We have already made a lot of improvements to the regulatory system—improvements that farmers genuinely wanted. We have had a lot of engagement with farmers, stakeholders and the National Farmers Union in particular. The improvements include: reducing unfair penalties for farmers’ minor errors, which is something that annoyed them about the CAP system—I am sure that the shadow Minister would agree; removing duplication of standards to make the system clearer for farmers; reducing administrative burdens and paperwork; and implementing a more preventive approach to monitoring and enforcement.
There is a huge amount of synergy in the room on the issue of hedgerows, which I think we all agree are very important. The Government are committed to introducing protections for hedgerows when parliamentary time permits. For me, they are a priority. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, who is a great champion for hedgerows and will remain so.
Selaine Saxby
It has been a privilege to have you in the Chair today, Ms Elliott. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his concern about the family disputes on our side of the House, and I reassure him that the Conservative Environment Network acts as an umbrella organisation and occasional mediator. It is the largest caucus in this place, and supports the party of rural Britain and the first Government ever to legislate to protect our environment.
I look forward to supporting new legal protections for hedgerows, and thank the Minister for pulling that rabbit out of the hedgerow this morning. I hope that the consultation response is imminent, which should be sooner than “shortly”. I also hope, for all the hedgerow heroes who care so much, that both those events will come to pass before the hawthorn and blackthorn blossom emerges.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered legal protections for hedgerows.
Books in Primary Schools
(10 months, 4 weeks 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
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I will call Gill Furniss to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the availability of books in primary schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted to have this time to talk about books, after raising this issue many times since entering Parliament and serving as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for libraries, information and knowledge.
If it were not for books I would not be standing here now. As a child, I started going to libraries and I have never stopped. In fact, I spent so much time in libraries that I ended up working in not just one but several over the years, from public libraries to academic libraries. I eventually earned my degree in information and library studies as a mature student. Books changed my life. I know that they have the potential to change the lives of millions of children, too.
As a former librarian, I have had the privilege of welcoming countless children through the doors of my local library, watching as they were whisked away to far-flung places, captivated by the magic of words. Children are whisked away to the land of Shakespeare, Dickens, the Brontës and many others. This is a country whose identity is steeped in story, which is why I find it so shocking that there is no statutory requirement for schools to have any library facilities. It is no wonder that one in six adults in the country have very low levels of literacy, rising to one in three in some of the poorest communities. I fear that those statistics could be even bleaker in future.
Research conducted by the National Literacy Trust found that 56% of eight to 18-year-olds do not enjoy reading in their free time—the lowest level since surveys began in 2005. More than ever, books are fighting phones and video game consoles for relevance at home. Although those have their place, it is vital that we do everything in our power to help establish a love of reading during children’s formative years.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that libraries in primary schools are more important in areas of deprivation than in areas of affluence? It is essential that we listen to teachers in primary schools so that we know whether a child has not been spoken to and not been read to. If that is the case, they start at a terrible disadvantage, which can impact the rest of their lives. I support her debate and her ambitions 100%.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend is correct. It is crucial that people in poorer communities have access to public libraries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing a debate on an issue of great importance. I know that the Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but it is an issue that I can support the hon. Lady on, because in Northern Ireland we have the same problem. Does she agree that it is unacceptable that we have teachers perusing charity shops at the weekend to scrape together lending libraries for children whose parents cannot afford books? I agree with the research that shows that the amount of time that children spend reading independently is the best predictor of their overall literacy and language achievement. It helps children to build fluency and become self-reliant readers. This debate is so important. Well done to the hon. Lady.
Gill Furniss
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his intervention.
Last week, led by Sir Michael Morpurgo, the current and former children’s laureates united to call for legislation to make it a legal requirement for all schools in Britain to have libraries. Some may question that as a priority and deride it as something that would be nice to have, especially during these difficult economic times, but the benefits of reading are innumerable, and support across the country for such a policy is overwhelming.
Eighty-six per cent. of parents said that they would support making it a legal requirement for every primary school in the country to have a designated school library on site—and for good reason. Studies from the OECD show that reading for pleasure has a more profound impact on a child’s academic success than their socioeconomic background, while research by Farshore into the impacts of daily story time in primary schools found that 65% of boys and 76% of girls agree that story time makes them feel calmer. Those children went on to develop increased enthusiasm and motivation to read and, on average, their reading age improved at twice the expected rate over the period of the study.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an important speech about an issue that is close to my heart. What she is saying is clearly demonstrated by an example in my constituency. Skerne Park Academy had a brand new library installed and started a reading lobster programme whereby children who said that they had nobody to read to were given a plush toy in the shape of a lobster so that they could have a reading partner. Reading has taken off there, and the children are doing really well.
I would like to follow up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). My love of books grew from visiting charity shops and second-hand bookshops, because their prices are accessible with pocket money. I do not think there is anything wrong with people visiting second-hand bookshops. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Gill Furniss
I am not quite sure about that. I think it is nice to have a new book, if possible. All children should be treated as equals and not have to show that they maybe do not have as much money as others. I will dwell on that point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Children are not the only ones to benefit from the impacts of daily story time: 91% of teachers said that they want to continue with daily story time, and 88% would like it to be mandated in the curriculum to help mitigate the guilt of coming away from the statutory curriculum requirements to spend time reading stories.
It is clear from multiple academic studies and reports that a love of books can help to form the bedrock for a better life. However, we are in the midst of a national reading crisis. That crisis is compounded by the fact that one in seven state primary schools in this country do not have a library. In the most disadvantaged communities, that number rises to one in four. We must do more to help get books into the hands of children. Ensuring that no child is left behind when it comes to reading is worth every penny; it is an investment in their future and our country’s future. However, there has been little growth in spending per pupil over the last 14 years. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted that the purchasing power of school budgets will be around 3% lower in 2024-25 than it was in 2010.
Schools have a great deal of autonomy when it comes to allocating their budget and, in recent years, they have been forced—as so many people across the country have—to make difficult financial decisions. When they are faced with buildings plagued by leaks, cold and reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, who can blame headteachers and governors for making extraordinarily difficult decisions about how they spend their budget? The lack of prioritisation of books means that two thirds of primary schools in the UK are without a designated library budget. When parents were polled, however, the library was one of the most important facilities that they wanted their children to have access to, second only to the playground.
We must remember that there is no guarantee that pupils who do not have access to books in school have access to books at home. A lack of provision in primary schools will simply exacerbate deep-rooted inequalities. We can provide the books that will help to create a generation of readers, but simply making books available does not guarantee that they will be read. Just as important as ensuring that we have fully stocked libraries in our primary schools is having the library staff. They are often overlooked, but they are vital for ensuring that the library is a welcoming and engaging space.
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Lady may remember the Education Committee’s winter reports on the importance of early literacy from the time that I chaired the Committee. A key thing to come out of one of those reports was the programme of Sure Start centres for children. Is it about time we went back to that, so that every community has Sure Start centres and community centres again? They were champions for reading at school.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would be good to see again the scope of what Labour provided in its last term.
Library staff encourage new readers and put programmes in place to ensure that reading is for pleasure, not just for study. However, a study by Great School Libraries found that only 41% of schools in the UK with a designated library area had library staff, down from 54% in 2019. We need to reverse the trends in childhood reading by ensuring that schools have well-stocked, well-staffed libraries.
We need to empower children by letting them choose what they want to read and ensuring that they have a wide variety of genres to choose from. We need to allow teachers the ability to ringfence time so that all primary school children can enjoy reading for pleasure. The gift of reading is one of the most beautiful things that we can impart to the next generation. We need to ensure that primary schools are properly equipped to do so.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a pleasure, once again, to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. It is nice to be in a Westminster Hall debate in which we all overwhelmingly agree. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing the debate, and it is good to have others taking part. We have particularly benefited from hearing about the hon. Lady’s experience. She mentioned her early childhood experience as a user of libraries, and then her experiences throughout her life as an employee, a professional and an academic in the library service.
The hon. Lady said that we should improve children’s access to books. The Government wholeheartedly agree. Reading is the cornerstone of a brilliant education, an important part of growing up and adult life, and a core focus of this Government. She talked about being in competition with video games, consoles, phones and tablets. In the old times, we might have said that television was top of that list. There are good arguments and practical, useful roles for all those pieces of electronica, but there is nothing quite like a book for the physical, mental and emotional experience.
Mr Sheerman
Does the Minister agree that one of the real problems we all have—I have it in Huddersfield; everyone has it in their constituency—is early stimulation? We see so many parents now pushing their small child in a pushchair, with their headphones on; they are not talking to the child. That early learning of the language, then reading at night and taking them to the library to get their books is crucial, is it not? That is why this debate is so important.
Damian Hinds
What can I say? The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me, and not for the first time. I do not think he has seen my handwritten notes, but if he had, he would know that they say, “It starts with being read to.” I remember previous debates we have had in this Chamber, particularly with our former colleague Baron Field, who was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. For example, we used to talk about how those early experiences of being read to are so important, not only because of the reading experience, but because it is quite difficult to read to a very young child without holding them, and that early attachment is part of it.
We have a focus these days on the home learning environment, and some of the ways we can make everyday experiences—little moments—matter. Everyday experiences at a bus stop, on a train or in a supermarket are all part of that early literacy experience. Ideally there should be books at home, and I pay tribute to some of the organisations that have tried to make that more widespread, particularly in disadvantaged communities or for people on lower incomes.
Of course, there should also be books at school. School should be the great leveller. I have visited a lot of schools in my time. Like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I am a former member of the Education Committee. I am now and have been previously an Education Minister, and, like all of us, I am a Member of Parliament. In those three roles, I have visited a lot of schools. I am always struck by the prominence that schools give to books and reading. They are an important part of school life, and that is true for reading time in school and for children taking books home to enjoy them there.
All pupils deserve to be taught a knowledge-rich curriculum that promotes extensive reading both in and out of school, and reading is a principal way to acquire knowledge. The texts that our young people read play a big part in their wider development, too, by broadening their horizons and introducing new ideas and perspectives.
We have strengthened the national curriculum to focus on developing reading. To encourage the development of a lifelong love of literature, we are requiring pupils to study a range of books, poems and plays. The national curriculum also promotes reading for pleasure, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough rightly says, with evidence showing that that is more important for children’s educational development than even their parents’ level of education.
Charities such as BookTrust and the National Literacy Trust work tirelessly to raise the profile of reading for pleasure, and I thank them for their work. Of course, such organisations also do important work to raise awareness of the vital role of libraries, and we recognise the particular importance of libraries in increasing children’s access to books and promoting reading for pleasure, whether in school or in the community library. I am grateful to the organisations and authors who are currently shining a light on the difference that libraries can make, such as Julia Donaldson, Michael Morpurgo, Philip Pullman, Cressida Cowell and others.
I also recognise the important work undertaken by a range of organisations to promote the work of libraries to children, families and schools. For example, Schools Library Services assists schools with everything from developing whole libraries to book stocks and staff training, and the Reading Agency’s summer reading challenge, which I think many MPs also take part in directly or indirectly, motivates more than 700,000 children of all abilities to read for enjoyment over the summer holidays through their local library. It is for individual schools to decide how best to provide and maintain a library service for their pupils, including whether to employ a qualified librarian. Our reading framework provides guidance on that, including how best to engage children with the books that are available in school.
Public libraries have a strong offer to support children’s development as readers beyond school, not just through books and resources, but through events such as Rhymetimes. The experience of visiting a public library these days is quite different from when we were children: there is so much more going on, and it is much more inclusive and welcoming.
Gill Furniss
Does the Minister agree that cuts to public services mean that there is less access to public libraries? Many have closed, and community libraries, which adults in particular used to rely on, are no longer accessible.
Damian Hinds
I accept that there have been strains on public finances. The origins of those are well known: when the Government came in in 2010, there was a recurring annual public deficit of £155 billion, which is £5,500 for every household in the country. That meant that difficult decisions had to be made over time, but libraries remain an essential part of the fabric of our country. There are statutory requirements around libraries for upper-tier local authorities, and there were 2,892 static libraries in England at the last count. That does not include mobile libraries, of which there is not a similar count.
Peter Gibson
Talking of libraries gives me the perfect opportunity to highlight the fantastic work in Darlington, where our library was threatened with closure by the Labour-controlled local authority. The public were up in arms and they launched a campaign to save it. It is has been put in the hands of independent trustees, has just undergone a multimillion-pound revamp and is now at the heart of our community. Not every community has lost its library.
Damian Hinds
Well, I am pleased to hear of the good ending to that story. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he does locally and for his championing of these causes.
In 2022, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, the Minister for Arts and Heritage, appointed my noble Friend Baroness Sanderson to review the public libraries sector to help inform future work. Her review of public libraries was published last week and makes a number of recommendations, which will inform the development by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the new Government libraries strategy for England.
For children to develop a love of books, we need to build a strong foundation in reading early on, and the Government have introduced a range of measures to support the effective teaching of reading right from the start.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is making some very good points, but this is not just about books, surely—it is about what those books are. I had the honour of knowing Benjamin Zephaniah, who opened the John Clare cottage, which I am chairman of, but we are struggling to get children to come out of school into places such as that to learn about poetry and to hear and read poetry. Reading poetry at school has diminished. Trips outside of school have diminished. This is holistic. Would the Minister not agree that many children in our country from more deprived backgrounds are missing out holistically, not just in terms of libraries?
Damian Hinds
I am not quite sure how the hon. Gentleman would or could know that. I certainly know that when I visit schools, I see and hear poetry being read, discussed and being written by children. I agree with him entirely that poetry is a really important part of our literature, and it is a really important thing for children to be exposed to. Like the study of music and learning a musical instrument or to sing, they can find ways to express themselves in ways they did not know existed. It provides ways to understand the world in ways they had not previously appreciated. I agree with him absolutely on the importance of poetry.
I was talking about the earliest years, and in particular the early years foundation stage. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we introduced landmark reforms in the early years foundation stage to improve early years outcomes for all children, particularly disadvantaged children, in those critical areas that build the foundations of later success, including, importantly, language development and reading. The reforms will ensure that children receive the best start and develop a love of reading from early on. We have invested in early language intervention and are supporting parents through the home learning environment campaign that I mentioned a moment ago, which has been backed by further investment.
To drive up the standard of literacy teaching in primary schools, we have followed the evidence and focused on ensuring high-quality systematic synthetic phonics teaching for every child. Since 2010, we have turbocharged the effective teaching of phonics by placing it at the heart of the curriculum and introducing the phonics screening check in 2012 to assess pupils at the end of year 1. We have incorporated phonics into the teachers’ standards, the baseline of expectation for teachers’ professional practice. We have placed a greater focus on phonics and the teaching of reading in Ofsted’s inspection framework and supported schools to choose good phonics programmes by publishing a list of schemes validated by the Department.
In 2018, we launched the English hubs programme, which is dedicated to improving the teaching of reading. The programme has so far supported over 1,600 schools intensively, with a particular focus on helping children making the slowest progress in reading, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds. It includes schools in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, which are supported by two of the hubs, Learners First and Saint Wilfrid’s. The programme is having a measurable impact. Schools supported intensively as partner schools by English hubs outperform non-partner schools by around seven percentage points when comparing the change in year 1 phonics screening check results between just before the pandemic and 2022.
Mr Sheerman
May I make a final intervention? The Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), has rudely left him on his own.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) wants the Government to say that every school must have a library. Is the Minister for that, or is he against it? When is he going to introduce it? He has not got much time before the election.
Damian Hinds
Look: schools have books. I do not know what schools the hon. Member may have visited that do not have books on shelves, but schools have books. Sometimes libraries these days get called “learning resource centres” and all sorts of different things. Sometimes they are laid out in different ways and not necessarily laid out as a set-aside room, but schools have books. We trust schools, headteachers, boards of governors and trustees to know what is right for their school and how to provide best for their children. We want reading and books to be at the heart of that and, in my experience of primary schools in England, that is indeed what happens.
The hubs that I mentioned are about more than phonics. In 2021, we rolled out the “Transforming your school’s reading culture” programme, which was developed by hub schools and sector experts to support reading for pleasure. Reaching around 600 schools last year, English hubs is now into the third year of delivering that research-based continuing professional development programme, which trains teachers in schools across the country to ensure that every pupil develops a love of books.
We know that the hub programme cannot reach every single school, so to ensure that all teachers had clear guidance to support their teaching of reading, we published a reading framework. Updated last year, the framework offers non-statutory guidance on best practice in the teaching of reading from reception to year 9. It recognises the importance of encouraging a love of reading, including the vital importance of pupil choice and access to a wide variety of books. More than 90% of schools have taken our first reading framework published in 2021 and 66%, or two thirds, have made changes to their practice as a result.
Our clear focus on reading is making an impact. England came fourth out of the 43 countries that tested children of the same age in the 2021 progress in international reading literacy study, which is an assessment of the reading abilities of primary-age children across the world. I am grateful to all the primary school teachers, teaching assistants and everybody in our brilliant school system whose commitment to reading and to our children has made that possible. The strongest predictor of PIRLS performance was the year 1 phonics screening check mark, with higher marks predicting higher PIRLS scores.
The Department is committed to improving literacy for all pupils because we cannot knock down barriers for children if we do not teach them to read well. We are determined to drive progress further still and ensure that all children can benefit from high-quality teaching, giving them a solid base on which to build as they progress through school.
Question put and agreed to.
International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response
(10 months, 4 weeks 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
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK response to international human rights abuses.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I would like to start by thanking the many remarkable charities and non-governmental organisations that are working fiercely to protect the lives of oppressed people around the world. From Amnesty International to the British Red Cross, from Human Rights Watch to Islamic Relief: thank you. This is brave work in the face of terrifying opposition from terrorists, from oppositional Governments and, sadly, sometimes from Members on the Conservative Benches.
Last week in the Chamber, one hon. Member slandered judges in the European Court of Human Rights by calling them
“non-lawyers…guided by non-governmental organisations”—[Official Report, 17 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 900],
as though the work of NGOs were a scandal to be associated with. Far from it: on behalf of those on my side of the House, I wanted to begin this debate by paying tribute to them. It is our duty in this place to work towards a world in which their services are no longer needed. Sadly, that is far from being a reality.
This week, we will mark Holocaust Memorial Day in Parliament and in our constituencies. It is a sacred and solemn moment in the year, when we consider the depths of evil that can be reached by people in power. The regime of oppression against the Jewish people, as well as other minority communities, did not begin with the holocaust and it did not end there either. It is apt that, alongside our commemorations, we consider ways in which we can intervene in present-day attacks on human rights, particularly through a proactive, fair and—importantly—consistent foreign policy.
Human rights abuses are far and away the topic on which I receive the most correspondence from my constituents. My constituents rightly care about the most vulnerable people in our town, but also across the world. I have received thousands of emails regarding the Gaza situation alone, so that is where I would like to begin.
We cannot allow the tragedies happening each day and night in the middle east to fade from our mind. While rightfully condemning the brutal attacks launched by Hamas on 7 October that killed and injured thousands of civilians in Israel, our Government were shamefully slow to oppose the counter-attack that followed, in which violations of international law were plain to see. Does the Minister regret his Department’s hesitation to intervene when the Israeli Defence Forces were known to be withholding food, water and other essential supplies from desperate Palestinians?
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I recently put in a question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make sure that it is constantly checking on Israel’s engagement in the middle east when it comes to Gaza, to ensure that it is complying with international humanitarian law. Does the hon. Member agree that the Foreign Office has to be looking at this matter day in, day out, because many of our constituents across the country care about it deeply?
Sarah Owen
I wholeheartedly agree. I just wish that we had a Foreign Secretary who could actually be questioned by Members of Parliament face to face, rather than what we have currently, particularly in the volatile situation that the world is in.
To follow on from my questions to the Minister, aid routes were being blocked, hospitals were running out of fuel to treat victims, including babies, and requests to open the Rafah crossing were denied—all actions that were in direct contravention of international law. I would be interested to hear what corrections the Government would make to their approach, because it is not too late to learn from their mistakes. I strongly urge the Department to do so. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, we deserve answers to these serious questions.
What does the Minister have to say about the horrific ITV News footage that shows a man who was waving a white flag in a supposed safe zone being shot and killed? Will Ministers be taking this up with their Israeli counterparts? When?
The human rights of Palestinians have been systematically violated for decades, from the creeping annexations on the west bank, and settler violence, to the 15-year-long blockade, which shows no signs of weakening, but 2023 saw a deadly escalation in violence and a deterioration in the standard of human rights in the region. The latest figures from Amnesty International tell us that some 24,000 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza. Given that half of Gaza’s population are children, we can therefore estimate that well over 10,000 children have been victims of this conflict. This is a gravely conservative estimate.
Much debate has taken place about whether the Israeli Defence Forces’ actions have amounted to war crimes. I have made my views clear. We have seen collective punishment and arbitrary arrests. Amnesty reports evidence of illegal airstrikes against churches and refugee camps. UN human rights experts warned in November of signs of genocide. As we speak, South Africa is mounting a case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, which must be heard without prejudice and taken extremely seriously.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in this very important debate. I find it shocking that when we look at all the facts of what has happened on the ground in Gaza, it seems that almost every rule of international relations and humanitarianism has been broken. A genocide case is being heard at the ICJ, yet our Government cannot even call for a ceasefire. Is that acceptable?
Sarah Owen
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I asked the Minister whether he had regrets about his Department’s approach in the earlier stages of the most recent conflict. How long will it take for contrition to set in over the Government’s stubborn refusal to call for a ceasefire on all sides? How long can this Government ignore all the warning signs of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? When will the self-reflection begin regarding our continued supply of arms to Israel? There is far more within our power to influence Netanyahu’s Government than Ministers are currently doing. We must also do what we can to encourage the release of hostages on both sides of this conflict and to lessen the number of Palestinian and Israeli civilian casualties.
Our approach to Israel must be in line with how we treat other countries. If a Government say that they are committed to human rights, they cannot pick and choose which humans’ rights we stand up for and which ones we do not. We should not overlook breaches of international law by holding some countries to a lower standard. We have imposed sanctions on Russia and China to address their abuses of human rights, and our Government have also rightly sanctioned suppliers of arms to the Myanmar military; I would appreciate it if the Minister could divulge whether consideration has been given to similar action for the Israeli Government. Consistency should be key in our foreign policy, but consistency is what we are lacking.
I will move on to some other areas that I am sure colleagues agree deserve scrutiny. The people of Jammu and Kashmir continue their painful struggle for statehood. This is another area of international human rights that is close to the hearts of constituents in Luton North.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
With regard to Kashmir, many of my Slough constituents continue to be concerned about the safety, security and wellbeing of their family and friends. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on both the Indian Government and the Pakistani Government to ensure that the human rights of all Kashmiris are protected, and that there finally needs to be a resolution to this long-standing issue that has the wishes, hopes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people at its very heart?
Sarah Owen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What happens in Kashmir is felt on the streets of Slough, on the streets of Luton and in all our constituencies.
Since having their independent status revoked by India in 2019, the population of Jammu and Kashmir have experienced an intensive crackdown on their rights. I have heard countless shocking first-hand testimonies of arrests, of abuses and of violence against women and girls. Kashmiris deserve the freedom, safety and self-determination that was promised to them over 75 years ago, as set out in UN resolution 47. Instead, they have been deprived of their rights of expression, their internet access is tightly controlled, they are arbitrarily detained, the Indian police force kills without accountability, and Amnesty reports that it looks likely that there will be demolitions of homes in Jammu and Kashmir. The people of Jammu and Kashmir live in one of the most heavily militarised areas on the planet. Will the Minister please tell us what dialogue, if any, is happening with the Indian authorities to address the abuses of Kashmiris? Why have this Government decided to include Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir on their safe list?
Last year’s Supreme Court decision, which recommended the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, was welcomed by charities and NGOs in the human rights space, and rightly so. I am sure the Minister agrees that such an initiative could be powerful in bringing peace as well as oversight to the region. Will he commit to promoting it to Ministers’ Indian counterparts?
Afzal Khan
My hon. Friend mentioned the horrific human rights abuses that have taken place in Palestine; she talked about Kashmir as well. There is also the brutal genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar and the abuses against the Uyghurs by the Chinese Government. The one thing that all those examples have in common is that the abuses have largely been committed against Muslims for their Muslimness. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the worst manifestation of Islamophobia and a prime example of what happens when Governments are not held to account for their demonisation of Muslims?
Sarah Owen
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his intervention, but for the work he does in this space to champion and fight for recognition of a definition of Islamophobia in this country. This is not just about holding our country and our Government to a standard, but about fighting against and tackling state-sanctioned Islamophobia across the world.
Last week, along with many colleagues, I attended an event held by Open Doors UK to highlight areas around the world where Christians are persecuted for their faith. One of the top 10 countries was Nigeria. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief published a report warning that treatment of Christians was near-genocidal. Sadly, other minority groups are also at risk of torture and death. One of my own constituents was forced to flee Nigeria after months of being on the run because of his sexuality. After he managed to escape, the Nigerian authorities killed his brother for assisting him, and then they killed another family member when they would not reveal where he was. One would have hoped that his arrival to the UK would bring an end this trauma, but sadly, following his substantive interview, he had to wait more than a year for his asylum claim to be granted.
Another country on the Open Doors watchlist for the persecution of Christians was China. I welcome our country’s leading voice in condemning the horrors that the Chinese Government have imposed on the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. We have been persistent in our opposition to the slave labour of the Uyghurs, alongside other atrocities amounting to ethnic cleansing. It was unfortunate that the UK’s resolution at the Human Rights Council narrowly failed, but I ask the Minister and his Department to continue their efforts to pursue independent mechanisms to investigate human rights crimes through the HRC.
Jimmy Lai, a British citizen currently on trial under Beijing’s national security law, could face life imprisonment for distributing a pro-democracy newspaper. Hong Kong Watch advises that his trial is partly based on the testimony of a witness who underwent torture while imprisoned in mainland China. I join Hong Kong Watch in calling on the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to raise Mr Lai’s case and call for his immediate release.
Hongkongers are not safe from the oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party either at home or abroad. We have Hongkongers seeking safety in the UK, with bounties on their head, who Ministers were reluctant to even meet. Here in the UK, we know of interference in our universities, violence outside embassies and intimidation of Hongkongers who speak out against Chinese state policies. I know that the Minister will share my view that any infiltration from Chinese state agents in our public institutions and political establishment must be dealt with robustly, but we have a responsibility to protect the safety and rights of private Hongkongers who have made our country their home.
We also have a duty to ensure that proposed changes to our domestic law do not negatively impact our levers of influence. I am deeply concerned that the Government are failing to hear the Uyghur groups’ warnings that the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill will limit their own campaigns for justice.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I want to raise the case of two of my friends and colleagues in Hong Kong who have been detained for quite a while now. They are members of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, with whom we have worked over the years in different disputes. The first is the chair, Carol Ng Man-yee, a British Airways cabin crew worker we worked with in major disputes out there who founded the British Airways Hong Kong cabin crew union; the other is Lee Cheuk-yan, the general secretary of the confederation. They are both serving time simply for being trade unionists and representing their members. It is important that we ask the Government to maintain the pressure on the Chinese authorities for their release.
Sarah Owen
I wholeheartedly agree. We need to ensure that it is safe for people to speak up for democracy, workers’ rights and human rights, and that we continue to voice their struggle when they are voiceless.
This is the tip of the iceberg internationally. If we were to cover the true state of human rights across the globe, we would be here all week, but I want to end closer to home, because we are far from perfect.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there are 14.5 million people living in poverty in the UK. More than 4 million of them are children. It is not just standards of health and living that are failing; basic rights such as the right to protest are being eroded. The Government are seeking to override our own courts, as we have seen with the Rwanda Bill that was voted down in the other place this week. It is not just the Government’s action that is weakening our reputation for human rights on the world stage, but their inaction: there has been cross-party condemnation of the Government’s weak response to China, and shock at the lack of acknowledgment of human rights abuses in India during trade talks. Tory MPs are even calling for the reinstatement of Donald Trump, the ex-President arrested on charges of plotting to overturn an election result.
We may look from afar at the humanitarian horrors that we see on the screens in our hands, but we must be able to answer the younger and future generations who ask, “What did you do?”, and we must not turn a blind eye to the erosion of human rights that is happening in front of our eyes at home. From Luton to Lagos, from Gaza to Kabul, from Kabul to Kashmir, when people know about human rights abuses, they care about them. The peace, stability and safety of all are worth striving for, and we can only do that together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. Given the number of people on my list, Members will have seven to eight minutes to speak. I call Debbie Abrahams.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on her absolutely superb speech, which was so broad ranging. It really was fantastic.
I want to focus on human rights abuses in Palestine and Kashmir. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group, and vice-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. My focus in both groups has been on human rights and our common dignity and humanity. We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights.
I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories back in 2014, when I was a relatively new MP. Quite frankly, I was absolutely horrified by what I saw and heard: healthcare being withheld from Palestinians, the destruction of Palestinian homes and schools on the west bank, the physical exclusion of Palestinians from their own farmland and the arbitrary application of law. By that, I mean that children who were picked up for throwing stones at cars and soldiers had the full force of an adult criminal justice system thrown at them, and were often detained without trial. It really was quite horrendous and draconian. All those actions are clear contraventions of rights associated with articles of the universal declaration of human rights.
I have campaigned for a two-state solution ever since, including by supporting the work of the Saddleworth Palestine Women’s Scholarship Fund, which has funded Palestinian women in Gaza and the west bank through education. We had a presentation from somebody from the fund who visited Gaza in the summer to see how the women we had been supporting were doing. Back in November, she reported that, unfortunately, a number of the students we had supported had been killed in attacks. I cannot describe the sense of loss.
Since the heinous attacks of 7 October and the abduction of the hostages, there have been attacks on Gazan civilians by Israeli forces, with over 25,000 deaths, three quarters of which were women and children, over 60,000 injured, and many thousands missing. That seems to me to be disproportionate and collective punishment of innocent people. Human rights and the rule of law must apply to all, and at all times, not just when it is convenient, whether for the UK or its allies. Those deaths must be investigated by the International Criminal Court. Similarly, I await the judgment from the International Court of Justice on the potential genocide of Palestinian people.
The international community must do better, and we must do better. I have been working with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on both Kashmir and, more recently, Gaza. I am also involved with the Global Compassion Coalition, trying to spread the message of the International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace. We all collectively want to see actions to support a ceasefire. Once again, I call for an immediate ceasefire, the safe return of each and every hostage, the delivery of unrestricted humanitarian aid, and the end of the total siege on the Gaza strip. As I mentioned to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister yesterday, the partner of one of my constituents is still awaiting evacuation from southern Gaza. If the Minister has any news, I would be very grateful. I mentioned yesterday that he was attacked over the weekend, suffered a broken leg and has not received any healthcare.
I turn to Kashmir. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has done some excellent work. Many Members here will be familiar with the reports it produced in 2018 and 2019 on human rights abuses in both Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The UN reports raised concerns about women’s rights in particular, and reported the use of gender-based violence in Jammu and Kashmir in Indian-administered Kashmir. There are also considerable concerns about the detention without trial of Khurram Parvez, a human rights activist—we still have not had any news about his release—and the unsafe conviction of Yasin Malik. Those are just two examples about which a range of human rights agencies—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, as I mentioned, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights—have raised concerns. They have advocated for the repeal of the public safety act and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which contravene international humanitarian law. As the UN has stated:
“There are deep inter-connections between ending such blatant violations of those rights, providing freedom from fear, and the right to security, dignity, equality and justice.”
I want to talk about the case of Yasin Malik in more detail. The Supreme Court of India is awaiting a decision on whether his life sentence will be changed to a death penalty. That is imminent. It seems absolutely at odds with the fact that India is a signatory to the UN convention. I would very much appreciate a response from the Minister on that point.
Afzal Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work on the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group, of which I am a vice-chair. She makes a powerful point about Mohammad Yasin Malik, who has the threat of a death sentence hanging over him. However, there are many other political people in prison in Kashmir. Political life has been stifled in Kashmir. As we approach 5 February, which is Kashmir Solidarity Day, it is important to make progress on this. Our Government have many reasons for being more engaged, and not complacent about getting the issue resolved. Remember that three nuclear powers are involved in this dispute, and the risk they pose to world peace is incredible.
Debbie Abrahams
I totally agree. As we have seen, we were asleep at the wheel on Israel and Gaza. A few years ago when we visited Pakistan, we were warned by the high commissioner that Kashmir, at a geopolitical level, is the most significant concern for stability and safety. We cannot go on ignoring Kashmir; as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, we must get resolution, together with the Kashmiri people, who are right at the heart of this.
I will not try your patience any more, Dame Maria. Human rights apply to every single one of us, wherever we are and at all times. We cannot dip in and out of them when it suits our purpose.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing the debate, which is an important opportunity to raise very challenging situations around the world. She is right that it is even more appropriate to emphasise them in the week when we mark Holocaust Memorial Day.
I also pay tribute to the late Sir Tony Lloyd. He was a regular contributor to debates like this in Westminster Hall. In fact, some of us had the privilege of taking part in what turned out to be his last debate, on 7 December, which marked the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and the UN convention on genocide. His commitment to human rights around the world was unwavering, and it was an honour and an inspiration to take part in any event or debate at which he was present. I got to know him particularly through his work on Colombia; I may say a bit more about that later. When Tony spoke out about the importance of protecting fundamental human rights, he did so—as all of us do—not just out of personal interest, or even as a result of witnessing such abuses at first hand or meeting people who had experienced them, but, as the hon. Member for Luton North said, on behalf of the people he represented and we represent in our constituencies.
Glasgow North, like Luton North, is home to a number of very active campaign groups—Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth, Global Justice Now—and many more people who belong to such organisations, even if they do not attend meetings, as well as thousands of others who take an interest in these issues and want to play their part as good global citizens. I hear from them regularly on many of the issues and country situations that have been raised today: the persecution of Christians in Nigeria; the brutal treatment of Uyghurs and other minority groups in China; violence against Hindus, Sikhs, Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan; forced detention of protesters in Iran; and, of course, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza. The UK Government have a role to play in all those situations.
In Nigeria, journalists and digital activists continue to face harassment, threats and attacks by the state, simply for expressing critical opinions. Boko Haram continues to act with impunity in many areas, and continues to kill, abduct or displace thousands of Christians and other minorities each year. What are the UK Government doing to raise these concerns with their counterparts in Nigeria? What support are they providing to agencies on the ground, both to protect people at risk of violence and to support improvements to governance and political participation?
Likewise, in their relationship with Pakistan, how are the UK Government using the long and historic links with that country to call out persecution, and to encourage the authorities to respect diversity and plurality and live up to their international obligations on freedom of religion and belief?
The situation in China has been addressed many times, and I continue to hear from constituents with ongoing concerns about its treatment of Tibet, its persecution of Buddhists, the interference with the leadership of that community, the education of children there, and the denial of rights to those who want to peacefully practice Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The UK Government need to continue to work with international partners, including through the UN Human Rights Council, to ensure that the Chinese Government are held to account.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech, and he mentioned a long list of places with human rights abuses. He mentioned the UN Human Rights Council. I know that he, like me, has a great interest in West Papua. Over half a million people have been killed since the Indonesian occupation of West Papua, and 70,000 are internally displaced. The Indonesians have agreed a UN Commission on Human Rights visit to West Papua, but it has not happened; it has been blocked. Should the Government not once more press Indonesia and the UN for that visit to take place?
Patrick Grady
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those international bodies must have a purpose. If countries such as the United Kingdom will not show a lead, who will? I fully support and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on behalf of the people of West Papua.
Coming back to the situation in China, we also have a role to play. As individuals, we have a responsibility to consider where some of the cheap consumer goods we take for granted and order online have really come from. Whose hands have made them? Market forces can play a part in driving change, if consumers, including all of us here today, are prepared to ask and pay for fairly traded, sustainably sourced products.
On the middle east, the consensus among residents of Glasgow North is clear: there must be an immediate ceasefire on both sides in Israel and Gaza, with the release of hostages, the opening of humanitarian corridors to let aid in and people who want to leave out, and the beginning of the process to negotiate a lasting, peaceful, just and democratic settlement.
Condemnation and speaking out against these situations is important and symbolic, but there is more that the Government can and must do. They have given themselves powers to impose Magnitsky sanctions on individuals who commit gross human rights violations, and they should not be afraid to use those powers. They are negotiating trade deals and disbursing aid funds, and respect for human rights should be at the centre of policymaking in both those areas.
In many situations where people’s rights are not being fully respected, it is the behaviour not necessarily of Governments but of large multinational businesses that is responsible. I hear from many constituents who support legislation to hold companies and corporations to account. I mentioned Colombia earlier, and large extractive companies or agricultural conglomerates in many parts of that country are displacing whole communities to make way for gold mines or palm oil plantations, even where those communities are refused democratic consent or where displacement would destroy traditional ways of life or make a wider area unhabitable because of the pollution these activities bring.
The Government should work here in the UK and with international partners to put the Ruggie principles on business and human rights on an enforceable legislative footing. Many of these companies are listed on the UK stock market or are based here, so they should be subject to a rigorous compliance regime. A wide coalition of charities and NGOs are working hard on this issue, which should rightly be a consideration not just for the Government but for the official Opposition and for all of us who are preparing manifestos in this election year.
As will be clear from those who have spoken and those who will go on to speak, and as is clear from my mailbox, voters across the country care passionately about the human rights of everyone who lives on this planet. As many of us have said before, if one person’s rights are disrespected, in some respects all our collective human dignity is diminished.
The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party are clear that, with independence, respect for human rights would be at the heart of Scotland’s written constitution—with equal justice, equal opportunity and equal dignity for everyone who lives in Scotland—and the foundation of Scotland’s role on the world stage as a good global citizen.
In the meantime, there are clear practical steps that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and all of us as individuals and voters can take, to call out human rights abuses, to seek justice and restoration, and to prevent abuses from happening in the future. That should be at the forefront of all our minds in the months to come, thorough the general election and beyond.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this debate. I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I want to place on the agenda the way journalists have become targets, particularly in Gaza, although this has been going on for a while.
In 2022, I attended the memorial event for Shireen Abu Akleh, a young al-Jazeera journalist. She had a reputation that was respected across the middle east for professional journalistic practice and for her courage. Although Palestinian, she was an American citizen. She was involved in an action covering a raid by the Israeli Defence Forces in Jenin. During that raid, there was no firing of weapons or engagement in the immediate area, according to various investigations that took place, but she was shot with an Israeli bullet. That indicated to many people that, although there exist specific protections in international law for journalists covering wartime disputes, they were being ignored by the Israel Defence Forces at that time.
According to the independent Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 83 journalists have been killed since then, during the recent activities of the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza, but others put the figure significantly higher. The International Federation of Journalists—the international trade union grouping for journalists—has called for an independent inquiry into the targeting of journalists by the Israel Defence Forces. There is a view now that the Israeli Government have not just turned a blind eye to this, but that there has been a specific policy of targeting journalists to prevent the truth from coming out of Gaza.
Thank God for the professionalism and courage of journalists there, as we witness the tragic scenes of human suffering taking place. Over the last few weeks, that human suffering has been best exemplified by what has happened to al-Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, Wael al-Dahdouh. He has lost his wife, three children and his grandson, and his son, who was a journalist, was killed by an Israeli drone two weeks ago. Virtually his whole family has been destroyed. This goes beyond the debate about the abuse of human rights and, as far as I am concerned, well into war crimes taking place. That is specifically because of the protection that there is in international law for journalists to enable them to report from wars.
I urge the UK Government to look at the evidence in front of us about what is happening specifically to journalists in Gaza and to consider whether that is right or acceptable. In the past, they were part and parcel of establishing the very laws that were meant to protect journalists. Figures show that more journalists have died in this conflict than in every conflict since the second world war. For me, that is evidence that the Israel Defence Forces are targeting journalists, so they should be held to account.
I would like the UK Government to raise this issue with the Israeli Government, to work towards an independent investigation and to work with international agencies such as the International Federation of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists to establish the truth and, just as importantly, to establish accountability for the perpetrators of what I believe is a war crime.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing this important debate.
The debate is wide-ranging, but I would like to focus on the situation in Palestine. Like my hon. Friend, I voted for a ceasefire in November last year, because my constituents asked me to. I shared their concerns, and I still do. In addition, hundreds of non-governmental organisations, the United Nations and the Pope all called for a ceasefire.
On that note, something happened before Christmas to reinforce my view that a ceasefire was absolutely necessary: two Roman Catholic women, a mother and a daughter, were shot dead inside the Holy Family parish church in Gaza. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said:
“They were shot in cold blood inside the premises of the parish”.
Pope Francis condemned the attack, as did the Archbishop of Westminster. Cardinal Vincent made a point we should all reflect on:
“the people in Gaza and the Cardinal Archbishop of Jerusalem, they’re not given to tell lies”.
The cardinal was absolutely right. The Palestinian people are not liars and they deserve to be listened to.
I raised the issue with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), earlier this month, when he said:
“We are not clear about the full facts of what happened.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 46.]
I wonder whether, two weeks on, the Government are now clear about the full facts. Those two women did not deserve to die. They were in a place of worship—something that is recognised under international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. I am no expert, but like so many people outside this place, I know that what happened at the Holy Family parish church was wrong. Those women deserve justice, as does everyone else who has suffered.
The United Nations has described the situation in Gaza as “a living hell”, and the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs said:
“Famine is around the corner…For children in particular, the past 12 weeks have been traumatic: No food. No water. No school. Nothing but the terrifying sounds of war, day in and day out.”
The last time I checked, the death toll in Gaza was over 25,000—it may be more by the end of this debate. According to the United Nations, it is estimated that 70% of those killed are women and children. Two mothers are killed every hour, close to 3,000 women have been widowed, and 1 million women and girls have been displaced. To add another layer of misery, caesarean sections are performed without anaesthetic, and women and girls have little or no access to period products. My constituent, Dr Thomas Butts, who teaches development neurobiology in the School of Medicine at the University of Sunderland, told me:
“The extent and severity of trauma-related psychiatric illness in Gazan children’s future will be horrific and will get worse the longer that the bombardment continues.”
What are the Government doing to relieve the pain that so many Gazans are experiencing? Cynics say, “What will a vote in a Parliament, thousands of miles away from Palestine, do for Palestinians?” For one, Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—we have enormous influence on the world stage. More importantly, it would give those innocent Gazans, whose lives have been torn apart, a glimmer of hope that the world has not forgotten them. I repeat today the call for a ceasefire, in the earnest hope that the Minister will reconsider his position.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this important debate.
I would like to talk about the Government’s response to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news story but that, as far as I am aware, have been covered by only one mainstream outlet. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israel’s compliance with international law—a fact the Government have hidden.
The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israel’s compliance with international law and judged that
“the volume of strikes, total death toll as proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.”
It went on to say that His Majesty’s Government’s
“inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.”
However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public.
Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israel’s commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that
“the President of Israel…has made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian law.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.]
That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli President’s words.
The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing “concerns regarding” Israel’s
“commitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistance”
and saying that it was “possible Israel’s actions” in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief
“were a breach of International Humanitarian Law.”
Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israel’s commitment to international law, and they continue to do that.
The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary
“decided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law.”
On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Government’s policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue.
When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israel’s compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments.
What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israel’s breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israel’s commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Government’s arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of
“the toughest regulations anywhere in the world”—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.]
but which are clearly grossly inadequate.
To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister. Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israel’s behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard? Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them? Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes?
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
You bounced me out of writing my speech, Dame Maria. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing the debate; it is a very timely discussion, and a pretty bleak one for those of us who believe in international co-operation and the rules-based international order.
This is close to the SNP’s heart. Our objective as a party is for Scotland to be an independent state. In order to be a global citizen, there is a need to look after our folks at home but also to be a voice for internationalism, progress, multilateralism, co-operation and the rule of law in the world. As a party, we are heavily invested in making the rules-based international order function. We believe in an international community—not global governance, but an international community and structured permanent co-operation—and we believe that that architecture should operate to a series of values that are universally applied against our friends and others.
This debate is close to our hearts. It is a bleak time that we find ourselves living through. It is important to remember a bit of historical context to this. As an SNP Member and an out and proud nationalist for Scotland, I would say that the UK has a good story to tell on the creation of the international human rights architecture. It was English and Scots lawyers who were absolutely integral to the creation of the Council of Europe’s human rights framework and the international court in Strasbourg. UK lawyers have been instrumental in helping to promote the case of human rights worldwide, particularly through the Commonwealth mechanisms, such as they are; we could improve on them, but they do exist and they have made progress. The UK has a good story to tell on this, and I want to see the UK do better than it has done lately.
I will come back to some concrete suggestions, but the fact that the original genesis of human rights—the idea that an individual should be empowered against their Government with rights, which should be protected by an international community—is a genius idea of international co-operation, which we should all cherish and aspire to. This has been adopted, of course, by the EU and the international NGOs, particularly the UN. Human rights have not been universally applied, but that is something that we should aspire to as an international community.
As an aspiring member of the international community as an independent Scotland and part of the international community as part of the UK, I want to see all of us do better. I want to work across borders. I will work with anybody to those ends from any political perspective because the baddies are organised; the baddies are working well. Those on the right side of that ledger—I would include all in this room in that—need to co-operate better, focus more and apply international law wherever we find it being infringed.
It is a bleak time. The SNP was very proudly part of the coalition in support of UK Government policy. We had questions, but we did support UK Government policy on Ukraine, because Ukraine suffered a grievous invasion from a foreign power and the rights of the people of Ukraine have been grievously infringed and continue to be infringed daily. I am sure the SNP is part of the coalition in defence of Ukraine’s liberty and the rights of the Ukrainian people to live without fear from their neighbours.
It would be difficult to say that the UK has been so active in the case of Israel and Palestine. If human rights are to be applied everywhere, they need to be applied universally—against our friends as well as everybody else. So, I strongly support the South African referral of the actions of the State of Israel to the international frameworks. There is a case to answer. I do not believe that individual politicians should use words like “genocide” lightly. I think there should be proper investigations and it should be proper authorities making such decisions, but there is surely cause for concern; surely the evidence that we have seen coming out of Israel and Gaza and Palestine should give us all cause for concern that there is a case to answer—that the State of Israel has committed war crimes, and that must have consequences—so I strongly support the referral by the South Africans to the international framework.
The executive director of Human Rights Watch, I think, puts it best:
“The Human Rights System is Under Threat”
—worldwide. There is not a continent where human rights are not being infringed, either by the state, by non-state actors, or in various places by proxy actors. It’s a messy world out there. I think it was Adlai Stevenson who said that to every question there is an answer that is clear, easy to understand and entirely wrong. I do not expect the UK to be the world’s policeman. I do not expect our Minister to be responsible for solving all these problems, but an international coalition needs to be put together to work on them. The UK could do rather more than we have seen to date in those efforts.
I have a few concrete suggestions. I am about to make some criticism of some UK Government Ministers. I would specifically exempt the Minister present from that criticism; I have not heard him put a foot wrong on these matters, and I do believe that he deeply shares these values. But where we see UK Government Ministers talking about breaking international law in a “limited and specific way” with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol, that is just not how serious Government Ministers and serious Governments talk. That is not how we should be discussing these things. Where we see leading Members of the Government party talking about “unelected foreign judges” in Strasbourg—somehow unqualified judges, as well—as if our judges are elected and as if the members of the court in Strasbourg or Luxembourg are not deeply qualified individuals, it is just not how serious countries talk. The reputational damage to the UK—I am an SNP member, so I should be enjoying this, but I am not. The UK needs to do better with this. We know it is loose talk from loose cannons, but the very worst people worldwide are taking the very worst lessons from this and that should give us all pause.
We are also seeing, as a matter of Government policy, the Rwanda Bill, which has deep implications for international law, yet breaking international obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world is being trumpeted as if it was a mere bagatelle. It is a deeply significant piece of legislation and it gives the very worst example to the baddies in the world, who are looking to undermine this international structure that we are all surely invested in.
Speaking of investment, I appreciate that all budgets everywhere at this time are difficult, but we still need to see greater investment from the UK, not only in international aid and development but specifically in the international human rights architecture. That is supporting NGOs in the field; I echo all colleagues who have specifically praised international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and many others that are active in this space.
We also need to see specific funding for NGOs that are working on investigations and accountability mechanisms, greater support for UN mechanisms for accountability and support for journalists, who have been mentioned by a number of colleagues today. If we do not know what is going on, we will not be able to hold the baddies to account; journalists have a privileged and special place in law, so we need to see that being applied by the international community. The UK really is in a position to have much more influence in that respect.
We also need to see prioritisation of human rights in trade policy. One of the oft-stated advantages of leaving the European Union is that the UK has an independent trade policy, so let us see human rights being put far higher up that agenda than we have seen so far.
I remember that during my time in the European Parliament there was always a human rights component of all EU trade deals. My group almost always voted against trade deals on the basis that the human rights component of such deals was not strong enough. We were not against the trade deals; we just thought that the EU could do more to nudge partner countries in a better direction. The UK really has not prioritised human rights in trade deals at all and we must see much better efforts in that respect. So far, we have seen too little progress.
We also need to apply the values that we all support equally, whether it is difficult to do so or not. We are very vocal about the infringement of the rights of the Ukrainian people, but we have been posted missing on the infringement of the rights of the Palestinian people. We need to do so much better than we are doing currently. However, where there is an international coalition that will work in that direction—I believe that, on balance, the UK has a better story to tell than many other countries—I will be part of that coalition. I believe in working across borders and across parties, because there is an international architecture that is fragile and under attack from all sides; and I believe that those of us who are on the right side of this discussion need to work more closely together to promote these ends.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria, and I must say to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) that if his speech was a half-written one, it was a remarkably good one.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing this debate. Like many colleagues, she has rightly exposed the depths of the horrors being inflicted in our world today, which include the abuses of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Hongkongers here in the UK having bounties put on their heads, and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, where the people have lived for far too long in a limbo of injustice and insecurity.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of people around the world being persecuted for their faith, which I will address in tomorrow’s Westminster Hall debate on religious persecution, and I am keen to hear privately more details about the constituency case that she mentioned regarding Nigeria.
All these issues are worth so much more consideration than I can give them in 10 minutes. Consequently, if hon. Members will forgive me, I will focus on those suffering in Sudan and give them a voice, because the conflict there is not being given the attention that it rightly deserves.
Before I do so, however, I will talk about Gaza. What is happening in Gaza is an intolerable horror and a disgrace to humanity, and it must end. In Gaza, 85% of the population have been forcibly displaced, but nowhere is safe for them. Hundreds of thousands of people are living without shelter in cold weather, with precious little access to food, water and healthcare. Famine and disease epidemics are way too close now. Humanitarian access is being limited in a way that even Ministers here are clear is completely and utterly unjustified.
The siege must end. None of this is compatible with the universal human rights that all our faiths and all our traditions hold dear, which are rights that we, in turn, see as a foundation for our own peace and security. We need an immediate halt to the violence in Gaza, with a sustained ceasefire; we need a genuine process to bring about a fair and just two-state peace; and we need accountability through the independent international system, within which the same rules apply to all.
Many of these calls apply equally to Sudan, where tens of thousands have been killed and 7.6 million people have been forcibly displaced since the conflict began last April. If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to spell out some of the conclusions from the recent report of the UN panel of experts on Darfur. The report details some of the absolute horrors that the Sudanese people have been subjected to over the past months, because of a conflict between two generals.
Last summer, we raised the alarm about what was happening in the city of El Geneina in Darfur: targeted massacres; the burning of refugee camps; women and girls raped because of their ethnicity, as a weapon of war; and families deliberately trapped, and shot if they tried to flee. It had the obvious and terrible echoes of the acts of genocide alleged in Darfur 20 years ago.
The new report states that the death toll in that small city alone is likely to have been between 10,000 and 15,000 people. A girls’ boarding school and its neighbouring school were sheltering 4,500 civilian families. They were bombed with heavy artillery. Every hospital in the city was looted and destroyed. A convoy of thousands of women and children, injured elderly people and animals fleeing the city was attacked indiscriminately when it reached a bridge. An estimated 1,000 people were killed in that attack alone, and 100 are reported to have drowned in an attempt to flee the attacks on the bridge. Human rights monitors were killed while reporting on the atrocities taking place.
The report sets out some very clear details and assessments of where the weapons used in those attacks came from. Although I know that the Government will not comment on ongoing sanctions work, I would like an assurance that the evidence from this report is being taken extremely seriously, because we need to see further action in response to these atrocities.
I also say gently to the Government that we need a more concerted and consistent approach to the atrocities being committed in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, too. That conflict is an open wound. Young children are being subjected to brutal violence of all kinds by armed groups, including rape, and are recruited as soldiers in their hundreds. Some 720,000 people have fled their homes just since October, adding to almost 7 million local refugees. More than 11 million people are going hungry in just the three most affected provinces.
Many armed guards have been identified as responsible for the atrocities, but I believe that it is important to highlight the M23 militia, because it has clearly played the biggest role in the violence over the last two years. Time and again, credible reports from the UN and human rights organisations have assessed that elements within the Rwandan armed forces and intelligence services are responsible for materially supporting M23. Our closest allies have noted that, too. They have noted, equally, the Government’s apparent reticence to play our part and to follow their suit.
Understandably, there is a suspicion that the reason for our inconsistency and inaction on this issue is the Rwanda migration deal, Tory infighting, and foreign policy that is effectively being run from the Home Office. This massively damages our relationship with the DRC, which is really an important partner across so many issues. Equally, how can we say that the UK is genuinely supporting the human rights of all when we are being seen as utterly inconsistent on this issue? I believe we need a Government who can more effectively support human rights abroad.
I will not pretend that any of this is easy. I know that our influence is limited and that sometimes symbolic acts of rejection and disengagement do more harm than good—I honestly get that, but I believe that we need to rebuild our connections with countries around the world and recognise how the world is changing. If we do not, our actions in support of human rights will have precious little impact. We will be shouting into a void while being heard by no one.
I know that we are not solely responsible for righting all the wrongs of the world, but surely we must do our part. The Opposition believe that if we are smarter, more strategic and more consistent in our engagement around the world, we can have greater impact within our partnerships, but that requires our words and actions to be aligned in support of human rights.
On arms exports, for example, a Labour Government would reform the system so that it is transparent and committed to upholding international law. The criteria say that licences should not be granted where there are clear risks of UK arms being used for internal oppression or violations of international humanitarian laws, but the Minister will recognise that just having those criteria is not enough. The judgments that are made when applying the criteria need to be clear and accountable, and they need to be credible.
It is frankly difficult to believe that the criteria could have been applied robustly in some cases. Israel has faced very serious allegations from bodies including the United Nations and is the subject of ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court. That raises very serious questions about how licences could be granted to Israel. It is not just about the quality of judgments being made in some cases; it is about the quality of the assessments available to inform these judgments. In a number of cases, whether it is Myanmar, Ethiopia or Sudan, I believe that there have been clear weaknesses in our foreign policy—because we simply have not been monitoring the warning signs well enough, or we do not have joined-up policy structures that can respond quickly and effectively, or we have not had the capacity to map the perpetrators and the sources of atrocity risks and have not identified their lines of support, shut them down and held them to account.
The international development White Paper pointed in the right direction, and we welcome that. We want to build on it, should we win the next election. But frankly, only a smart, strategic, cross-Government approach can truly help to prevent atrocities, systematic abuses of human rights, and the dire, sickening, shameful consequences of those abuses, which we are seeing in so many places around the world—in Sudan, in DRC and in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
It is an honour to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. We have known each other a long time, but I do not think I have had the chance to say “Dame Maria” in public, so that made me feel good.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and I congratulate her on securing this really important debate. Some who have participated have recognised the important contribution of Tony Lloyd on this subject and many others. His passing is a very sad loss.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on these very important issues, which have been raised with passion and conviction. That was very clear. I will seek to respond to as many points I can, but I cannot promise to respond to every single one. This is probably one of the most wide-ranging debates I have ever been involved in, for understandable reasons, and that in itself is a concern.
The Government believe, as the House believes, that human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This was clearly enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights 75 years ago. The UK has long championed its importance, and as we marked its anniversary last month, we renewed our steadfast commitment to protect and promote the rights that it enshrines. We demonstrated the depth of our commitment to that around the world by making five human rights pledges, which we submitted to the United Nations as part of its anniversary celebrations in December. We used the opportunity to highlight our long-standing and ongoing support for human rights defenders, and for equal rights for women and girls, disabled people and LGBT+ persons. We also cemented our commitment to defending freedom of religion or belief, combating modern slavery, and raising the standards of public and private security organisations.
My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is the Minister responsible for human rights, also hosted an event last month to celebrate Human Rights Day, where the Foreign Secretary outlined three ways in which we can help deliver those five pledges. First, the UK will continue to stand up for the rights of all, including by holding human rights abusers and violators to account, offering support and sanctuary to victims, and defending the open international order. Secondly, we will champion the open societies that guarantee those rights in the first place. Thirdly, we will stand together with allies, friends and partners—old and new—to realise the universal declaration of human rights.
As the Foreign Secretary underlined, if we show international strength and unity, there is no reason why we cannot prevail in the fight for human rights around the world. That theme has resonated across both sides of this debate. I heard it from the hon. Members for West Ham (Ms Brown) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who both made important contributions to the debate.
As we strive towards that aim, we must overcome horrific global challenges, including humanitarian crises, conflicts and fierce opposition to human rights. They have all been catalogued today. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned Colombia. In my brief, the Americas, I have seen at first hand the devastating impact that human rights abuses and violations can have on individuals, particularly women, in times of conflict, and on communities, democracy and freedom. These cruel injustices serve only to strengthen the UK’s resolve to promote and protect human rights in every corner of the world.
One theme that has come out of this debate loud and clear is freedom of religion or belief. I will not spend a huge amount of time on that because we will cover it in a three-hour debate tomorrow, but I will just highlight the excellent report and presentation last week from Open Doors UK about the plight of Christians in Nigeria and Pakistan, which has been touched on today. We have also heard about the persecution of Muslims, Buddhists, the Baha’is—the list goes on. There must be more tolerance in the world, and we need to work hard for that. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the importance of freedom of expression and a free press. I will not go on; he is no longer in his place, but I think we all understand the importance of that.
The UK will remain one of the most active and influential states on the international stage when it comes to human rights, including within the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At the UN Human Rights Council last October, the UK led resolutions on Sudan—a point that was raised earlier—Somalia, and the importance of girls’ education. We also strongly supported resolutions to renew the mandate of the special rapporteurs on Russia and on Afghanistan.
We have also made important strides on sanctions. In December, linked to the 75th anniversary and the five pledges that I talked about, we announced 46 sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, against individuals and entities linked to human rights abuses around the world. We targeted individuals linked to authorities in Belarus, Haiti, Iran and Syria for their repressive activity against civilian populations.
I pay tribute to a brave individual I met in Peru, Quinto Inuma Alvarado, who was tragically murdered after I had the honour of meeting him and other human rights defenders in that country. He talked passionately about his work to protect the Amazon, but he was not allowed to continue taking those views forward, and his life was tragically cut short. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and his family. There is too much of this violence in the world.
Zarah Sultana
The Minister has yet to come to the topic of what is happening in Gaza, but I repeat the question that I asked: why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal the fact that their Government had concerns about Israel’s compliance with international law as early as 10 November? I want to hear a response to that specific question.
David Rutley
I will come on to Israel and Gaza, and I will not be long. I will get there very quickly.
The issue of Ukraine is important for all of us, and I am grateful for the support across the House on it. We are nearly two years on from the illegal invasion, and Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded more than 120,000 incidents of alleged war crimes, murder, rape and the deportation of children. Those are matters of international humanitarian law, which is separate and distinct from the legal obligations that regulate armed conflict. We will continue to hold Russia to account. I want also to mention some of the persecution that goes on within Russia, including the imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza for his opposition to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We have constantly called for his release since his initial arrest and will regularly raise his imprisonment with Russian authorities and in multilateral fora.
Gaza is a hot subject, and I am not going to duck the issue. There are strong opinions on both sides. My hon. Friend—I will call her that, but I should probably call her the hon. Member for West Ham—talked about the need for a ceasefire. We want a sustainable ceasefire, and we are working hard towards it.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) raised important points. What I can say at this point—she will probably not be happy with the answer—is that Ministers review the advice they receive carefully and act consistently with that advice. We work hard and continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, we assess that Israel has the capability and commitment to comply with international humanitarian law, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. Too many civilians have been killed.
Zarah Sultana
The Minister is being very generous with his time. If there are concerns in the Foreign Office, as per the internal assessment, why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing to allow arms sales to Israel? That goes against our current policy, which is that where there is a risk that human rights violations will take place, we should not continue selling arms licences to countries.
David Rutley
The Foreign Secretary outlined on 8 January that he has not received advice that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. On export licences, the UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that it is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. All our export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend or revoke extant licences or refuse new licence applications where they are inconsistent with the UK’s strategic export licensing criteria. It is important to note that, as I think hon. Members are aware, the regime is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world.
On the topic of Israel and Gaza, a number of people talked about South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. The Government believe that this development is not helpful, and we do not support it. As previously stated, we recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that calling that genocide is the right approach. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not states, to decide on matters of genocide, and of course we will respect the role and independence of the ICJ.
Many other subjects were talked about, including Kashmir. Our long-standing position on Kashmir is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the long-standing and ongoing dispute. The UK recognises that there are human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Sarah Owen
The Minister is being generous with his time, but he has been asked a number of specific questions today—I myself asked specific questions about Gaza, Kashmir and China—and I know that with the limit on time, he is unlikely to get through them all. Could he please give a commitment that he will provide written answers to any questions left unanswered today?
David Rutley
I will do my best, but the questions that have been asked today are genuinely numerous and very wide-ranging. It is the hon. Member’s debate; if she would like to write separately and pick a number of questions to which she would like further answers, could she please get in touch, or can we talk afterwards and decide how best to take that forward. Would that be all right?
David Rutley
Let us move on to another important subject. Issues have been raised about Rwanda. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the legislation on Rwanda does not challenge the UK’s relationship with the European convention on human rights. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected and of abiding by the rule of law, both domestic and international. We are talking to the European Court about the interim measures issues that have come up, and the Court has proposed reforms to rule 39 that build on our constructive discussions. We look forward to the Court’s adopting amendments to that rule in line with this approach.
We have also talked about China today. Every day, people across China face violations of their human rights, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet, and rights and freedoms have also been eroded in Hong Kong. We consistently raise these matters at the highest levels with the Chinese authorities. We also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern wherever possible and support NGOs in exposing and responding to violations. We raise the reputational and diplomatic cost to China of its human rights violations regularly on the international stage. We were the first country to lead a joint statement on China’s human rights record in Xinjiang at the UN, and we have sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour.
As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), made clear during yesterday’s debate—it has been a busy week on human rights issues—we urge the Chinese authorities to repeal the national security law in Hong Kong, which has had such a damaging impact on so many individuals and on the city. The Foreign Secretary has also called for Jimmy Lai’s release.
Iran has not come up so much in today’s debate—partly, I think, because there are so many areas to discuss. With one minute remaining, I would just like to highlight that we have witnessed a shocking repression of human rights in Iran, from oppressive hijab laws to the reprisals against women and human rights defenders. We have responded to these acts by sanctioning 94 individuals and entities for human rights violations. At the 78th UN General Assembly, we co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The UK will continue to work with partners to deter and challenge Iran’s human rights violations at all opportunities.
David Rutley
I will. This will be the last time, because there is not much time.
Debbie Abrahams
I want to mention the death penalty sought against Yasin Malik, who is a freedom-fighting activist. Why are we not talking about him?
David Rutley
We abhor the use of the death penalty and we call it out wherever we can. I can talk separately about that case with the hon. Member.
The UK has not only a duty but a deep desire to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect around the world. We continue to stand with partners across the globe to uphold freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of nations, and to call out violations and abuses of people’s fundamental rights wherever they occur.
Sarah Owen
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. When it comes to people’s safety and security, things are getting worse, not better, at home and abroad. In some places, human rights are being eroded bit by bit; in others such as Gaza, they are being completely demolished. We all know where it ends when good people do and say nothing, so I am asking the Government to be brave and do good before—not in the very distant future—we have to remember the genocides of the Palestinians, the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Kashmiris and people of faith in various parts of the world. We know how to prevent that already. We have already learned those lessons. The time has come to act.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group and for highlighting gender-based violence. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly reminded us of the importance of the Ukrainian fight against Putin. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about how Palestinians are not just fighting a war, but now fighting famine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) rightly highlighted the lack of scrutiny that we have as parliamentarians because the Foreign Secretary is in the Lords. Indeed, the Minister responsible for human rights is also in the Lords. It is a bizarre situation.
I thank both Opposition Front Benchers: the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), for her continued hard work and commitment to her constituents and for protecting the rights of vulnerable people across the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK response to international human rights abuses.
Mentoring
(10 months, 4 weeks 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
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Lisa Cameron to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of mentoring.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dame Maria. I believe that mentoring can help us to work together collaboratively so that everyone reaches their full potential across the United Kingdom. I thank colleagues for attending the debate; this is a critical issue that demands our attention and commitment as Members of Parliament.
The impact of mentoring can be very profound not only on young people, but on people of all age groups. I have drawn on my experience as a consultant clinical psychologist prior to coming to Parliament. I have witnessed at first hand the crucial role of support, particularly in helping young people to overcome mental health issues and the challenges that life brings. I think we all agree that the recent disruptions to people’s education posed by the covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis have disproportionately affected disadvantaged youth.
One of the groups I want to speak about in a bit more depth is care leavers, who face significant disparities in health, social circumstances and education. We can all try to work with them and ensure that they have the best support possible, including mentoring, across their lifespan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The importance of mentoring cannot be underlined enough, and she is doing that exceptionally well. I look forward to the rest of her speech.
The Prince’s Trust, the Diana Award and other such schemes have shown the success that results from coming alongside our young people to give them the hand of friendship and advice, and the feeling that they are not alone in the world. So often we find young people who think they are very much alone in the world. We should encourage more people with a love for young people to get involved. That is why we need this debate. Well done to the hon. Lady!
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is so fastidious in representing and intervening on behalf of constituents and people across the United Kingdom. I totally agree that the organisations that he mentioned have contributed significantly to the benefit of young people across the United Kingdom. I had the privilege of visiting the Prince’s Trust locally to see at first hand the work it was doing in building self-esteem and confidence among young people, some of whom felt that their mental health had become low. Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I have also noticed that there is a campaign to end loneliness. Young people are one of the significant age groups reporting increased feelings of loneliness; as usual, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his comments.
The challenge is clear. We can impact the life of young people through mentoring, which emerges as a powerful solution to address many challenges. Consistent support from a caring mentor has the potential to significantly alter the life trajectories of young people. That can happen through volunteering and through businesses. I have had good opportunities to meet local organisations and businesses in my constituency of East Kilbride. They have been helping with the special needs school to try to get mentoring under way and young people with disabilities into the workplace. That is very much needed because often what people require is opportunity. When they are in the workplace and given the opportunities that they deserve, they can really shine and all their potential can show through.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, mentoring also helps young people to become more engaged in their communities—to feel less lonely and much more connected. That is particularly the case for people in rural communities who might feel that fewer opportunities are available and for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds who find it difficult to engage in school or different aspects of the support structures already available to them.
The “Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, 2023” report was published recently by NHS England. It found that one in five young people has reported probable mental health conditions, so it is very important that we try to address their needs. In Scotland, the “Health Behaviour in School-aged Children” study recently revealed the lowest levels of adolescent confidence seen in 28 years—a stark figure. Only 42% of adolescents reported feeling confident often or always and about one fifth of young people reported feeling lonely all or most of the time. The report noted that feelings of loneliness were highest among 15-year-old girls—31%, a very high figure. The challenge is clear, as is the impact that we can make. It is important that we give time to consider what more we can do to support people through mentoring, because young people in particular are suffering. Their mental health might be deteriorating and, as we have heard already, loneliness is on the rise.
I want to speak about some different programmes that I have had the privilege to engage with. I used to be chair of a very important group in Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on mentoring, which had the secretariat provided by the Diana Award. We were able to engage with MPs, which was a valuable part of our programme. During covid, we managed to pair up more than 100 MPs with young people in their constituencies across the United Kingdom to offer mentoring support during National Mentoring Week. We put a great deal of effort into that. I became a mentor myself for that period, and the responses that we had showed that the MPs benefited as well as those who were mentored.
The experience gave us a much better understanding of and empathy towards people’s plights locally, in addition to the connection to what was happening on the frontline, which we are not always afforded as MPs. I remember after being elected wanting to visit a hospital where I had worked previously. I was offered a tour, but I wanted to speak to patients and staff. They said, “Usually, MPs get a tour of the hospital,” but I said, “I don’t really need a tour—I used to work there, so I could probably give the tour.” That shows that as MPs we need to build a connection to the frontline. What people might think we want to hear about or engage in means that that connection is not always afforded to us.
One of the programmes that we have been engaged with and which contributes to mentoring is the Grandmentors programme by Volunteering Matters. It is an intergenerational mentoring programme for care-experienced young people—possibly the strongest and most resilient people in any community because they have often faced many more challenges during their early lives. Through the skill of mentoring, care-experienced young people have been supported to want to achieve their goals.
The programme was established in 2009 and now runs in 14 locations in England and Scotland. Interestingly, a mentor is typically aged 50 years or over—I have to admit that I fall into that category—and, importantly, the mentee is a young person, typically aged between 16 and 24 years old, which means there is an intergenerational transfer of knowledge and support. The programme tries to recruit older volunteers to use their life experience and skills to provide emotional and practical support to young people, particularly when they are transitioning from the care system to independent living.
As of October 2023, 169 mentors had been matched with mentees, with many more ready to be matched. Their impact is measured in employment, education and training; housing and finance; and health and wellbeing. It was found that everything really is relational, with the primary focus on nurturing and strengthening through the relationship and connectedness as individuals to the place where they live.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate. In Suffolk, we have found that mentoring tends to be taken forward on an altruistic basis with a limited formal framework. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about what the Government can do to encourage and foster that form of altruism among businesses? What is her reflection on the role that chambers of commerce could play in supporting the many businesses that want to do this, and taking that forward at a county-wide or regional level?
Dr Cameron
My hon. Friend makes an insightful intervention. One of the key things on which we could work together across the House is having more of a mentoring strategy moving forward, to help organisations that wish to pursue that and provide help in the world of business, in communities and in the voluntary sector.
As my hon. Friend says, a great many organisations wish to lend their knowledge, expertise and support and to be there for people and pass on their experience. I have accounts from young people, which I will mention briefly today, who say that that has been invaluable in their lives. The more we can do, the better. If there can be a structure moving ahead, engaging key organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce, that would be extremely valuable. According to the Home for Good report 2022, care leavers currently make up about 25% of the homeless population and 25% of the adult prison population, which shows we need to do much more to support them. Some 41% of them are not in education, employment or training, compared with 12% of other young people.
New research from the universities of Oxford, York and Exeter has demonstrated that one third of care leavers are not working or studying, compared with just 2.4% of comparable young people who have never experienced the children’s care system. Data from the Office for National Statistics also demonstrates that more than half of those who had been children in care had a criminal conviction by age 24, compared with 13% of children who had not been in care. Early intervention is crucial for young people who may have experienced trauma or be at a critical period in their lives.
Some 59% of the mentees on the Grandmentors programme who had support as care leavers were independent or stable in sustaining education. They had sustained training, education or employment, with 62% independent or stable in terms of their wellbeing, which had dramatically increased from the start of their mentoring. The figures speak to the power of mentoring. As many as 75% were stable with regard to housing, which is a huge change, given the figures we heard about homelessness. We should never underestimate the difference that having such support at a critical time can make.
I want to mention Saliou’s story, which I have been granted permission to share:
“I arrived in the UK at 17 from Guinea. I’ve been part of the Grandmentors programme…and I am now 19. I’m at college full time building up my skills and language. I aspire to be an electrician, and I am doing some work experience in this. My volunteer mentor really listens, and we work things out together. I share things that are bothering me, but I also talk about my plans for the future. My mentor has been…supportive since we have met, and I feel grateful to have met such a wonderful person. She puts smiles on other people’s faces. I don’t want to lose our friendship.”
I also want to mention the Diana Award, with which I had the privilege to work in relation to the all-party parliamentary group that was organised a few years ago. I thank it for the powerful work it does across the United Kingdom. It offers mentoring programmes to support young people to develop their career skills and make positive changes in their communities. It celebrates not just mentoring young people but enabling them to make changes and contribute to their communities, which is so valuable.
The Diana Award collaborates with volunteers from all backgrounds and levels of experience to deliver mentoring programmes for young people aged 14 to 18 who are deemed to be at risk. Young people who have taken part in the programme have shared that it allowed them to grow closer to their peers, and feel comfortable sharing their opinions. One said:
“My confidence and skillset has changed. I understand different skills required in the workplace more.”
Another said that the programme had helped them
“to realise the vast majority of my classmates experience similar issues to me.”
A teacher whose comments I am allowed to share said that their student had
“grown in confidence about his own ability to interact with others in unexpected social situations.”
The results were not just about the experiences that the mentees expected; the skills transferred to all other types of experiences. I have not been able to include all the fantastic organisations, but I will mention some that I have been in touch with: the Kids Network, the Mentoring Lab, Volunteering Matters, She Stands, Bloomberg, The Girls’ Network, the Youth Endowment Fund, the Patchwork Foundation and Chance UK.
We hope to re-establish formally the all-party parliamentary group on mentoring. We should continue to support it as Members of Parliament, across parties. We can offer vital opportunities to young people in our constituencies right across the United Kingdom. Of course, they also offer us great experiences and engagement in return—everybody benefits. I hope to work with Members of Parliament in the near future to re-establish that group. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what more we can do together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate on such an important subject. I am familiar with the Diana Award, and have been for some time. I will talk more about the APPG, but I appreciate my hon. Friend’s great work in championing mentoring. I have seen at first hand the difference that mentoring can make to a child or young person, because I spent 16 years running organisations for disadvantaged young people before I became an MP, and I ran mentoring programmes as part of that. I also volunteered to be a mentor through various other organisations, including Chance UK, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
Education is a key determinant of young people’s life chances and social mobility. That is why this Government are committed to providing a world-class education system for all children and young people. We have invested significantly in education and undertaken a number of important reforms to ensure that, whatever their background or circumstances, all young people have the opportunity to reach their potential. Much of the Department for Education’s work prioritises giving children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, or those who have been in our children’s social care system, the additional support they may need to ensure that they are prepared for adulthood and to achieve positive outcomes.
I have a keen interest in working to ensure that all children and young people fulfil their potential and that we are promoting social mobility, which was the theme of my pre-politics career. A key part of that is the role of mentoring, and of effective programmes more widely. That is why we re-endowed the Education Endowment Foundation with £137 million in 2022. It has been a key part of ensuring that what we do is effective, and that we have programmes which work for the most disadvantaged in particular. The EEF identifies, develops, supports and evaluates projects that raise the achievement of disadvantaged children and young people. That has included an evaluation of mentoring and how it can be used to improve outcomes for those that need help reaching their potential.
One of the ways we are helping people to achieve their potential is through funding mentoring programmes in various areas of the Department for Education’s portfolio. I will start with children in care. We are committed to quite a big programme of reforming the system for children in care. We set that out in the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy we published last year, which puts stable, loving relationships at the heart of the care system. By 2027, we want every care-experienced child and young person to feel that they have those strong and loving relationships. As part of our commitment to helping local authorities with family finding for children in care, we are funding 24 befriending and mentoring programmes for children in care and care leavers. Those are all designed to enable children and young people to improve their sense of identity and community and create and sustain consistent and stable relationships.
As part of our work to remove barriers to people with special educational needs, a learning difficulty or a disability starting apprenticeships, we have been developing a pilot to test the value of targeted and specific mentoring support for apprentices who have learning difficulties and disabilities. The pilot will offer targeted expert support, advice and training to the people providing mentoring to apprentices, and measure what impact it has on the cohort’s level of satisfaction and on key performance measures, such as retention and achievement, for those apprentices.
More widely across the education system, mentoring is supporting children and learners to reach their full potential and prepare for the world of work. For young people leaving school, mentoring can be a great way to support effective transitions and empower them to make positive decisions that lead to fulfilling careers. We are running a pilot targeted transition fund in a number of schools this academic year to help young people to make successful transition choices that they feel confident about. The project delivers a wraparound programme to young people eligible for free school meals and with low school attendance, giving them careers guidance, counselling, mentoring and employability support.
As has been touched on, some careers hubs also use employer mentoring to support young people when they transition from school into further education or employment. To improve the work readiness of all young people, employers are engaging in greater numbers than ever before, helping to connect careers information and advice with the world of work and enabling opportunities for young people to experience a variety of workplaces.
I come to two or three of the initiatives that my hon. Friend mentioned. I have explained that I am familiar with the great work of the Diana Award, and I enjoyed hearing about the specific programme that she described. On Grandmentors, some of the local authorities that we are supporting through our “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy use that programme to support their care leavers, which is good news. For businesses, which have been touched on by a couple of Members, part of our careers strategy measures the Gatsby framework for employability, including by looking at what they do on mentoring. Given my experience of running such programmes, I should say that it is incredibly difficult to get a consistent relationship in mentoring. We have to acknowledge the great work that all these organisations are doing, because it does not just happen naturally; it requires a lot of support.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for raising the issue of mentoring and social mobility today. The Government agree with her that mentoring can transform the lives of children and young people. I was particularly struck by her point about its importance in rural areas and in helping to develop young people’s confidence. She also said—we clearly both know this from personal experience—that it helps the mentors, not just the mentees, which is absolutely true.
Dr Cameron
I was really interested to hear the Minister talk about people with disabilities. He will be aware that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for disability. Could we work together on some of the programmes to look at how young people with special needs could be engaged as apprentices or interns here in the House of Commons and with MPs? That would help us to reach out to young people right across the UK.
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. This is one of many areas where we ought to lead by example and not just preach to other organisations about what they should be doing. We should demonstrate that we are doing it ourselves, and I would be very pleased to work with her on that.
Mentoring would not be possible without all the people up and down the country who volunteer to be mentors and who are working to support children and young people. I personally thank them and the organisations that co-ordinate such activities, and I assure them that I will keep working with the education and children’s social care sectors to ensure that we use mentoring as effectively as we can. I will work with my hon. Friend and support what she is doing to reinvigorate the APPG on mentoring and promote mentoring more widely.
Question put and agreed to.
Shared Rural Network Implementation
(10 months, 4 weeks 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
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the implementation of the Shared Rural Network.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support the shared rural network, which aims to increase 4G coverage from 91% now to 95% of the UK landmass by 2025, and to ensure that there is coverage by all providers of 84% of the area by the same date. The Government are investing £0.5 billion in new masts in total notspot areas, which is very welcome, and the industry is spending about the same on ensuring that rural areas now covered only by one provider—partial notspots—get a signal from all providers by that date. None the less, there are concerns that roll-out is not progressing as quickly as we would like. The purpose of today’s debate is to ask the Minister to consider further steps to ensure that the objectives are achieved and that our constituents get the mobile signal they need and deserve.
Improved rural coverage for everyone is important for all sorts of reasons. First, it enables people to work from home in the modern economy, increasing job opportunities and business productivity. The rural region, accounting for about 20% of Britain, is one of the least productive economic areas of the whole country. One fifth of our people live in rural areas, and we want to give them every opportunity they can to be productive and to access the job opportunities they need. Where I live, lots of young people move away to access better job opportunities in cities. Our countryside is becoming populated primarily by retired people, and while we love them, we could do with some younger people as well to keep our schools open and communities thriving.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that in some rural areas—I am thinking particularly of Mordon and Killerby in my Sedgefield constituency—people move away from villages not only because they cannot get broadband, but because transport is a problem? With no transport options, they desperately need broadband to be there.
Helen Morgan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. We have spoken about public transport a lot, which is related to this problem. In rural areas like ours, when people are working they are often not stationary in an office, but moving around the area. A plumber or an agricultural worker relies on the mobile signal to operate their business on a daily basis. They need the mobile signal to work wherever they are, not just in their home. That is a key point that I will return to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important debate. I apologise to you, Dame Maria, and to the hon. Lady, as I cannot be here that long—I have to chair a committee meeting at 5 o’clock. We have seen massive progress in rural broadband across the whole of the United Kingdom. Through the confidence and supply agreement, the Democratic Unionist party secured a deal with the Conservative party for £200 million for this very purpose in Northern Ireland. Moving forward, while 4G might be the commitment of the shared rural network, what we need now is 5G. Does the hon. Lady agree that progress has to match technological advances?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that progress in rural areas is so slow that we end up with yesterday’s technology. I will come on to that towards the end of my speech. The roll-out of broadband and Project Gigabit in North Shropshire is very welcome, but the mobile signal is extremely important.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a good start on her speech, but there are examples of positive development across the country. In Devon, for instance, we have reconstituted Connecting Devon and Somerset. It has worked extremely well: in the last four years, we have gone from about 84% connectivity up into the high nineties percentile. That modern technology is also following suit. There are pretty good examples of where the private sector and public sector—Devon County Council—have done extraordinary work to make sure we are reaching the hard-to-reach areas, eliminating the notspots and ensuring connectivity for all. It is not a complete tale of woe.
Helen Morgan
I am pleased to hear that it is going well. Ensuring that we get to that stage across the country is what I hope this debate will achieve.
A survey for the Country Land and Business Association found that 80% of rural business owners said that improved connectivity would be the single largest improvement to their business. Mobile phones have been cited as the default back-up option for people when the copper landline network is switched off in a power cut. We are probably ultra-sensitive to that after the last couple of weeks, when people have been without power for extended periods. It is entirely right that electricity companies get power back on in urban areas sooner, because that is where the greatest number of people need to be connected, but we also need to ensure that the back-up option for rural people works, and that is the mobile phone signal.
It is important that people have a choice of provider to ensure that they have mobile connection when they need it. Interestingly, respondents to a survey conducted by Building Digital UK cited poor mobile coverage as a major factor exacerbating poor outcomes from agricultural injuries. That is vital in a very rural constituency where there is a large number of agricultural workers and where a couple of years ago there were several combine harvester fires. It is really important that people can call 999 when they need to, or call an ambulance if they have suffered an accident anywhere in a rural area.
Mobile coverage is also one of the top issues faced by constituents. I ran a series of open meetings over the summer, and constituents were genuinely angry that they could not use the same mobile signal at home as at work. It caused them huge problems—for example, they could not do simple things like phoning home to get someone to pick up their kids from school if they were running late. There was a real impact on people’s daily life from not being able to access the same mobile phone signal wherever they went in their local area.
It is important to note that partial notspots, which are the main issue where I live, effectively mean that people have only one choice of provider, so we are not seeing the competitive market that our urban counterparts have when they are choosing who to buy their phone or SIM from.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
My rural constituency of North Norfolk has exactly the same problems with notspots. One of the fundamental problems seems to be the planning process, in which planners or the mobile phone companies and their agents put together applications for completely inappropriate locations. They get turned down by the local community and the local planning authority, not because local people do not want a mobile phone signal but because they do not want a lattice structure of 50 metres in an area of outstanding natural beauty. How can we get to a situation in which planning applications can be made and approved, and not opposed all the time?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously we want to improve the signal, but not blight the countryside with big, ugly lattice masts. A key ask of the debate is that we look at the way in which the companies share equipment to reduce the amount of additional infrastructure that has to be built across the countryside.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) makes a very good point: we have to take into consideration the concerns of communities when we build infrastructure. However, a notification of a planning application has come across my desk today that is not about building a new structure but is about upgrading the transmission equipment at the top of a structure. Very often, it is a case not of putting up anything new but upgrading what is already there. That should not be a problem.
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I will come on to it. The importance of mast and equipment sharing is that hopefully we can streamline the process to upgrade the sites where the equipment is now, and limit the number of additional sites that are applied for.
Some 15.1% by area of North Shropshire is a partial notspot for data, and one in five premises can use only one operator for a phone call. There is a problem of competition, or the lack of it, in rural areas. We all understand that there are logistical challenges with putting masts in wild areas: a power supply is needed, and it might be an area of outstanding beauty, for example. There are all sorts of reasons why it might be difficult. We see the effect of that every day.
In North Shropshire less than 60% of premises have indoor coverage from all operators, compared with the UK average of 86%. The situation is worse in our villages than towns. Less than a third of people who live outside the towns have a choice of more than one mobile operator. That is all based on the existing data maps of coverage, but we know, because the Minister acknowledged it in oral questions recently, that these data maps are extremely optimistic and do not always reflect the lived experience of people on the ground. I mentioned that I had some open meetings with constituents in the summer, and that was one of their key gripes. The map said that they had a signal, but the reality was nothing like that. Accurate data is really important to ensure that when the providers “meet their obligations”, that is actually what is happening on the ground and not just a theoretical outcome.
The shared rural network involves the four mobile network operators spending £500 million of their own money to end partial notspots. Those areas are deemed to be commercially viable because one operator has already decided to put a mast there and provide a service to the people living there. EE announced that it has already met its obligations under the shared rural network to reduce its partial notspots by June 2024. It did that a couple of weeks ago, so it is running six months ahead of schedule, but as reported in The Daily Telegraph, the other three providers have requested a delay and say that they will not hit the 2024 target. This is where the concern arises.
Some of that is down to planning resource. As discussed, planning resource is very difficult. Lots of councils have high levels of vacancy and their planning departments have logistical challenges. There is also resistance to new infrastructure. That all causes a problem.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
As the hon. Lady may be aware from her constituency—it is the case in my constituency and rural parts of Suffolk—church towers are often used to support broadband masts. To speed up the roll-out of this programme, I wonder whether something could be done with planning policy nationally to give a presumption in support of broadband masts being put into church towers where there is a desire to do so.
Helen Morgan
Suffolk is famous for its spectacular medieval church towers. We are perhaps not so well blessed with those structures in North Shropshire, but I think it is a fair point. Easing the planning process is something that definitely should be considered.
Apart from all the logistical issues, the mobile network operators failed to reach an agreement with EE to share their existing equipment. The reason that EE has achieved its objectives so far in advance is because it has an extensive network of existing equipment. This is a commercial issue, because this was a commercial investment. I guess it depends on one’s point of view whether EE was asking for too much money or whether the other operators were not offering a sensible amount, but the reality is that they have failed to reach an agreement. That means that the roll-out by the other three mobile network operators is delayed, and they are potentially building masts where they do not need to.
It is also worth noting that the difficulty of the planning process means that not a single mast has yet been built for the total notspots. The Minister will correct me if my data is out of date and I am wrong about that, but according to the briefing I have seen, that is the case. Masts are going up in the wilder areas using public money.
There are lots of issues. We have a commercial failure to share equipment. We have a planning problem. We know everybody would benefit, so let us have a look at what the potential solution could be. Infrastructure sharing is absolutely key. We should be looking at how we can ensure that the commercial operators do better on that front.
I also want to speak about the potential solution of rural roaming. Rural roaming is what happens when we travel to the continent, or indeed anywhere in the world. Our phone links up to the signal that it can find, and we go about our daily business without noticing what we are connected to.
The industry strongly opposes the idea of rural roaming. It says that it is technically inferior; phones would have a shorter battery life because they are seeking a signal. Obviously, rural roaming does not deal with total notspots where there is no mast to produce a signal for phones to connect to. The industry also says that rural roaming would undermine future investment in the network, which is obviously critical, particularly because the technology moves on all the time, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.
Having said all that, there is support for rural roaming. A 2019 report by the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Committee said that it would be a good solution, because it could be implemented in under 18 months and would give between 90% and 95% landmass coverage, which is comparable to the aim of the shared rural network. The Country Land and Business Association has described rural roaming as a common-sense solution, and I can assure the House that there would be a huge amount of support for it among my constituents in North Shropshire. Since that EFRA Committee report in 2019, the shared rural network has been signed up to, but there are significant concerns about the speed of the roll-out, and there is no plan to go further and provide 5G coverage, including stand-alone 5G coverage, in the countryside.
In conclusion, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of having better data when we assess the success of the roll-out of the shared rural network, because there is a real risk that notional targets will be met without the consumer experience being improved. People in North Shropshire and other constituencies do not care whether a map shows that they have coverage. They will be worried sick if their mum goes into hospital, and no one can get in touch with them because they are in a part of the constituency that the phone signal does not reach.
Will the Government consider not only making sure that the data is improved, but taking further steps to improve areas that have partial notspots by requiring mobile network operators to share their equipment more effectively? They should come to an arrangement whereby that can be done, so that the number of masts and the planning process are not major factors in slowing up the roll-out of the shared rural network. If that cannot be done, will the Minister consider requiring the industry to provide rural roaming? As we often say, if it is not acceptable for people in Birmingham to have only one choice of mobile network provider, it is not acceptable for people in Shropshire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. This is a 60-minute debate. I need to move to the Front-Bench contributions at 5.8 pm, and I have about six Members rising to speak—do the maths. Please bob if you want to speak. If we are to get everyone in, I suggest a limit of three or four minutes for every speech. If Members adhered to that, it would be amazing.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important and necessary debate on the implementation of the shared rural network.
Looking around, I think that we all have particularly rural constituencies—well, nearly all of us—so we know very well the value and importance of having consistent and reliable mobile coverage in our villages and countryside, and of course, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, on our farms, for both connectivity and safety.
Through the shared rural network, the Government have an ambitious target of ensuring 95% 4G coverage by 2025, and that target is backed up by around half a billion pounds of Government investment. Clearly, this is a Government who are committed to levelling up and our rural areas, and who aim to ensure that everybody in the UK, no matter where they are, can reap the rewards of that investment.
Ensuring that coverage reaches our rural villages is crucial. I have some beautiful villages in my patch, including Hanslope, Ravenstone, Stoke Goldington and Weston Underwood—crikey, I will have to mention them all now! But you have said that there is a time limit, Dame Maria, so I cannot mention all the beautiful villages. We have thriving local businesses, farms and communities, which all ultimately depend on consistent mobile coverage.
My rural constituents often tell me that they have a restricted choice of networks, compared with people living in the more built-up urban areas that I represent. The shared rural network will address that problem directly by arranging for the UK’s four main mobile operators to upgrade their infrastructure and share access with each other. I know that will be welcome news for rural constituencies and communities across the country, giving businesses and our communities more choice and driving competition, which is crucial. That is the key message that I took from the hon. Member for North Shropshire: it is about competition. The economic angle in this debate comes to prominence here. Consistent and complete mobile coverage across the UK is one of the missing pieces of our ability to unlock and unleash economic growth outside the UK’s big cities and populated areas. Better coverage will help businesses to increase their efficiency, which is obviously useful for consumers and customers.
The other important side to this debate is the issue of inequality. Improving rural connectivity is about tackling regional inequalities and the digital exclusion that we been fighting during this Parliament. It is about levelling up. With the shift towards more working from home since the pandemic, the need for consistent coverage is more important than ever for working families in rural areas. With these types of national projects, it is important that we take a sustainable approach, and that is why the shared rural network is so effective. The masts will be shared by the network providers. When new masts are built, they will have to go through planning, so that communities get their say. I look forward to seeing how this project develops.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Maria, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate. It is hardly a new one, sadly, and of course we have been around this issue many times. I was struck by what my hon. Friend said about the attitude of the industry to rural roaming. The exact same arguments were advanced over 10 years ago, when we were trying to persuade the operators to share masts. Frankly, like many present, I would have a lot more sympathy for the companies if, in the intervening years, they had got their act together and made the necessary investment in the rural network; we would then not be where we are today.
On data, my hon. Friend is right in saying that access to networks is critical. I would even go one step further and say that what we really need is accurate signals inside buildings. So often with partial notspots, a person will get a signal, but they have to be prepared to go to the bottom of their garden at 4 am in a howling gale. To my mind, that is not meaningful access. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said, there have been significant changes, and we should accept that there has been progress, but it has been absolutely glacial. People in cities and towns would not accept it, so I do not understand why people in rural areas should be expected to tolerate it.
There has been significant progress on the emergency services network in recent years, and I should declare an interest, in that I have an EE mast on my land, which was constructed as a consequence of the ESN development. We should now look at the fact that the ESN is limited to land, and up to the 12 nautical mile limit. There are good and valuable reasons for extending the ESN beyond that; emergencies do not just happen on dry land. We could all say a lot more on this issue, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire for securing the time for this debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this very important debate. I am lucky enough to represent a constituency that is 335 square miles of pure, beautiful, rural Buckinghamshire. Mobile signal is critical, day to day, in many walks of life. There has been a growth in the number of people working from home, and many try to take Zoom or Teams calls in local cafés. My children endlessly demand that we stream all sorts of dreadful songs to make the journey go a bit quicker, but often, as we go through the villages, Siri delivers that dreaded message: there is a problem because it cannot get a data signal. That comes up time and again when I talk to constituents.
On my summer surgery tour last year, I went to the village of Cuddington, which is not far from my village of Chearsley, in which people also struggle to get mobile signal, particularly inside buildings. Constituents in Cuddington were saying that they literally could not get a signal on any network in that village. That is absolutely devastating for people. They may need to make an emergency call, or they may have an urgent work commitment—they need to get that email out—and they simply cannot do it. It is a huge problem. While the shared rural network is a brilliant idea and a fantastic initiative, we need to put a rocket underneath it to get it working far more quickly.
There really is not a technological excuse for this. Many moons ago, on my honeymoon in the middle of the Masai Mara, I was struck by the fact that there was not a building to be seen, yet there was still a strong 4G signal on my mobile phone. I was part of a delegation to rural Israel just a couple of weeks ago. We went down to the Gaza border. Some of those places had been so brutally attacked that they were literally in ruins, yet there was still a solid 4G—and at times 5G— signal on my mobile phone, but when I am waiting to pick up my son outside the school gates, I cannot even check my WhatsApp messages.
My message to the Minister is that this is a brilliant initiative, but it needs the Government to put a real boost underneath it, and to put pressure on industry. I fully accept and congratulate EE for being ahead of the curve on this, but we need all the networks to be ahead of the curve on this, and we need to get this right for all of our rural constituents.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. What we are discussing, as we do in many debates on rural areas, is the feeling and the reality of being left behind. Rural areas encounter additional challenges and are so often forgotten. That is felt in my constituency of Somerton and Frome.
The shared rural network pledges to bring 95% 4G coverage by 2025, yet 39 postcode areas in Somerton and Frome do not yet even have the soon-to-be-phased-out 3G coverage. The shared rural network mythology sets the minimum required coverage signal strength at the equivalent of just a single bar on an iPhone 7 Plus, if anyone still has one of those. The Local Government Association states that it has often found a disconnect between the coverage that mobile network operators claim, and the experience of residents. As the world is rapidly moving away from 4G and on to 5G, my constituents could be left with a single bar of 4G after the successful roll-out of the network.
There are reports circulating that three of the mobile network operators in the shared rural network are struggling with the requirement to meet their 4G interim coverage targets by the end of June 2024. As we have already heard, this is leading to reasonable fears that rural residents will have to wait even longer for reliable mobile connectivity. In Somerton and Frome, the lack of mobile coverage means that rural businesses struggle to set up mobile payments and may be more reliant on using cash, which is difficult as some of our market towns, including Castle Cary, do not have any bank branches left. That makes rural areas less attractive for people to move to, or move their businesses to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said in her powerful opening speech, the lack of mobile connectivity also compromises the safety of lone workers and of those who work in rural agricultural businesses, who often operate large equipment in notspot areas.
David Duguid
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. What she says brings to mind a point that I almost raised when my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) was speaking. Does the hon. Lady agree that as there is more and more of an assumption that we are all digitally connected—whether it is through online banking or through annoying songs for our children—people who are not connected are made to feel even more remote as the digital world develops without them?
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. A recent report from the National Farmers Union confirmed that by stating that four out of five farmers do not have reliable mobile signal throughout their farms, and one in 20 has no outdoor locations with reliable mobile signal.
My constituents have been in touch with me to relay their fears of being left unconnected to mobile networks. In West Bradley, an elderly couple who suffer from numerous health issues told me that they have no mobile reception in their home. Their telephone provider is looking to switch them to a digital landline, meaning that in the event of a power cut they would be left unable to contact emergency services. That is a very real and scary prospect for many people living in rural areas.
Swathes of Wincanton are 4G partial notspots, meaning that they are not served by any of the mobile operators. Currently, that means that residents who may receive coverage with EE, for example, do not receive any coverage when they cross the town and surrounding areas as they go about their daily lives. That problem could be resolved with the introduction of rural roaming, which would allow residents to connect to any network active in their area even if 4G is not available through their operator. Back in 2018, Ofcom stated that rural roaming could be a solution for the notspot issues that plague our rural communities, yet the Government and the operators have simply refused.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire stated, she has tabled a Bill that would incentivise operators to allow customers to rural roam. I fully support those sensible measures to help my constituents who suffer the plight of unfair mobile connectivity, and I hope to see quick progress with the shared rural network to ensure that rural areas are not left any more behind than they are already.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this excellent debate.
There is a common theme here, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith). I want to take everyone to a community called Borgie, which is on the north coast of Sutherland facing the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). In Borgie, an elderly gentleman fell over in his garden. Exactly as we have heard already, he did not have a mobile signal and had to crawl some distance to a landline to call for help.
In the same community, I also have a constituent named Jean, who had a mast installed on her ground in 2019. I give credit where it is due; Openreach and EE, the companies involved, did what they needed to do. You would think that this was a good news story, Dame Maria, but it is not. SSE needs to connect the mast to the electrical grid for it to do its work. It has promised again and again that the work will be done—to absolutely no effect. We are now in 2024, almost five years since the mast was put up, and it is no good to man or beast, as we say in the highlands. On a slightly more humorous note, her neighbours in Borgie call the mast “Jean’s folly”. Alas, it is a folly indeed.
A lot of public money has been spent on the mast, so in this incredibly brief contribution I make an appeal to the Minister. Could she, in the goodness of her heart, representing the United Kingdom Government, have a quiet and meaningful word with the Scottish Government and tell them to get their act together with SSE to get that mast connected? In the meantime, we have no mobile connectivity whatsoever.
Finally, as others have said, we have power cuts all over the UK. My wife was cut off this very morning in the highlands; luckily, we got the electricity back on again. My final plea is therefore that the masts need to have some sort of solar power attached to them. I would be extraordinarily grateful to the Minister if she used her charms to sort out this extremely annoying problem, which is quite dangerous for a remote community in the highlands.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate.
There have been a lot of contributions, and I will zoom through most of them. We had contributions from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who raised concerns about signals within buildings, which is a different technical issue but one that still causes problems.
Carol Monaghan
There is a problem in this building as well, of course.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) told stories about his children; I think many of us can relate to those. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) is unfortunately still struggling with 3G, never mind 4G. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about Jean’s folly. Jean is the name of my dog—a different Jean. I gently point out to the hon. Member that this is a reserved issue, so it is incumbent on the UK Government, not the Scottish Government, to sort it out.
It was only last month that a number of us—the same characters—were here in Westminster Hall debating the difficulties arising from the switch from copper wire to internet fibre signals for phone lines. Today’s debate is important because, with the removal of the copper wire network, if an internet signal drops out, as has happened to many households this week with Storms Isha and Jocelyn, people rely on the 4G network, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. If the 4G network is not reliable, people are left without the resilience to deal with emergency situations, as we have heard. The hon. Member also raised concerns about the speed of the 4G roll-out. That is rather ironic: at the same time as the roll-out is happening too slowly, the switch from copper wire to fibre is happening too quickly. There seems to be a real—pardon the pun—disconnect between those two issues.
The shared rural network is a joint venture between the UK Government and the big four mobile providers. It should provide 4G coverage to 95% of the UK, and enable rural communities and businesses to gain greater connectivity. In Scotland, the roll-out must be done with an awareness of the importance of the natural environment. Although the issue is reserved, as I said, the Scottish Government have done some work in this area to bring together different groups and ensure that the roll-out is done in a sympathetic way. The Scottish Government have organised and participated in discussions with national parks and NatureScot to ensure that we get mutually acceptable outcomes.
We have heard about some difficulties regarding planning. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is no longer in his place, raised concerns about ugly infrastructure. If we do the roll-out in conjunction with local communities, we can look at creativity of placement and the use of existing structures.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. EE has recently announced that it has met its coverage targets for the first phase of the rural network programme. We need to know whether that statement matches reality. How is EE checking that? Is it actually going round with a mobile phone and ensuring that there is coverage everywhere that there should be coverage, or is it saying that the mast should provide coverage in that area? Those are two very different things. How are the Government checking what the mobile providers are saying? What further incentives are the Government providing to ensure proper coverage?
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is coming to a close.
Carol Monaghan
I am just finishing. It would be useful to hear about specific interventions that the Government are taking in tricky rural areas.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing the debate. It is vital not only for those in rural areas, but for constituencies like mine, which has many hard-to-reach villages.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt). We have many rural areas in Islwyn. Indeed, the National Farmers Union hosted a farmers’ breakfast in Crumlin last week. He is always able to visit if he wants to; he has an open invitation.
There was a vital contribution to the debate from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who highlighted the contrast between the coverage in urban and rural areas. Those with young children will no doubt sympathise with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith); there are many times when I have been on long journeys with my children and tried to keep them entertained when we could not get an internet connection. There was also an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who said that rural communities developing 4G will be left behind when there are further developments in 5G.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) told us a harrowing story about a constituent in the village of Borgie who had suffered a fall and could not speak to anybody because he did not have an internet connection. I genuinely hope that as a result of the hon. Member’s campaigning, Jean’s folly will be rectified and the good people of Borgie will finally have full internet connection. I wish him all the best with that campaign.
Many people regularly work in rural areas and remote locations that currently lack a good 4G connection. That work could be in tourism, construction or the provision of any number of at-home services in communities, particularly in health and social care. Having no 4G means that when someone is working on the go, there can be no online payments and no access to real-time data. As an example, builders have to take time out of their working day to drive to somewhere where they can get 4G to work and download the most up-to-date information they need, just to make sure that they can access the documents required for them to work safely and effectively.
According to DEFRA, half of all rural businesses report that notspots have a negative impact on their profits, turnover and productivity. Many attribute hundreds of pounds of losses a month to poor connectivity. The issue is also important for lone workers—for example, in the agricultural sector—who need to know that they can stay in touch with colleagues or at least contact someone if things go wrong, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described for his constituent.
People’s lives can be transformed by a reliable connection to 4G. It is important to recognise that online spaces can mitigate loneliness, which is crucial for people who do not have regular opportunities for physical interaction. Staying connected with friends and family, regardless of one’s location, is a brilliant benefit from being online and is key to maintaining good mental health. An internet connection can facilitate access and inclusion for disabled people—whether through apps that meet communication needs or through online information about available services. Now that many people do not have a local branch of their chosen bank, particularly outside cities, online banking from home is essential and is often used as an excuse for why a bank has closed. It is often those who live in an area without 4G who are most in need of it, because the bricks-and-mortar versions of services no longer exist.
Time is of the essence in securing access for those who have so far been left behind, so progress is to be welcomed. However, the Government once stated their aim to ensure that 95% of the UK had partial coverage by 2022, meaning 4G from at least one provider. Unfortunately, like a lot of the Government’s goals, this goal was pushed back to 2025. I am afraid that that is not good enough for so many rural communities. The programme has required commitments from the four mobile operators in the UK to invest in areas with partial coverage, in conjunction with public investment that will provide for hard-to-reach areas, like my own. One of the four operators has already succeeded in meeting its interim target for June 2024, but the remaining three reportedly wrote to the Government last October, asking for more time. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that when she responds, and that it will not result in another postponement.
I do not want anybody thinking that I want the Government to fail. Being connected is extremely important—a lifeline for rural and hard-to-reach communities and people who are alone. It is vital and, as we have heard, often lifesaving.
As we have heard today, internet access is a necessity nowadays for so many people to access services, work, school and leisure. As we have seen during lockdown, it really was a lifeline to keep people connected and to form some sort of online community. I am hopeful that we will continue to see the expansion of 4G coverage and eventually 5G coverage in rural communities so that everyone can reap the benefits of access to the internet.
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this very important debate on the implementation of a shared rural network. I am glad to have her support for the SRN, and I thank her for showcasing the Government’s commitment to this extremely important programme. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, which speaks to the importance of connectivity in everybody’s constituencies. I will say a little more about that later.
I need to set out some of the challenges that we have when it comes to telecoms. There are balances to be made in terms of investment and infrastructure versus competition and low prices for consumers and making sure that MNOs implement their security commitments. Some of these things are difficult for us, but we are making good progress in getting people the connectivity that they need.
The shared rural network is a deal between the UK Government and the four mobile network operators—EE, Three, Virgin Media, O2 and Vodafone—signed in March 2020 to share an investment of £1 billion. It is delivering 4G coverage to about 95% of the UK land mass by the end of 2025. That is a commitment whereby we put up half the money and they put up half the money. We think that this shows great value for the taxpayer in getting the connectivity that we want.
The SRN is there to tackle the digital divide issues that hon. Members have highlighted with respect to connectivity in urban and rural areas. It supports economic growth and contributes substantially to public safety; an element of it involves building on the emergency services network. It means much greater life chances for people in those connected communities. We all understand from the pandemic what having poor connectivity meant for education, healthcare and so much more, so I understand hon. Members’ desire to get connectivity as quickly as possible.
This is just one of the interventions that the Government are making when it comes to connectivity. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with Project Gigabit, with which we are trying to drive gigabit connectivity in people’s constituencies. It is incredibly well supported by hon. Members. I am always grateful for that engagement —particularly, if I may say so, from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who is single-handedly driving roll-out in Scotland.
Julia Lopez
In Banff and Buchan particularly. I should like to say to my hon. Friend that there has been some progress. I know that he shares my frustration at the slowness of the Scottish roll-out, which is a unique situation whereby the Scottish Government are driving it, as opposed to the rest of the UK, where the UK Government are taking the lead.
David Duguid
Can the shared rural network programme be used to help to fill the notspots not just for mobile signal but for fixed signal? As the Minister has alluded to, the Scottish Government’s R100 programme has absolutely failed to deliver on their promises for fixed broadband.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend highlights a challenge whereby some communities have not only bad broadband connection, but bad telephone connection. Sometimes one can substitute for the other: people can tether off their phone signal. He has a constituency that has poor coverage for both, and I am very sympathetic. As he is aware, I am trying to do what I can as a UK Government Minister to substitute for some of the challenges that we have had with the Scottish roll-out.
We are looking at pilots on satellite connectivity in the very hardest areas to reach; we are also looking at some of the wireless solutions that my hon. Friend alluded to. Is the technology there? Some of these are probably not technologies that will substitute for gigabit roll-out, but we are seeing where they can. I can only assure him, as I do on a regular basis, that I am pushing and looking at every lever I have to get him the connectivity he desires. I should also say that we have had some progress in our discussions with the Scottish Government recently. We are having a regional procurement, and they are finally getting their act together on some of the more local procurement. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will start to see the benefit.
Carol Monaghan
Once again, I point out that broadband roll-out, as well as 4G roll-out, remains reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Government are of course helping to support the roll-out, but it is a reserved issue.
Julia Lopez
Perhaps at some point the hon. Lady might like to update us on the progress and success of the R100 programme and its impact on constituents.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for highlighting some of the issues in Borgie in particular. I will happily take up the issue of Jean’s folly and see whether we can make any progress on it. I thank the hon. Member for highlighting cases showing the real-life impact that poor connectivity can have.
Before I respond to points raised by other hon. Members, it might be helpful if I explain how the SRN will be implemented across the UK and what has been achieved for some time when it comes to boosting mobile coverage. To deliver the programme, the operators are investing about half a billion pounds to eliminate the majority of partial notspots, which are the areas that receive coverage from at least one but not all four operators. The Government will then go even further and tackle the total number of notspots with our contribution of half a billion pounds. Those are the hardest-to-reach rural areas that currently have no 4G coverage at all.
By upgrading existing networks and working together on shared infrastructure in new sites, we will transform mobile coverage in rural areas and—this is key—maximising the use of existing infrastructure. I was particularly glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan about how we are seeing that sharing of infrastructure in his constituency. We want to minimise environmental impacts, but also ensure best value for the taxpayer.
One of the ways we are trying to speed up roll-out is by easing the planning process. Several hon. Members raised the need to make more straightforward the erection of new infrastructure, as we did in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. It can be a difficult balance, because a number of hon. Members are unhappy about the siting of masts, and we are encouraging operators to put in mast applications in sensible places. To have engagement with local authorities, I wrote to all councils to set out where they have powers in that regard. I also raised the matter with Ofcom, because I know that there are some issues in particular parts of the country. We want to make sure that we can ease people’s concerns about the impact of mast infrastructure on communities, because pausing roll-out on that basis is in nobody’s interest.
Greg Smith
I have multiple examples, particularly of 5G masts. One was quite literally put in somebody’s back garden, right on the fence line; another, in Monks Risborough, was right on the edge of a shopping parade. Are the networks actually being receptive to my hon. Friend’s demands? Are we seeing a real change in where they are putting in applications to put up the new infrastructure?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the challenges is trying to get that transparency and get data and information that goes beyond the anecdotal, to give us a proper picture of what is happening on the ground. It seems to me that this is happening in particular areas with particular companies, so I am trying to get that information. In the meantime, I am talking to Ofcom and local authorities and trying to understand where there are problems. There are also working groups between altnets so that there can be better sharing of mast infrastructure, which I think will ease some of the challenges.
Mr Carmichael
My own experience, and I have the scars to prove it, goes all the way back to the mobile infrastructure project. My experience has always been that the mobile operators will only come to the table when they are put under serious pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out that three of the mobile operators will be wanting extensions to the time they have to meet their targets. I encourage the Minister to harden her heart when the pleas come in. If we do not hold the mobile operators’ feet to the fire, we will never get anywhere.
Julia Lopez
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have robust conversations with the mobile network operators. He should also bear in mind that we are asking quite a lot of them, and there are a number of commitments. We want them to speed up roll-out and to make sure that their network infrastructure is secure, so there is a little bit of give and take on some of these issues. I always bear in mind the importance of not soft-soaping these things, and of having honest and robust conversations when they are needed. I am fully aware of the impact on communities that are poorly connected. I can only assure hon. Members of the Government’s desire to make sure that people get connectivity as quickly as possible. However, there are difficult balancing questions with some of these issues.
On the shared rural network, each operator will reach 90% geographic coverage. That will result in 84% of the UK having 4G coverage from all four operators, and 95% from at least one. That will increase choice, boost productivity and provide increased public safety in rural areas. The programme is already well under way, and coverage from all four operators has been increasing in every nation. Coverage from at least one operator has also improved. We are now approaching 93% geographic coverage for overall 4G. That is up from 91%, so we are on track to hit the 95% target. Those improvements have all come since the SRN deal was first agreed.
The first part of the programme, which is funded by industry, is tackling those partial notspots. The four MNOs have deployed over 190 new sites since 2020 to meet their SRN targets, and 35 new sites have been added this year. That is leading to improvements across the country. We are also progressing well in our part of the deal. The majority of our investment, as hon. Members opposite will be aware, is in Scotland, which currently has the lowest 4G coverage of any of the four nations, perhaps for obvious geographical reasons.
Operators and their suppliers have been establishing where masts should go to deliver the best coverage by carrying out a number of site suitability surveys. That has led to a number of letters to me about protecting the beauty of the highlands and so on. I would like to take this opportunity to assure hon. Members that we are trying to make sure we have the right balance, getting the infrastructure in place but not being ridiculous about where that infrastructure is sited. Obviously there are concerns, and some new masts will be needed, but probably not as many as people fear.
The issue of roaming has been raised. My understanding from discussions in the Department is that rural roaming was looked at previously, and it was decided that it could dissuade operators from going into rural areas because they would lose the competitive benefit of getting there first. It is a difficult balance. I appreciate the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and am interested to test them.
I am aware that I am running out of time—there is so much to cover. Hon. Members raised the issue of the PSTN role. Again, I believe assurances have been offered on that front. There was a summit raised on the copper switch-off, but we are also looking at energy resilience.
We are very alive to the Ofcom data issue. We asked Ofcom to improve its reporting last year, and work is under way. We are alive to the concerns. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire and ill happily engage with her on all these issues and more, whenever she wishes.
Helen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister, the Minister, the SNP spokesperson and all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to our debate on this important issue. I also thank the Library for producing an excellent briefing, and all the people in the industry—the mobile network operators, the industry organisations, the Country Land and Business Association and the Rural Services Network—for helping me to pull together the necessary information. I am extremely grateful to them all.
I will pick up with the Minister the issues of data, equipment sharing and rural roaming, because they are extremely important. Indeed, my private Member’s Bill on the subject is due to be debated on Friday, and I am sure we will pick things up again then.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the implementation of the Shared Rural Network.
Written Statements
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Smarter Regulation: Improving Price Transparency and Product Information for Consumers
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Today, my Department has published the Government’s response to the consultation on “smarter regulation: improving price transparency and product information for consumers”. The consultation sought views and evidence on steps the Government could take to improve price and information transparency for consumers.
The response sets out our intent to reform the Price Marking Order 2004, and to legislate on hidden fees—“drip pricing”, fake reviews, online interface orders and interim online interface orders.
The Government plan to:
Reform the Price Marking Order 2004 (Retained EU Law), simplifying the requirements making it easier for businesses to comply with and for consumers to compare prices of products;
facilitate the DEFRA, Scottish, and Welsh Government plans to create deposit return schemes;
introduce new rules on hidden fees—“drip pricing”, by requiring that unavoidable and mandatory fees be included in the headline price or indicated at the start of the purchasing process;
prohibit commercial practices related to fake reviews; and
extend the power to apply for online interface orders and interim online interface orders to additional public enforcers.
I am placing a copy of the consultation response in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS203]
Product Safety and Metrology: (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Today, I am updating Parliament on developments to the Government’s approach to the UK Conformity Assessment (UKCA) product marking and plans to continue recognition of ‘conformité européenne’ (CE) beyond 31 December 2024. The Government intend to lay legislation in spring to provide businesses with the flexibility to place goods that fall under 21 product regulations and meet current EU requirements on the market in Great Britain. Later in the year, the Government also intend to introduce greater labelling flexibility, including the option for manufacturers to use digital labelling. This forms part of the Government’s smarter regulation programme of regulatory reform, designed to improve regulation across the board, ensuring it is effective and used only where necessary and proportionate.
I announced in August 2023 that the Government plan to extend CE recognition indefinitely for the product regulations managed by the Department for Business and Trade. Since then, we have continued to engage with industry. We have listened to businesses—both in the UK and those who supply the UK from abroad, and we are taking further action. I am today announcing that the Government intend to lay legislation, this spring, using powers under the Retained EU Law Act 2023. This legislation will support economic growth and provide businesses with greater flexibility to continue to place products on the market in Great Britain using either CE or UKCA marking after 31 December 2024. In Northern Ireland, the CE mark is and will remain recognised, pursuant to the Windsor Framework.
The continued recognition of current EU requirements, including the CE and reversed epsilon markings, will apply to 21 product regulations, including the 18 product regulations owned by the Department of Business and Trade, previously announced on 1 August 2023. Following feedback from industry, we are also continuing CE recognition for a further three regulation, which will now include: the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products 2010 Regulations—Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the Explosives Regulations 2014—Department for Work and Pensions, Health and Safety Executive; and the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012—Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 is included within this announcement. However, we are taking a two-part approach given the role of exemptions in these regulations. Where products meet the maximum concentration values set out in Annex II to the EU RoHS Directive (2011/65/EU), we will continue to recognise current EU regulations and CE marking. Where a product relies on an exemption, we will also continue to recognise current EU regulations and CE marking provided there is an equivalent exemption under the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012.
The UK Government will also introduce new measures to introduce a ‘Fast track UKCA’ process, allowing manufacturers to use the UKCA marking to demonstrate compliance in Great Britain with either UKCA product requirements or EU product requirements where they are recognised. Where products are covered by multiple regulations, a mixture of both UKCA and CE conformity assessment procedures can be used. This is designed to provide longer term certainty and flexibility for businesses if the UK mandates UKCA marking for certain regulations in the future.
The Government also recognise the important role that UK conformity assessment bodies play in ensuring the compliance of goods to UKCA requirements and their role in supporting innovation. We will continue to work with the UK Accreditation Service and industry to monitor capacity of the conformity assessment market.
In response to feedback from businesses through engagement and the Product Safety Review consultation, the Government also intend to provide for permanent labelling flexibility to enable importers of goods from the EU and the rest of the world to supply their details indelibly, on an accompanying document, the packaging or on an adhesive label. The Government will also introduce the option for manufacturers to use digital labelling. Businesses will be able to include the UKCA marking, manufacturer details, importer details and the declaration of conformity via, for example, a QR code attached to the product via a label. In scanning the code, the information can be accessed by a website or app. We will set out further details in due course.
The Government are taking a tailored approach to support the interests of British businesses and ensure consumers are protected, taking account of the specialist nature of each regulation. This means that not all product regulations covered by the CE or UKCA regime will be included in this legislation. Separate approaches apply to products covered by: the Medical Devices Regulations, the Construction Products Regulations, the Cableway Installations Regulations, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) Regulations, the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations, and the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations.
The UK Government will continue to monitor any regulatory changes the EU may make in future, and we will continue to work with industry to ensure UK regulatory policy reflects the interests of British businesses and consumers. We recognise the importance of being able to mandate UKCA marking, and we may choose to do this in the future for certain regulations where this is in the interests of British businesses, consumer safety, or environmental protection.
This announcement is in line with the REUL Act Report published Monday 22 January 2024, which outlines the progress the Government have made in reforming and revoking retained EU over the last six months.
[HCWS202]
Telegraph Media Group: Public Interest Intervention Notice
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
My Department has today written to solicitors acting for the Barclay family and RedBird IMI, the current and proposed new owners of Telegraph Media Group, to inform them that I am “minded to” issue a new public interest intervention notice.
This week, RedBird IMI has made changes to the corporate structure of the potential acquiring entities of Telegraph Media Group and this creates a new relevant merger situation. RedBird IMI asserts that no changes have been made to the identity, nature or economic interests of the ultimate shareholders.
I have noted the very late stage in the process at which information about this new corporate structure has been shared and implemented. I do not consider that this is conducive to the full and proper functioning of the process. I expect the parties to ensure that all the relevant authorities have timely access to all relevant information, and in sufficient detail, in order that they, and subsequently I as Secretary of State, can make our determinations.
The new public interest intervention notice that I am minded to issue relates to concerns that I continue to have that there may be public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002—that are relevant to the planned acquisition of Telegraph Media Group by RedBird IMI, and that these concerns warrant further investigation.
A “minded to” letter has therefore been issued to the parties on the following public interest ground specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002:
(2A) The need for—
(a) accurate presentation of news; and
(b) free expression of opinion;
in newspapers is specified in this section.
These letters, and other relevant updates, will be published on gov.uk.
The “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 9 am on Thursday 25 January to respond. My Department will publish versions of these “minded to” letters on gov.uk in due course.
If I decide to issue a new intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest concerns and for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to assess and report to me on whether a relevant merger situation has been created and any impact this may have on competition. Following these reports, I would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
The public interest intervention notice issued on 30 November 2023 and the pre-emptive action order made on 1 December 2023 remain in force.
DCMS will keep Parliament updated on progress with this media merger case.
[HCWS207]
Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report 2022-23
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the annual report of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, who is appointed by the Home Secretary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, covers independent statutory roles.
The report covers the exercise of the statutory functions over the reporting year.
This was the final report by Professor Sampson before leaving his post on 31 October 2023. I am grateful for his contribution to this important area of work.
The report has been laid before the House and it will be available from the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
[HCWS204]
Licensing Act: Age Verification: Digital Identity, Technology and Remote Sales
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are today launching a consultation on whether to allow digital identities and technology to play a role in age verification for alcohol sales, as well as whether to amend legislation in order to specify that for sales of alcohol that do not take place face to face, age verification should take place at the point of delivery as well as sale.
The Licensing Act 2003 covers the retail sale and supply of alcohol. One of the licensing objectives that the Act seeks to uphold is the protection of children from harm, meaning that alcohol must not be sold to someone under 18. Secondary legislation made under the Act specifies that if anyone appears to be under 18, they need to produce identification which bears their photograph, date of birth and either a holographic mark or ultraviolet feature. In practice this means that currently only physical identity documents are permitted.
The Government are keen to enable the secure and appropriate use of new technologies that can improve the experience of consumers and retailers. However, the current wording of the Act does not allow technology to play a part in the age-verification process for alcohol sales. A person must make the decision on whether an individual is old enough to purchase alcohol.
We are therefore consulting on whether to amend the Act so as to allow digital identities and technology to play a role in age verification. The need for robust national standards for digital identities and technology remains paramount in order to provide confidence to retailers and consumers alike that they are fit for purpose. Any change would reflect the wider cross-Government position on the use of digital identities and technology for the sale of age-restricted products and will take effect only once there are Government-approved national standards in place.
We are also considering whether the Act adequately covers transactions that do not take place face to face. Currently, the Act only sets out a requirement to verify age at the point of sale or appropriation to a contract, not at the point of delivery. We are reviewing whether this is still right and whether there should additionally be checks at the point of delivery and/or service. We are consulting on whether to amend the Act so that it is explicit about when age verification must take place.
The consultation will run for eight weeks and the Government will publish their response in due course. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS205]
Local Government Finance
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today, the Government have announced additional measures for local authorities, worth £600 million. This includes £500 million of new funding for councils with responsibility for adult and children’s social care, distributed through the social care grant. Further details on the exceptional provision of this funding will be set out at the upcoming Budget.
Taking into account this new funding, local government in England will see an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion next year, or 7.5% in cash terms—an above-inflation increase—rising from £60.2 billion in 2023-24 to up to £64.7 billion in 2024-25.
By making progress on the Government’s plan to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt, we now can provide this extra funding to councils to continue to provide vital services for their communities.
Introduction
On 18 December, I published a consultation on the provisional 2024-25 local government finance settlement. This consultation’s proposals made available over £64 billion to local authorities, an increase in core spending power of almost £4 billion, or 6.5% in cash terms on 2023-24.
The consultation ran until 15 January 2024 and we received 267 responses. Alongside this, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), engaged extensively with colleagues across the House, meeting over 90 MPs and local government leaders to understand their views. I am grateful to all who responded.
We know that councils have faced cost pressures as a result of high inflation. That is why the Prime Minister has prioritised halving it—it is important that we stick to the plan. The Government have also listened to the sector and to the issues raised by Members of the House. For this reason, I am today announcing a wide-ranging package of support for local government.
First and foremost, I am pleased to announce an additional £500 million of funding for local government to deliver social care. This is further to the £1 billion in additional funding announced at the autumn statement 2022 and in July 2023. It will enable councils to continue to provide crucial social care services for their local communities, particularly for children.
Moreover, at the final settlement, I will set out plans to:
increase the funding guarantee to 4%, ensuring that all authorities see a minimum increase in core spending power of 4%, before local decisions on council tax—a key ask of district councils. Local authorities should of course be mindful of cost of living pressures when taking any decisions relating to council tax;
support rural councils by increasing the rural service delivery grant;
provide support to authorities experiencing significant difficulties because of internal
drainage board levies; and
provide additional funding for the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, in recognition of their unique circumstances.
These measures mean the local government finance settlement for 2024-25 will make available over £64.7 billion, an increase of 7.5% in cash terms on 2023-24. Representatives of all tiers for local government have expressed support for these measures, which will provide critical support across the sector to deliver services.
Social care
The Government recognise that pressures on social care, including for children, have increased significantly. In February 2023 the Government published their strategy for children’s social care reform. After listening to the sector’s consultation responses, and to make sure that councils can continue to deliver these services while we build the evidence for reform, I have today announced an additional £500 million of funding for local government. This will be allocated through the social care grant, which is ringfenced for adult and children’s social care. Where possible, councils should invest in areas that help place children’s social care services on a sustainable financial footing, while being mindful of the level of adult social care provision. This includes investment in expanding family help and targeted early intervention, expanding kinship care, and boosting the number of foster carers. This increase in funding will be reflected in the local authority allocations published at the final local government finance settlement.
This funding, in turn, will reduce pressures on other areas of children’s services, such as home to school transport, where we recognise there has been a significant increase in pressures for special educational needs and disability services.
Funding guarantee
We know that the whole sector is facing pressures, and we need to support all tiers of government to provide the services on which our communities rely. We have listened to the asks of the sector during the consultation period and, as part of this commitment, we are increasing the funding guarantee. This means councils will see their core spending power increase by a minimum of 4% before they have taken any local decisions on council tax. This is an increase from the 3% funding guarantee that we had proposed in the provisional settlement.
Rural services delivery grant
The Government have listened to the sector’s consultation responses and recognise the specific challenges and difficulties that local councils can face in serving dispersed populations in rural areas. I am therefore announcing my intention to provide a significant increase in funding delivered through the rural services delivery grant. I am announcing a £15 million increase to the grant in 2024-25. This is an increase of over 15%, making available a total of £110 million next year. This is the largest cash increase in the rural services delivery grant since 2018-19, and the second successive year of above-inflation increases.
Internal drainage boards
Last year we provided one-off funding to local authorities struggling with internal drainage board levies. We have listened to authorities that continue to face sustained increases in these levies. We will again provide £3 million outside of the settlement to support those experiencing the biggest pressures. We will work with the sector and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to implement a long-term solution.
Islands
In recognition of the unique circumstances facing our island authorities, and their physical separation from the mainland, we will be increasing funding to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly.
We will set out full details at the final settlement.
Working with the sector on efficiency
I would like to emphasise that this money, alongside all funding announced at the provisional settlement, should be used by local authorities to deliver the frontline services on which our communities rely, rather than put aside for later use. We will therefore continue to monitor the level of local authority reserves.
Looking ahead, we know that there is work to be done between national and local government to improve productivity in local government, as part of our efforts to return the sector to sustainability in the future. While the new funding announced today is an important part of these efforts, alongside ongoing work in adult and children’s social care, we can go further. That is why today we are asking local authorities to produce productivity plans setting out how they will improve service performance and reduce wasteful expenditure to ensure every area is making best use of taxpayers’ money. I encourage local authorities to consider whether expenditure on discredited equality, diversity and inclusion programmes meets this objective.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be establishing an expert panel to advise the Government on financial sustainability in the sector, which will include the Office for Local Government and the Local Government Association. The panel will review local authority productivity plans and advise the Government on best practice in this area. The Government will monitor these plans and use them to inform funding settlements in future years. Our aim is for local authorities to produce these plans by the summer recess, and we will design a process for local authorities that will enable them to do so. We will provide more information on these requirements for local authorities at the final settlement.
With regard to part-time work for full-time pay arrangements—the so called four-day working week—the Government continue to believe that this reduces the potential capacity to deliver services by up to 20% and, as a result, does not deliver value. The Government have already taken steps to deter the sector from operating these practices, consulted on the use of financial levers at future settlements, and will legislate if necessary.
Conclusion
These proposals will provide councils with the support they need, ensuring stability and delivering additional resources for the most acute pressures. We will also hold the sector to account and help maximise local authorities’ efficiency and value for money.
Alongside the measures announced today, the Government continue to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases through the proposed package of referendum principles, including the 3% core council tax principle and the 2% adult social care precept. It is for individual local authorities to determine whether to use the flexibilities detailed above, taking into consideration the pressures many households are facing.
We are committed to improving the local government finance system beyond this settlement in the next Parliament, and the Minister for Local Government will be engaging with the sector on this over the coming months.
The final local government finance settlement will be published in full early next month, and the statutory reports that comprise the settlement will be subject to debate in the House of Commons shortly after.
This written ministerial statement covers England only. The Barnett formula will apply to this funding in the usual way.
[HCWS206]
Grand Committee
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I must first make the usual announcement that if there is a Division in the Chamber, this Committee must immediately adjourn when the Division Bells ring and resume after 10 minutes.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 12-II(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (24 Jan 2024)
Lord Faulks
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restore the Bill’s original wording in relation to Clause 19.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for not taking part at Second Reading. I have read the excellent debate, including the helpful introduction by the Minister. I also had the privilege of sitting through the first day in Committee, during which I learned a great deal. I refer to my interests in the register. I am not a competition lawyer, but I have experience of judicial review and of the operation of the Human Rights Act. I was chair of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, which reported a couple of years ago and resulted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act.
My amendment, which has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, concerns the use of the word “proportionate” in Clause 19. I also have a similar amendment in this group, Amendment 53, which concerns Clause 46.
Despite some heavy lobbying of the Government by big tech, the right to appeal against an intervention by the CMA will engage the judicial review test, rather than a merits test, except as to penalty. Later amendments will carefully probe this latter aspect and I look forward to hearing the debate.
The original adjective in Clause 19 was “appropriate”. The word “proportionate” replaced it at a relatively late stage in the Bill’s progress through the Commons. Why? In one view, it is an innocuous change. Indeed, one would expect an intervention by the Digital Markets Unit to be proportionate. The word also has a respectable legal pedigree. For example, you can defend yourself against attack, provided that your response is proportionate to the attack. Whether that response is proportionate will be a question of fact, often for a jury to decide.
But judicial review is primarily concerned not with the facts of a decision but with the process by which the decision is made. Classically, the courts got involved only if a decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have reached it. The scope of judicial review has expanded somewhat to include challenges based on, for example, irrationality or the failure to take into account relevant considerations. There are other grounds, but all are effectively concerned with the process rather than with factual findings, although I readily concede that there are occasions when these distinctions can be somewhat opaque.
Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act, the concept of proportionality has entered the law in relation to judicial review, but only in limited circumstances. The most recent edition of De Smith’s Judicial Review, generally regarded as the leading textbook in this area, says at 6-090:
“Domestic courts are required to review the proportionality of decisions and enactments in two main categories of case: cases involving prima facie infringements of Convention rights and cases involving EU law”.
Some think that proportionality should be the test in all cases of judicial review, but that is not currently the law.
I cannot see why an appeal in the context of this Bill would obviously involve a convention right, although those rights have a habit of getting in everywhere. If convention rights are engaged, proportionality comes into the analysis anyway. Choosing to put “proportionate” into the legislation might lead a court to conclude that Parliament had deliberately used the word to widen the scope of a judicial review challenge, even when no convention right is engaged. For my part, that is a risk that I do not think should be taken. Your Lordships’ House is well aware of the risk of expensive, time-consuming litigation that may result from these interventions, which it may be perfectly sensible to bring about.
A proportionality test is far closer to an appeal on the facts than one based on conventional judicial review principles. Whether an intervention is proportionate or not gives the court greater scope for looking at those facts. I would therefore much prefer to revert to the original word, “appropriate”, which does not carry the same heavy legal charge and does not risk expanding the grounds of appeal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and explanation behind the change in wording. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I add at this point that, if Amendment 16 were to be agreed, I could not call Amendment 17 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulks, if I can still call him that—in real life, he is my friend, even if he now sits on another Bench—both for tabling his amendments and for the incredibly comprehensive and thoughtful way in which he has introduced this group. To have the noble Lord’s expertise on this topic is incredibly valuable. I have signed his Amendments 16 and 53 but have also tabled my own in this group: Amendments 17 and 54. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have signed mine.
By way of some background to add to what the noble Lord has said, as I mentioned on the first day in Committee, and indeed at Second Reading, the Communications and Digital Select Committee held hearings on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill during the summer of last year. We took evidence from the large tech firms as well as a range of challenger firms. We focused on Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which is what we are discussing at this time.
As my noble friend the Minister acknowledged when he spoke at Second Reading, we as a committee found that the Bill as it stood at that time—as introduced to Parliament—struck a careful balance. We felt that, overall, it was proportionate and would deliver on the outcomes that we were seeking to achieve and all felt were necessary for this legislation—namely, a level playing field for the various different businesses that now seek to operate in digital markets. We were careful to acknowledge that striking that balance was hard to achieve; it was not an easy thing. We commended the Government for that. We were also clear, however, that any further changes, particularly to some contentious areas, such as the appeals process, could cause significant problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, we will come on to the question of appeals in a later group. The insertion of the word “proportionate” in the Bill, in the context of the conduct requirements that the CMA may impose, or the specific pro-competition interventions, has the potential to create a question and introduce a loophole that could be exploited during the appeals process. This is making people nervous—it is certainly making me nervous.
The noble Lord’s amendment would change the Bill back to its original wording. I have signed the amendment based on the way he, as a legal expert, has explained it, which seems to me to be the best way forward. However, my Amendments 17 and 54 try to make it clear to any tribunal hearing down the line that, by including the word “proportionate”, Parliament has not intended to create any new, novel or different opportunity for anybody to interpret what the CMA should always be doing, which is being proportionate in the way in which it goes about its duties. My amendments are, if you like, a safeguard, but I think what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has proposed is clearer and neater. Like him, I look forward to the Minister’s reply. This is an area which is causing quite a lot of concern and on which we need a clear response from the Government.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow such an esteemed legal brain and parliamentary brain. I am neither, but I have put my name to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s two amendments and I want to make two points in support of her arguments.
The common-law concept of proportionality is important in this legislation. I am not supporting these amendments in any spirit other than wanting to make sure that we are proportionate in the way we regulate the technology sector. After our first day in Committee, I was reflecting a little that perhaps all of us got a bit carried away—certainly I did—with some of our oratory about the importance of mitigating the downsides of the technology sector. I want to put it on the record that I recognise the upsides, too. Therefore, a proportionate path is important. I sit on the Communications and Digital Select Committee that my noble friend so ably chairs and, as she said, we felt that the Bill as introduced into the Commons got that proportional balance right.
We have been in this place before, having a very similar argument. A number of us here today are part of the Online Safety Act gang. I had a look at Hansard and on 19 July, during the last group on Report on the Online Safety Bill, I proposed a group of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which sought to clarify how non-content-related harms would be captured in the Bill. The argument made by the Minister, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, was that, by trying to define it in the Bill, we would create legal uncertainty because that concept was already defined. Now we find ourselves on the opposite sides of the same argument, where I think I am hearing the Government say that there is no intention to bring in any different definition of proportionality than that which already exists—that the CMA is already mandated to give significant consideration to proportionality—yet they want to put the word back in the Bill in the way that they resisted firmly in the Online Safety Bill, when a number of us were seeking a different form of clarification. I do not think that you can have it both ways quite so quickly in related legislation. Either the Government mean something different from the existing requirements of proportionality that the CMA is under, or we should simply take out this additional complexity and reduce the risk of further legal disputes once the Bill is enacted.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I have had a number of arguments about “proportionate” in the decade that I have been in this House. In fact, I remember that the very first time I walked into the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was having a serious argument with another noble Lord over a particular word. It went on for about 40 minutes and I remember thinking, “There is no place for me in this House”. Ten years later, I stand to talk about “proportionate”, which has played such a big part in my time here in the Lords.
During the passage of the DPA 2018, many of us tried to get “proportionate” into the Bill on the basis that we were trying to give comfort to people who thought data protection was in fact government surveillance of individuals. The Government said—quite rightly, as it turned out—that all regulators have to be
“proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent, and targeted”
in the way in which they discharge their responsibilities and they pushed us back. The same thing happened on the age-appropriate design code with the ICO, and the same point was made again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, just set out, we tried once more during the passage of the Online Safety Bill. Yet this morning I read this sentence in some draft consultation documents coming out of the Online Safety Act:
“Provisionally, we consider that a measure recommending that users that share CSAM”—
that is, for the uninitiated, child sexual abuse material—
“have their accounts blocked may be proportionate, given the severity of the harm. We need to do more work to develop the detail of any such measure and therefore aim to consult on it”.
This is a way in which “proportionate” has been weaponised in favour of the tech companies in one environment and it is what I am concerned about here.
As the noble Lord said, using “proportionate” introduces a gap in which uncertainty can be created, because some things are beyond question and must be considered, rather than considered on a proportionate basis. I finish by saying that associating the word specifically in relation to conduct requirements or making pro-competitive interventions must create a legal uncertainty if a regulator can pick up that word and put it against something so absolute and illegal and then have to discuss its proportionality.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I wonder if I can just slip in before Members on the Front Bench speak, particularly those who have signed the amendment. I refer again to my register of interests.
I support the principle that lies behind these amendments and want to reinforce the point that I made at Second Reading and that I sort of made on the first day in Committee. Any stray word in the Bill when enacted will be used by those with the deepest pockets—that is, the platforms—to hold up action against them by the regulator. I read this morning that the CMA has resumed its inquiry into the UK cloud market after an eight-month hiatus based on a legal argument put by Apple about the nature of the investigation.
It seems to me that Clause 19(5) is there to show the parameters on which the CMA can impose an obligation to do with fair dealing and open choices, and so on. It therefore seems that “proportionate”—or indeed perhaps even “appropriate”—is unnecessary because the CMA will be subject to judicial review on common-law principles if it makes an irrational or excessive decision and it may be subject to a legal appeal if people can argue that it has not applied the remedy within the parameters set by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 19(5). I am particularly concerned about whether there is anything in the Bill once enacted that allows either some uncertainty, which can be latched on to, or appeals—people refer to “judicial review plus” or appeals on the full merits, which are far more time-consuming and expensive and which will tie the regulator up in knots.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day two of Committee on the DMCC Bill. Again, I declare my interest as an adviser to Boston Limited.
It is a pleasure to follow the introduction from my noble friend Lord Faulks. I think is highly appropriate that we discuss proportionality. I have a number of amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 33, 52 and 220, and then the rather beautifully double Nelsonian, Amendment 222. Essentially, a considerable amount of work needs to be done before we can have proportionality going through the Bill in its current form. My amendments suggest not only addressing that but looking at counter- vailing benefits exemptions and financial penalties.
Agreeing with pretty much everything that has been said, and with the tone and spirit of all the amendments that have been introduced thus far, I will limit my remarks to Amendment 222. It suggests that regulations bringing into force Clauses 19, 21, 46 and 86
“may not be made until the Secretary of State has published guidance”
going into the detail of how all this will operate in reality.
Proportionality is obviously a key element, as has already been discussed, this is just as important, as we will come on to in the next group. My Amendment 222 straddles the groups a bit, under the vagaries of grouping amendments, but it is nevertheless all the better for it.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response on proportionality, countervailing benefits exemptions and financial penalties, and on the need for clear, detailed guidance to come from the Secretary of State before any moves are made in any and all of these areas.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am going to play the role of Little Sir Echo here. I hope that the unanimity expressed so far will send a strong message to my noble friend the Minister. I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 17, 53 and 54. I note my interests as declared at the start of Committee.
As I made clear in my remarks on Second Reading, we must, throughout the consideration of the Bill, steadfastly avoid importing anything into the CMA and DMU procedures that would allow the platforms to deploy delaying tactics and tie up the regulators in endless legal knots. Long legal wrangling will destroy the very essence of the Bill, and it is not mere speculation to suggest that this might happen. As we have seen elsewhere in the world, and indeed in publishers’ own existing dealings with the platforms, we do not need to gaze into a crystal ball; we can, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, put it the other day, read the book.
In that light, as we have heard consistently this afternoon, I fear that the government amendments made in the other place, requiring the conduct requirements and PCIs to be proportionate rather than appropriate, do just that. They impose significant restrictions on the work of the CMA and, as an extremely helpful briefing—which I think all Members have had—from Which? put it, produce “a legal quagmire” that would allow the unaccountable platforms
“with their vast legal budgets … to push back against each and every decision the regulator takes”.
It is simply counterintuitive to the design of the flexible and participatory framework the legislation portends. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it certainly makes me very nervous.
The key point is that introducing the concept of proportionality is, frankly, totally otiose, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put it so well, as proportionality is already tested by judicial review—something the CMA itself has already reiterated. The courts, in this novel area of legislation, will rely on Parliament clearly to state its intentions. Introducing the concept of proportionality not only is unnecessary but in fact muddies the waters and creates confusion that will be mercilessly used by the platforms. It certainly does not produce clarity. The Government really must think again.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not know whether I am the sole dissenting voice—I do not think I am—but I want to make one preliminary point. I never thought I would make a point in defence of lawyers, but not all legal challenge or scrutiny will necessarily be wrong as this Bill proceeds or as the CMA takes its decisions. It is extremely important that we bear in mind, as we will come on to later on in the Bill, that we need to have a sense of balance about all this, so that we do not allow quite reasonable discontent with some of the shocking practices we have seen from platforms to lead us to a place that we might subsequently regret and which could lead to injustices or damage to British interests through loss of innovation or inward investment.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said. It seemed to boil down to very few things. Are convention rights engaged? They probably are, or if they are not then they will be. Even if they are not, the courts will find a way of getting them in eventually. If they are, what have the Government added? That is why I think I might be with the amenders here. I think very little, if anything at all, has been added. Was this a piece of window dressing, supplied by the Government to satisfy the intense lobbying that has taken place, particularly of No. 10? It had a whiff of that about it for me when I first saw it—I see one or two nods of assent. If it is, I am particularly wary of this change, which is what leads me to think that the amenders might be right. If it is more than this—if something very substantive has been added—then I think we would all like to hear from the Minister what exactly it is that, as a result of the adding of “proportionality”, will be considered for legal scrutiny when this Bill is on the statute book.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly intervene. I have not signed the amendments but I am rather supportive of what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said in support of his amendment.
In thinking about this, among other thing I had the benefit of seeing a letter that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the department sent to my friends in another place, Robert Buckland and Damian Collins, after Report in the Commons; other noble Lords may have seen it. In that letter, he set out why he was building proportionality into Clause 19. He said:
“Our intention for this amendment is to allow a firm to appeal a decision by arguing that the DMU made public law errors in its consideration of proportionality under normal JR principles—without establishing that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged”,
for example, the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. So that would not bring convention rights on board. The letter continues: “For example”— it is always helpful to have an example—
“the firm could argue that the DMU failed to take a relevant consideration into account, made a material error of fact or otherwise acted unreasonably”—
so JR principles—
“when deciding against an intervention that would have been less burdensome on the firm while still achieving the same outcome”.
So the outcome has to be achieved, but is it proportionate to impose this particular conduct requirement or pro-competitive intervention?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I have not put my name to these amendments but I want to speak in favour of Amendments 16, 17 and others in this group. After the first day of Committee, which I sat through without speaking, one noble Baroness came up to me and said I was unusually quiet—“unusually” being the key word there. When another noble Lord asked me why I sat through proceedings without saying a word, I said I had once been told about the principle that I should speak only if it improves the silence. Given the concern for my welfare shown by those two noble Members, I am about to violate that principle by making a few remarks and asking a couple of questions.
As this is the first time for me to speak in Committee, I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. These include being an unpaid member of the advisory board of Startup Coalition and a non-executive director for the Department for Business and Trade. I have also worked with a couple of think tanks and have written on regulation and competition policy, and I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University. I mention that last role because in future interventions I will refer to some political science theories, but I assure noble Lords that I will try not to bore them. I am also a member of the Communications and Digital Committee.
I want to make only a short intervention on the amendments. Previous noble Lords made the point that we want to understand the Government’s intention behind deciding to change the word from “appropriate” to “proportionate”. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for seeking to answer that question. I am not a lawyer, so I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his intervention, which explained the legal context for “proportionate”. It has to be said, however, that at Second Reading I and a number of other noble Lords repeatedly asked the Minister to clarify and justify the change in wording. A satisfactory answer was not given, hence we see these amendments in Committee.
We could argue that this is an entirely appropriate response to what my noble friend said in Committee. Maybe the Government could argue that it was a proportionate response. It is a very simple question: can the Minister explain the reasons? Is it, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, that there is something wider in “proportionate” than “appropriate”? Will the Government consider bringing forward an amendment that explains this—sort of “appropriate-plus”—to make sure that it is legally well understood? Can the Government assure us that it is not a loophole to allow more movement towards a merits appeal, as opposed to judicial review, which many of us have come to support?
I have some support for Amendment 222, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, which seeks clarity on the appeal standards for financial penalties and countervailing benefits, but I know we will discuss these in a later group.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting and helpful debate, with a number of noble Lords answering other noble Lords’ questions, which is always pretty useful when you are summing up at the end. One thing absolutely ties every speaker together: agreement with the letter to the Prime Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on behalf of her committee, about the need to retain the JR principle throughout the Bill. That is what we are striving to do.
It was extremely interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had to say. He answered the second half of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. I did not agree with the first half but the second was pretty good. The “whiff” that the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, talked about was answered extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It was a direct hit.
The interesting aspect of all this is that the new better regulation framework that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, extolling from the heights in the Cholmondeley Room this afternoon includes a number of regulatory principles, including proportionality, but why not throw the whole kitchen sink at the Bill? Why is there proportionality in this respect? It was also really interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who unpacked very effectively the use of the proportionality principle. It looks as though there is an attempt to expand the way the principle is prayed in aid during a JR case. That seems fairly fundamental.
I hope that the Minister can give us assurance. We have a pincer movement here: there are a number of different ways of dealing with this, in amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, but we are all aiming for the same end result. However we get there, we are all pretty determined to make sure that the word “proportionate” does not appear in the wrong place. In all the outside briefings we have had, from the Open Markets Institute, Foxglove and Which?, the language is all about unintended consequences and widening the scope of big tech firms to challenge. What the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, had to say about stray words was pretty instructive. We do not want language in here which opens up these doors to further litigation. The debate on penalties is coming, but let us hold fast on this part of the Bill as much as we possibly can.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his neat and precise analysis of the position in which we find ourselves in the discussion on this group of amendments. This debate is a prequel to that which will follow on penalties, and we should see it in that light; the two things are very much connected, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear. Like him, I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, when he warned about using stray words. Proportionality is probably one of the most contested terms in law, and in all the 25 years or so that I have been in this House, I must have heard it in all the legal debates we have come across.
These are the first amendments seeking to restore some of the Bill’s original wording, which, as we have heard, was changed late in the day in the Commons. We are yet to receive a full explanation from the Minister of the reasons for that. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked why, and we on these Benches pose the same question. Were Ministers lobbied into this and, if so, why? We support Amendments 16 and 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which, as he outlined, seek to restore the original wording of the Bill, taking out the word “proportionate”, removing proportionality as the determining factor behind a CMA pro-competition intervention and reinserting the word “appropriate”.
We have two, possibly three, sets of solutions to the problem that the Government have set. However, we also have added our names to Amendments 17 and 54, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with the intent of ensuring that clarifying that the condition for conduct requirements imposed by the CMA to be proportionate does not create that novel legal standard for appeals of decisions and the confusion that will flow from that. In our view, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, says, the original wording strikes the right balance, roughly speaking, whereas the Government’s version would weaken the intent of this part of the Bill.
The formulation of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, relies on prevailing public law standards—in other words, standards that are commonly understood. We take the view that we all need to know what rules we are working to, and if the Bill introduces or creates a new standard then that certainty is removed. Of course, when it comes to the issue of pre-emption, we will need to resolve the best way forward on this issue at the next stage of the Bill. For my part, I think that reversion might be the best route, but no doubt by negotiating round the Committee we can come up with a workable solution.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, particularly Amendments 220 and 222, offer another way through it. However, on the face of it, for us they are useful in the context of reminding our Committee that guidance will need to be produced on the operation of this regime as it covers financial penalties and the countervailing benefits exemptions.
We have heard a lot about the new regime being flexible and participatory as a framework for regulation, and we agree with that principle. However, we think that, with this particular change, the Government strike at the heart of that and bring in a measure of uncertainty that is unwise, frankly, in this particular process. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was very telling. What he told the Committee was extremely important and we should listen very carefully to what was said in that exchange of correspondence. He rather shot the Government’s fox.
In conclusion, the Minister has a bit of a difficult job on his hands here. He may feel the weight of the Committee against him. I rather hope that he can offer us a measure of reassurance and perhaps help us come to a point where the whole Committee can agree a sensible reversion or an amendment that makes the Bill as workable as it seemed when it was first drafted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for raising the topic of proportionality in the digital markets regime and for doing so with such a clear and compelling analysis, which I think all of us, myself included, found deeply helpful. This is of course the requirement for the CMA to impose conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions on firms only where it is proportionate to do so.
First, I reassure my noble friend Lady Harding that this change is not about introducing a new standard or meaning of proportionality but about clarifying the scope of decisions that it applies to.
Amendments 16 and 53 from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seek to remove the explicit statutory requirement for PCIs and conduct requirements to be proportionate. Under these amendments, SMS firms would still be able to argue that their rights to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 of the first protocol of the ECHR, or A1P1, were engaged in most cases, allowing them to appeal on the basis of proportionality. I refer noble Lords to the ECHR memorandum published by the department, which explains how the regime intersects with human rights and how this relates to property rights. A1P1 protects possessions, which can include enforceable rights such as contracts, and so regulating SMS firms under the regime would commonly affect possessions, and therefore engage A1P1.
The Government have always been clear that the CMA will need to act proportionately and comply with ECHR requirements, and that imposing obligations on SMS firms will very often engage the firm’s rights under A1P1. However, having a statutory requirement for proportionality in the Bill reinforces the Government’s expectations for how the CMA should design conduct requirements and PCIs, to place as little burden as possible on firms while still effectively addressing competition issues. This should be the case even when A1P1 property rights are not engaged, which this requirement provides for.
In particular, it is worth highlighting that A1P1 rights on their own would not amount to grounds to challenge interventions that impact a firm’s future contracts. It is right that these interventions should be proportionate. I understand the concern from many noble Lords about any extension to the grounds for appeal in the regime, but we are giving extensive new powers to the CMA to regulate digital markets.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before we move away from this point, there was an interesting use of the word “reinforces”. Am I right in thinking that my noble friend is telling us that, if the original wording in the Bill were used and the word “appropriate” was there, it would none the less be his expectation that, in making decisions about conduct requirements or pro-competitive interventions, the CMA would in fact do so in a manner that was proportionate, because that is the appropriate way in which to make those decisions? Our worry is that by “reinforcing”, my noble friend is actually opening a door.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will go on to speak more about this. The intention of the Government in “reinforcing” is to bring clarity, particularly since, as I say, A1P1 is not universally applicable to these cases. It brings clarity, and therefore I hope that the effect will be as much closing the door as anything else.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The Minister has talked about A1P1 and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. That may come into the analysis or it may not, but he has taken the view that it may not. If it does, then it is covered by the normal doctrines of judicial review, which include proportionality. If it does not, and he says it may not, why have proportionality in at all?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I believe that, in most cases, A1P1 rights would be invoked, but there are cases where A1P1 would not necessarily be invoked, rare as those cases are. The intention of the Government is to treat all those cases in the same way. As I say, it is important that we also consider the safeguards around the new powers. Having an explicit requirement for proportionality, rather than just the implicit link to A1P1, sets a framework for the CMA as to how it must design and implement significant remedies. A proportionate approach to regulation supports a pro-innovation regulatory environment and investor confidence. I am also aware, of course, that later we are due to debate concerns noble Lords may have about the accountability of the CMA. Without pre-empting that debate, it is worth pointing out that setting out the requirement for proportionality explicitly will help ensure that the CMA uses its powers responsibly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
This all sounds as though, really, the Minister should come clean and say that what he is trying to do is bring in merits by the back door.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It is not my intention to bring in merits by the back door, nor is it my intention not to come clean, or to conceal from Members of this Committee any intentions of the Government. All this is about producing the clarity that we need to safely deliver the wide-ranging new powers of the CMA.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
Can the Minister clarify for the Committee at some point, perhaps by letter, at what point the penny dropped within the department, with officials, that the word “proportionate” was necessary? If the word “proportionate” is removed, does this give the CMA permission to act disproportionately?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am happy to provide that information in the form of a letter, and I will leave it at that for now.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Perhaps I could answer the question: the CMA never has scope to act disproportionately in law.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
In respect of my noble friend Lord Vaizey’s concern that proportionality will affect how the CAT conducts an appeal, the retention of judicial review in Clause 103 will still apply to the CAT, which will still have to conduct an appeal when a firm raises non-ECHR proportionality arguments in a JR style. It will not become a full merits appeal.
Amendments 33 and 52, from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, also remove the statutory requirement for proportionality but, in doing so, create greater impacts on the regime. Amendment 33 would remove the obligation on the CMA to set out, in its conduct requirement notice, the objective in relation to which it must consider proportionality. However, this is a key feature for setting a conduct requirement and it is important to include it in the notice for both the SMS firm and third parties.
Amendment 52, by removing Clause 46(1)(b), would reduce the Bill’s clarity that the primary objective of PCIs is to address competition problems. It is important that the Bill is clear on the objective that PCIs must pursue. Additionally, proportionality provisions will ensure that the CMA addresses its objectives without placing unnecessary burdens on firms and harming consumers.
I turn to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s Amendments 17 and 54. As she set out in her explanatory statement, these amendments seek to clarify that the use of “proportionate” does not create a novel legal standard. The amendment would state that it is defined in accordance with prevailing public law standards. Of course, I agree with her that it is important to be clear about what we expect from the CMA and concur with the spirit of her amendments. However, I hope my explanation of this provision as currently drafted will satisfy my noble friend’s concerns.
These amendments assume that there is a single public law definition of proportionality, when there is not. However, proportionality is also not a novel concept for either the CMA or the domestic courts to apply. There is domestic case law about how proportionality requirements have been interpreted. We expect that the CMA, the CAT and courts would follow the broad approach set out in the Bank Mellat 2 case, which considered proportionality in relation to the application of ECHR rights, as well as fundamental rights at common law. This is relevant when considering whether an infringement of a qualified ECHR right and/or a fundamental common-law right is justified. Noble Lords with an interest in this area will be familiar with the four-limb test set out by Lords Sumption and Reed. Previously, our domestic courts applied a separate, but broadly similar, test when considering proportionality under EU law.
In the event of an appeal against CMA interventions, it is the role of the courts to provide a definitive interpretation of the legislation, but they will likely give a certain amount of deference to the CMA as the expert regulator. When an intervention has engaged A1P1, there would be a clear link with the approach of the domestic courts to the ECHR proportionality requirements that I have already discussed. In the rare situation when an intervention did not engage A1P1, it seems logical that the courts would take an approach consistent with how they approach digital markets cases which do engage A1P1, although this could involve some modifications on a case-by-case basis.
The basic requirements of proportionality—that it balances private interests adversely affected against the public interests that the measure seeks to achieve—is well understood. As such, I hope my noble friend can appreciate that although I agree with the spirit of her amendments, in practice I do not believe they would provide the clarity they seek.
Amendments 220 and 222 from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how the appeals standard for financial penalties, proportionality and countervailing benefits exemption would operate. The amendments set out that the CMA could not impose conduct requirements, pro-competition interventions or financial penalties before this guidance was published.
I thank my noble friend for these amendments. He should be pleased to hear that the CMA will, as part of its approach to implementing the regime, produce guidance outlining its approach to delivering the regime before it is implemented. We expect this guidance to include the CMA’s approach to proportionality and the countervailing benefits exemption. The Secretary of State will have oversight of the CMA’s approach through the approval of that guidance. The Government feel that this approach strikes the right balance between maintaining the independence of the CMA and the CAT, and providing appropriate government oversight and clarity about how the regime will work. Suitable guidance will already be in place before the regime commences; as such, these amendments are not required.
I hope this has helped to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friends Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and that, as a consequence, they feel able to withdraw, or not to press, their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, what harms does the Minister think the inclusion of “proportionate” is designed to prevent? What does he really think would happen if that word was not included in the Bill?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I said, for those cases where A1P1 cannot be engaged, they can be treated in the same way—equally proportionately to other cases under A1P1. In addition, it creates further clarity around the use of these extensive new powers for the firms that will be affected by their use. In addition, it creates another means for this newly powerful independent regulator to be held to account.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
Forgive me for intervening to make what is more of a rhetorical point.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I want to get all the heckles out of the way; they have to be recorded in Hansard. I listened to the Minister’s explanation very carefully. He said that there is no single accepted definition of “proportionate”—that there are different definitions depending on case law and the common law. Is that not exactly what the problem is? The minute you put that word in the clause, you have, effectively, said that there are eight, seven or six definitions of proportionate. Guess what the platforms will do with that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
May I build on that before my noble friend the Minister responds? What precisely was inappropriate about “appropriate”?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, this is not just to prevent the Minister getting up again; it is relevant to both points that have just been made. A number of noble Lords asked whether this huge volte-face by the Government between the publication of the Bill and the amendments made very late in the other place came about as a result of pressure from the platforms. Could he tell us whether the platforms lobbied for this change and whether he discussed it with them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, if I might help the Minister, this legislation has been knocking around for some time now, so what was it that provided that blinding flash of official or ministerial inspiration to bring this amendment about “proportionate” so late in the day in the other place that it was tabled right at the end of the Commons process? What was it that was so compelling as to make that dramatic change?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
If noble Lords will forgive me; that was a large variety or questions. First, I can confirm right away that I have not received any lobbying from any big tech firms on this topic—none; zero. Secondly, as with any Bill, this was part of an ongoing pattern of constantly looking for means of improving the Bill, to maximise its clarity and effectiveness. I recognise the concern voiced by the Committee about this. I am very happy to set out in detail all the arguments I have attempted to make. I hope that will go some way further towards satisfying the Committee.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am very grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I think it has raised a pretty fundamental point which runs through a number of different parts of this Bill. I do not know whether to take it personally, but I have not received any of this lobbying that so many other noble Lords received about this particular adjective and its use. My approach is simply to look at it as a lawyer with some experience of the way litigation actually works, and it seemed to me egregious in what it is doing, or at least at risk of doing.
The Minister did well to stick with his instructions that this was to provide clarity. I am afraid it does not do that. As I indicated when I was talking about self-defence, the whole problem with proportionality is that it is very much a question of fact. I might regard something as proportionate; someone else might regard it as disproportionate. It is far more difficult than the tests of rationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the tests that are normally used for judicial review, so it is a much lower bar.
On the question of A1P1, it is not usually the most common of the convention rights relied upon. To the man and woman in the street, the idea that Google or Apple have human rights is perhaps a little counter- intuitive. However, I accept that there are ingenious arguments to the effect that A1P1 may have a role to play, which I acknowledged in my opening remarks. However, the Minister accepted that there would be cases when the European convention is not engaged in the analysis, in which case why have proportionality at all? I am afraid I did not find his answer convincing.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for referring to the communications he had with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who, in the course of the communications, seemed to me to be guilty of a most spectacular own goal and reinforced all the fears which have been expressed around the Committee.
This is not paranoia on our part. We have not received sufficient reassurance for the reason for this change. Of course I concede that we expect regulators to act proportionately, but that is not the same as inserting the particular word “proportionate”, which carries such a heavy charge. If it does not mean anything, do not put it in. If it is put it, it is going to be absolute catnip for the courts and judges. It will give them a chance to examine these decisions in a wholly broader perspective.
Grateful though I am to the Minister, I feel it is almost inevitable that we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(ba) provide a means of payment within the platform in a way that offers consumer protection from goods and services disputes.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the CMA to require online marketplaces to provide consumers with a more secure way of paying for goods or services, with a means of recourse in the case that something goes wrong.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, let us go back to the calmer waters of Clause 20. In moving Amendment 18A, I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has to say about his Amendment 31, which I have signed as well.
It seems that 75% of purchase scams originate from social media platforms. They often occur when consumers go to digital marketplaces, such as Facebook Marketplace, and try to buy goods from their peers which never arrive. Such scams cost consumers over £40 million in the first half of 2023 alone, and they seem to be on the rise. Currently, many consumers purchasing on peer-to-peer marketplaces have no access to secure payment providers that offer protections in the event that their purchase never arrives. Some marketplaces, such as Vinted and eBay, have integrated with secure providers, but despite many experts stating that these integrations will protect consumers and keep money out of the hands of criminals, adoption is still patchy across major marketplaces.
Building on voluntary commitments made in the recent Online Fraud Charter, this amendment would empower the CMA to require these marketplaces to provide consumers with a way to pay on these platforms that offers protection when things go wrong, such as when goods and services do not arrive as described, provided that these marketplaces are identified by the CMA as designated undertakings which have strategic market status. This would also be a good step in protecting consumers transacting online. Some payment services, such as PayPal or Stripe, do offer consumers protection when things go awry.
Such an amendment would also have a secondary impact: marketplaces would be better incentivised to vet sellers to ensure that they are able to meet the risk-management expectations of the commercial partners that offer secure payment services. For the avoidance of doubt, this amendment does not propose that designated marketplaces use any specific provider of secure payment services. Clause 20 sets out an exhaustive list of permitted types of conduct requirements that may be applied to designated undertakings. This amendment would confer power on the CMA to impose conduct requirements that protect consumers buying goods on peer-to-peer marketplaces identified as designated undertakings with strategic market status. I hope very much that the Minister will give this suggestion serious consideration.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing Amendment 18A. On Monday, in the previous day of Committee, we looked at the list of conduct requirements—both the obligations placed on designated undertakings and the capacity to set conduct requirements preventing designated undertakings doing certain things. The noble Lord is asking whether we have covered the ground sufficiently, and so am I.
In Amendment 31, I come at it from the position that I took in earlier amendments, but I wanted to separate this out because it is in a different case. The train of thought is the same: to look at the detailed obligations included in the EU’s Digital Markets Act and to say that we are approaching it in what I hope is a better way that sets broader, more flexible definitions and looks to see how they will be implemented in detail by the Digital Markets Unit. That is fine; I am okay with that, but we need to be sure that the powers are there. For example, Amendment 18A is about whether the requirement to trade on fair and reasonable terms in Clause 20 comprises this power. It is a simple question: would it be possible for such conduct requirements to be included by the DMU under that heading?
Mine is a different one. In paragraph (6) of Article 5 of the Digital Markets Act, the European Union sets an obligation for gatekeepers—that is, its comparable reference to designated undertaking; in this sense it is dealing with platforms—that:
“The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper”.
For our purposes, I have rendered that in the amendment as something slightly simpler in our language—that is to say, that an obligation may be placed on designated undertakings that they shall not seek
“directly or indirectly to prevent or restrict users or potential users of the relevant digital activity from raising issues of non-compliance with any conduct requirements with any relevant public authority”.
It is not just the CMA, of course; there may be others involved, such as the Information Commissioner and other public authorities.
For this purpose, I looked at the conduct requirements laid out in Clause 20 to find where this might be covered. I do not think it is covered by the material about complaints handling processes. This is not about whether you can make a complaint to the designated undertaking; this is about whether one is subject to the provision, as a user or potential user, such as an app seeking to complain about the non-compliance of a designated undertaking to the Digital Markets Unit. That is not the same as having a complaints process in place.
Do we think this could happen? Noble Lords will make their own judgments about that. All I am assuming is based on the fact that, for example, in April 2021, in the Judiciary Committee hearings on competition in app stores in the US Senate, Senator Klobuchar said, to paraphrase, that a lot of providers of apps were afraid to testify. They felt that it was going to hurt their business and they were going to get intimidated. So I am not having to invent the proposition that there may be a degree of intimidation between the providers of apps, for example, and the platforms that they wish to use.
In a sense, we do not actually need to know that it is happening to know that we should give the power to the Competition and Markets Authority to set conduct requirements as and when necessary to prevent such a thing happening. I do not think that it is comprised within the existing text of Clause 20.
I hope that my noble friend will take this one away, with a view to thinking positively about whether it is required to be added to the conduct requirements in Clause 20 at Report.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Lansley, for raising this point. Clause 20 is very important, as has been mentioned, as it puts flesh on the bones of what we have been talking about for most of the first and half of the second day in Committee—which is whether we have in place the ability to deal with the important firms likely to be designated as SMS and the challenger firms. We have said before, and I am sure that we will repeat it, that this is a very innovative approach to regulating. We are very much trusting those who are appointed to take this forward with a great deal of power and not a lot of overarching scrutiny —or, if it is, it will be retrospective and not prospective.
Therefore, we have to understand that the CMA must have the ability to do all this and have the range of functions that are important. The noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, raised one in particular—a very important one to consumers—around seeing on the internet the goods of your dreams and then finding a payment system that siphons your money away but does not deliver the goods; that is not a palliative one for any Government to propose. I hope that the Minister has some reassuring words about the points raised by the noble Lord.
I had to read the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, three or four times to understand what he was getting at, so I am very grateful to him for his brief introduction. It was only on this occasion; normally, he is as a lucid as we would wish—and sometimes as pellucid. He raises a very subtle question about whether the measures that are not sufficiently exposed here will cover the question of those who have innovative lawyers thinking about ways in which they can avoid some of the very broad measures in Clause 20.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing these important amendments. It is enormously valuable and important to kick the tyres of Clause 20 and understand or assure ourselves that it works.
Amendment 18A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would create a new permitted type of conduct requirement, allowing the CMA to require an SMS firm to provide users with a way to pay for products and services that would provide consumer protection. I thank him for the amendment; it highlights the vital issue of ensuring that consumers are protected when using online marketplaces.
We feel that conduct requirements are already able to require that SMS firms have effective processes for handling complaints by and disputes with users or potential users. This will allow the CMA to intervene when competition issues arise in this area. My noble friend Lord Offord will be talking to the consumer provisions in Part 4 in a later sitting, and I will not tread on his toes here. However, those provisions put it beyond doubt that, where platforms promote or facilitate consumer transactions, they must act with professional diligence, in addition to more specific duties such as refraining from misleading omissions or actions or aggressive practices.
We recognise that public understanding of the requirements of professional diligence could be clearer, and we recently consulted on how price transparency and product information for consumers can be improved. The Government’s response to that consultation was published this morning, and, in the light of this, we will be undertaking further work with stakeholders to ensure that platforms’ obligations to consumers are more widely and easily understood. I would of course welcome the noble Lord’s input during that process.
Amendment 31, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley proposes to add a new permitted type of conduct requirement to deal with the issue of SMS firms attempting to stop third parties raising possible non-compliance with the CMA. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment and highlighting the importance of this issue, on which I have also received representation from affected firms.
Alongside information gathered through its own monitoring, the CMA will rely on information from third parties that will have direct knowledge of market conditions. It is therefore crucial that third parties have the confidence to speak to the regulator. I can provide assurances that the CMA will have strong powers to tackle discriminatory or unfair behaviour seeking to frustrate the regime or interfere with enforcement, where it occurs within the scope of a designated activity. Both conduct requirements and PCIs will be available to combat such behaviour, supported by the usual robust enforcement powers and penalties. I draw my noble friend’s attention specifically to Clause 20(3)(a), which, in addition to the conduct requirement
“on fair and reasonable terms”
in Clause 20(2)(a), can be used where relevant.
The CMA will also be able to intervene outside the designated activity, but not in an unconstrained way: it can use conduct requirements to prevent leveraging, or a PCI to address an adverse effect on competition in a designated activity.
Input from third parties will be crucial in ensuring the success of this regime. However, some stakeholders may have concerns about sharing information or experiences for fear of retaliation. The CMA has well- established processes for handling information and maintaining the anonymity of those providing evidence, whether informally or as part of an investigation. Recognising the importance of engagement, the CMA has also announced plans to expand this approach; for example, by establishing representative panels—one for consumers and civil society, and one for businesses and investors. This will facilitate input from third parties, which in turn will support the design and implementation of interventions.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
The Minister mentioned in his address—I was grateful to him for doing so—that there was a recent announcement from the department about sneaky hidden fees or drip prices that are unavoidable, and the press report that I am reading says that they will be banned. Does not this bear directly on points made during this debate, and in particular on Clause 20? Does this mean that the Minister will bring forward amendments at a later stage?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My preference would be to consider so doing once the Committee has had a chance to debate later sections of the Bill which go directly to consumers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think there is quite a lot of meat in what the Minister said just now, both in respect of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and my amendment.
I appreciate that we have a set of moving parts here, including the response to the consultation on smarter regulation, improving consumer price transparency and product information for consumers, which came out this morning.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was quite interesting. However, if what the Minister said about the conduct requirements in Clause 20 is to be put into effect, I suggest that he has to bring forward amendments on Report which reflect the response to the consultation. I do not think this can be done just as a sort of consumer protection at the back end of the Bill; it has to be about corporate conduct, and at the Clause 20 end of the Bill.
Obviously, we will all read the words of the Minister very carefully in Hansard. It is interesting. I have written down: “Why are we kicking the tyres on Clause 20?” As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, this is absolutely central to the Bill. Basically, it could not be more important; getting this clause right from the outset will be so important. This is why not only we but the CMA will be poring over this, to make sure that this wording absolutely gives it the powers that it needs.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. These are very important powers, and we have to make sure that they are used properly, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that the powers are there. Otherwise, what are we spending our time here in Committee doing, if we are going to put forward a Bill that is not fit for purpose? We have to make sure that we have those powers. I like what the Minister had to say in reference to the Clause 20(3)(a) provision. Again, when people look at Pepper v Hart and so on, that will be an important statement at the end of the day.
We have certainly managed to elicit quite a useful response from the Minister, but we want more. We want amendments coming down the track on Report which reflect some of the undertakings in the response to the consultation on consumer price transparency and product information for consumers.
The only other thing to say—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has said—is that comments about the consultation are that it was half a loaf. There is a whole lot more to be said on drip pricing. We have a discussion coming down the track on that, and we will reserve our fire until then.
Lord Lansley (Con)
As I understood it, Clause 20(3)(a) is about discrimination between users; it is not about trying to stop any user of a platform going to the CMA to complain about non-compliance or other conduct requirements—or indeed that conduct requirement. I will happily look at what my noble friend said and hope that it meets the test of the kicking of the tyres. If it does not, we may have to return to this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that is a useful warning that we need to read Hansard extremely carefully to see what the Minister thinks the scope of that really is and whether it covers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made.
This is a continuing discussion and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The CMA may have regard to any significant benefits to users or potential users that the CMA considers have resulted, or may be expected to result, from a factor or combination of factors resulting from a breach of a conduct requirement.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the CMA considers any significant benefits to users resulting from the breach of a Conduct Requirement when it is considering representations from designated undertakings as part of a Conduct Investigation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendments 39, 40 and 48 and the Clause 29 stand part notice, all in my name. I thank all noble Lords who have added their names.
These amendments follow on from our earlier debate about the proportionality of the CMA’s judgments and our desire across the Room not to create unforeseen legal loopholes. They address the new wording in Clause 29, which the Government introduced at a late stage in the Commons. They also address the countervailing benefit exemption, in which companies can argue that their conduct gives rise to benefits to consumers that outweigh the detrimental impact of competition that their conduct would otherwise breach. This clause then goes further and makes it clear that the CMA “must” close a conduct investigation in these circumstances.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and I support dropping Clause 29 from the Bill.
These amendments are also about speeding up the process of stopping anti-competitive behaviour by the tech companies. It is essential that no hostages to fortune are given for tech company lawyers to drag out the process, as many noble Lords said, particularly in the first group.
I want noble Lords to bear in mind that, for every big tech company, every week they succeed in delaying a decision against their anti-competitive practices is one in which they earn millions of pounds, while their competitors are left struggling in so many areas. Speed is of the essence.
As a former newspaper journalist, my most immediate field of concern is local and regional media, which are suffering from the anti-competitive behaviour of the tech companies. There has been a collapse in local newspapers over the past decade and in the next three years this will turn in to a major exodus, with huge areas of the country becoming local news deserts with nobody reporting on local councils, courts and other important civic activities.
The Digital Markets Taskforce study on digital advertising found that the tech companies had used network effects and economies of scale to dominate the market. It concluded that the “more vibrant competition” in the market would improve
“the bargaining power of online news publishers”,
which would
“improve the health and sustainability of journalism in the UK”.
In turn, this would
“contribute positively to the effectiveness and integrity of our democracy”.
On top of this, much of the news content generated by these media companies is used by tech platforms either for free or for little remuneration.
I have long campaigned for the final offer mechanism to be available to the CMA as a powerful deterrent against anti-competitive behaviour by the tech companies, but surely all deterrents are more effective if there is a realistic chance that they will be deployed, and in a short time. Once the CR requirements on an SMS have been imposed, breached and reported, the CMA should be in a good position to know whether the designated SMS company will take the long or short road to a solution. Amendment 48 would allow the CMA to issue an enforcement order, decide whether that has been breached and investigate the breach, if it feels that it will lead to a satisfactory resolution to the company’s behaviour. However, if, earlier in the process, the solution is not going to be possible, the regulator needs the power to bring forward its ultimate deterrent. No SMS will want to have the final offer mechanism imposed on it, and I understand that the CMA is equally reluctant to deploy it, but the more pressing the threat the more likely it is that the DMU investigation will be brought to a quick and effective resolution.
I know that these companies will fight tooth and nail to preserve their massive profits resulting from the anti-competitive behaviours. It might be useful for the Committee if I give just one really shocking example of how effective these delaying actions can be. The salutary lesson is the story of a nascent shopping comparison site, Foundem, based in London and founded in 2005, which was doing very well until 2008, when it was massively deprioritised on Google Search, at about the same time that Google Shopping, the search engine’s own shopping comparison site, was set up. Foundem issued a complaint to the EU Commission in 2009 about anti-competitive behaviour by Google. The Commission set up an investigation and, three years later, after many legal arguments, Google was given a preliminary assessment—similar, I imagine, to an SMS designation. Rules were then laid down for the company to follow, but within six months market tests revealed that it was not tackling the anti-competitive behaviour. The response was dragged out by Google until 2016, when it was given a supplementary statement of objectives, which were also heavily fought by the search engine.
Finally, on 27 June 2017, the EU imposed a record €2.4 billion fine on Google for violating EU competition law. However, the company appealed, first to the EU General Court and then to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Final judgment on the case has yet to be issued. Meanwhile, Foundem exists in order to fight the case, but it suspended all its services eight years ago. This is a 15-year David-versus-Goliath battle with a company, some of whose activities CMA might have to designate. This legislation must be drafted to ensure that the process brings results, and fast, if small digital competitors are to have a chance of surviving.
Already the CMA estimates that the designation process will not become operational until June 2025. I know that the hope is to set up a designation process at the same time as negotiating the conduct requirements, but that could still take up to nine months to implement on the SMSs. Meanwhile, many of the smaller media outlets I talked about earlier will have gone under.
The same arguments for legal delay by tech companies must apply to Clause 29, which introduces the concept of countervailing benefits. I do not understand the need for Clause 29. Clearly, the balance between consumer benefit and anti-competitive behaviour will have been looked at as part of the SMS designation process, which is clearly set out in the Bill. Does the Minister think that our world-class regulator will ignore these considerations in the initial process? If they will be considered then, why introduce this clause for consideration all over again? I have already explained the need for speed in the CMA’s process. This exemption can only play into the hands of the tech companies to draw out the processes and hold up the prospect of many more companies like the start-up shopping search website Foundem being littered by the digital wayside. I ask the Government to seriously consider taking Clause 29 out of the Bill.
However, I support the fallback in Amendment 40, to have the word “indispensable” inserted into the clause. Your Lordships’ Committee has heard that “indispensable” was taken out on Report in the other place. The Minister has said that the simple threshold of “benefit” is already established in Section 9 of the Competition Act 1998 and Section 134(7) of the Enterprise Act. However, the former talks of an “indispensable benefit” and the latter just of a “benefit”. The Minister says that the two thresholds are the same; clearly, they are not.
The new definition of the grounds on which anti-competitive conduct can be permitted states that
“those benefits could not be realised without the conduct”.
It requires only that anti-competitive conduct be necessary, rather than indispensable, which means that anti-competitive behaviour is the only way to achieve the benefit. Surely, if that is the case, it would be better for the consumer, in whose name the Bill is being enacted, to have the highest possible threshold of benefit.
The Explanatory Notes open up avenues for further legal wrangling by lawyers, as they say the definition of benefit will be similar to that in the Competition Act and the Enterprise Act. As the two Acts use “benefit” in different ways, that will surely lead to confusion. Is the use of the word “similar” because it is not possible to say “same”, in the light of the divergent terms that appear in these two Acts? Without it, there seems to be room for legal ambiguity. At the very least, there should be an explanation in the Bill that establishes “benefits” as having the same definition as in the Competition Act.
I know that all noble Lords want the Bill to be implemented and effective with all possible speed, to make this country a world leader in digital start-ups. However, it needs to be amended to avoid legal confusion and unnecessary delay by world players that have everything to gain from protecting their dominant position in markets.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on the pretext that he would not be here, my noble friend passed responsibility for this group on to me. As noble Lords can see, he is “not” here. This is a long group and my noble friend managed to attach his name to every amendment in it, with the exception of the two proposed by the Minister, so I apologise if I give a slightly long speech on his behalf.
I spoke at Second Reading, but I was not here for the first day in Committee, as I was in the Chamber speaking to the main business there. My noble friend has tabled Amendments 38 and 41, on countervailing benefits; Amendment 43, on goods and services; Amendments 49, 50 and 51, on final offers; and Amendment 107, on injunctions. He also supports Amendments 36, 39 and 40 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which seek to restore the status quo of Clause 29.
In Clause 29, as we know, there is an overarching provision that enables SMS designated firms to push back on regulatory decisions through a countervailing benefits exemption. This is, in our opinion, a potential legal loophole for big tech to challenge conduct requirements through lengthy, tactical legal challenges. We just heard an example of how similar measures can be employed. This is a significant loophole, not a small one, and it would require the CMA to close a conduct investigation into a breach of conduct requirement when an SMS firm is able to prove that the anti-competitive conduct in question produces benefits which supposedly outweigh the harms, and that the conduct is “proportionate”—that word again—to the realisation of those benefits. It has the potential to tie up CMA resources and frustrate the intent of the legislation. It is critical that these provisions do not inadvertently give designated firms immunity from CMA decisions. We heard from other speakers that the scale of resources at the command of these companies far outweighs the resources that the CMA would be capable of summoning. That inevitably leads to the ability to clog things up.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, the Government added amendments to the Bill on Report in the Commons that could further weaken the ability of the DMU to push back against spurious claims of consumer benefit. The removal of the term “indispensable” may weaken the regulator’s ability to rebuff these claims as, by analogy with competition law, the use of the term “indispensable” is likely to require a high standard for firms to meet; therefore, the standard is now lower.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
We are all delighted that he is in fact here. I support Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name.
The final offer mechanism is a crucial part of the Bill; it is the engine that makes it all work. In an ideal world, of course, it ought never to be deployed because the platforms would see the light of day and enter into sensible agreements with publishers. It should be a last resort only where common sense has failed. But this last resort is—like a deterrent—credible as an incentive to negotiate only if it can be deployed throughout the process of negotiation, not at some far distant point in the future. If it is something so far off that the platforms and publishers believe it will never in reality be reached, publishers will be compelled, out of commercial necessity, to accept suboptimal deals from SMS firms, in some cases—I think in particular of the local and regional press—simply to survive. As the Bill is currently drafted, that is exactly what might happen. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked passionately about that aspect.
SMS firms that have time and money on their side—in the way that hard-pressed publishers do not—could very easily hold out until the very last minute of negotiations before the final offer mechanism is deployed. That ability continually to delay things simply reinforces the market power of the SMS firms and does nothing to redress the balance, which is what the Bill is supposed to be all about.
Such an extended nature of the enforcement process means that it could take years for the FOM to be reached if SMS firms are not acting in good faith—and, let us face it, that will happen. We need a system much closer to the Australian news media bargaining code, whereby strict timelines mean that every step combined—bargaining, mediation and final offer arbitration—would take just over six months. Of course, neither publisher nor platform wishes to end up in FOM unnecessarily. This amendment from the noble Baroness would make the FOM available at an earlier stage only if the CMA judged that its standard enforcement mechanisms would not be effective; for example, if an SMS firm had simply refused to enter negotiations. However, if the CMA judges that its standard enforcement mechanisms under Part 1 would be sufficient to ensure that deals are made swiftly, it could proceed with other remedies. This ensures that the FOM is a last resort but also a credible alternative.
Many publishers, particularly local and regional ones, as I have mentioned, are under the most severe commercial pressure. They simply cannot afford to wait to see the fruits of this Bill. Many more titles will have closed and some publishers may have gone under. In the interests of media plurality and local democracy, we need to get this right. As it stands, the Bill wills the ends but not the means.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments and particularly commend those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
There are key themes that inevitably run through deliberations across groups in Committee, and it seems that, this afternoon, a recurrent theme has understandably been that the Bill is certainly better as was than currently as is. A number of amendments make that point very firmly.
If the Bill does not address at every point necessary the whole question of asymmetry in the nature of the relationship between the parties in all these complex arrangements, there is precious little point in proceeding beyond this point. The whole nature of the relationship and the negotiations therein is framed by the asymmetry of power, of resources and of what can be brought to bear by each party to proceedings. Hence, in this set of amendments, while different approaches are taken, similar ends are sought.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is “not” here, I also look forward very much to him “not” intervening on the Minister.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which are about countervailing benefits. I have added my name to them. Before I make my remarks about those amendments, it is worth noting that my noble friend Lord Black gave quite a compelling argument in support of Amendment 48, describing how it would not drive a coach and horses through what the Bill is trying to introduce by virtue of the final offer mechanism but would strengthen it further. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say in reply to that.
In response to the debate on a previous group of amendments, my noble friend the Minister said that, by virtue of the process of parliamentary scrutiny, or just making laws, we should improve Bills, in the sense that the way in which they are first introduced to Parliament does not mean that they cannot be changed. He is absolutely right: doing our jobs should lead to stronger, better and more effective legislation.
In the few amendments I have tabled I have tried not to unpick what has already been changed in the Commons but to add clarification where I felt that the changes were going in the wrong direction. On the topic of countervailing benefits, I added my name to Amendments 39 and 40, which revert Clause 29 back to its original wording at the point of the Bill’s introduction to Parliament, because I could not think of another way to secure the important purpose of Clause 29.
If I may, I again return to the way in which the Communications and Digital Committee scrutinised the Bill when it was first introduced. Countervailing benefits was one of the topics that we identified as an area of contention. In the course of our hearings, we heard a range of views on this clause. As other noble Lords have voiced in this debate, some wanted to see Clause 29 removed and others wanted it strengthened. The committee found that it should remain as it was; that it did not need to be changed and should remain in the Bill. We noted that the countervailing benefits exemption is
“designed as a backstop rather than an initial enforcement measure: the CMA is expected to take consumer benefit into account throughout its work”.
In conclusion, we said that the exemption
“provides a proportionate backstop as long as the threshold for using it remains high. The Government should resist any changes that would lower the threshold”.
Contrary to those who argued either to take out Clause 29 or to raise its threshold even further, my view is that, as it stood, it was fair and proportionate. Some of the big tech firms did not like it at all, but we thought none the less that it was an appropriate measure. Therefore, it would be fair to all parties for us to revert to the original text.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, wish to speak to Amendments 39 and 40, to which I have added my name. First, it is worth dwelling briefly on what the countervailing benefits exemption is: quite a “get out of jail free” card. To be clear: the company in question will have been found to have SMS, conduct requirements will have been imposed and the company will have been found to be breaching them and be on its way to jail. The countervailing benefits exemption is a “get out of jail free” card because the benefits that the new product or functionality brings are so good that it is worth breaching this set of fundamental competition principles.
That exemption is a really powerful tool that gets you completely out of jail. It can also enable you to simply slow down the process by arguing that it should be used, even if you will not succeed in getting out of jail. The process of slowing down being sent to jail is also very powerful for the big tech firms. This is a big weapon in the Bill.
However, I can also make the case, as many of the tech companies did at our Select Committee—as my noble friend Lady Stowell just said—that the exemption is an important tool to have in the Bill because we do not want to live in a world where large monopolists are not encouraged to innovate at all. There is an argument that we need to find the Goldilocks spot, if noble Lords will forgive me mixing my metaphors. I sit on my noble friend’s committee and, as she said, we have heard from the companies that would like this removed and from the companies that would like it strengthened. I share her view that the Bill as introduced to the House of Commons got that spot just about right.
Does my noble friend the Minister think that the new wording, introduced at a late stage in the Commons, of
“could not be realised without the conduct”
is the same as “indispensable”, or does it set a higher or a lower threshold to be able to use the “get out of jail free” card? I do not think he is going to argue that it sets a higher threshold; I think it is either the same as or a lower threshold. If it is a lower threshold, why do we really think that we need to make it easier for people who are on their way to jail to get out? If it is the same then we are right back to where we were two hours ago. Why do we need to define something differently that is already well enshrined in law as “indispensable”?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in my short contribution I will look at what Clause 29 adds and whether it is necessary. I suppose I am saying that I want to speak to whether Clause 29 should stand part. We might have to come back to that.
My starting point was Clause 19(10):
“Before imposing a conduct requirement … on a designated undertaking, the CMA must have regard in particular to the benefits for consumers”.
Unless I am missing something, that will include disbenefits, so the countervailing benefits form part of that consideration. I do not understand why it would not be the best drafting, or the best Explanatory Note, to say, “Under Clause 19, when the CMA is considering imposing a conduct requirement, it must have regard to any countervailing benefits of not imposing such a conduct requirement”.
That is the starting point but let us say, for the purpose of the argument, that Clause 29 is not really about the imposition of a conduct requirement in the first place but about what should happen when there is a conduct investigation. But there are more stages for the designated undertaking. When the CMA wants to impose a conduct requirement, it has to give a notice under Clause 21 and say what the benefits are. The undertaking can come along and say, “Well, we have countervailing benefits if you don’t do this”, so it is entirely open at that stage to raise the countervailing benefits clause. I do not know why it is called an exemption. It is not an exemption. There should not be an exemption from the regime; there should just be a balance: how is the consumer benefit to be maximised? Once that notice has been served, it is subject to a public consultation under Clause 24, and the undertaking can come along under Clause 24.
Let us say that all that has happened, and there is a potential breach of the conduct requirement, and the CMA initiates an investigation under Clause 26. When the CMA does that, it has to give the opportunity to make representations within a defined period. Even if the countervailing benefits have not been taken into account in the original activity, when a breach is considered the notice is issued and the undertaking can come along and say, “Well, actually, the consumer benefits are being delivered by this means, and it is necessary and indispensable”, or whatever word you use. We could include it, if necessary, in the guidance.
I do not think that we are quite finished, even then. Clause 27 requires that in the
“undertaking to which a conduct investigation relates … the CMA must consider any representations that the undertaking makes”.
We could have put it in there, because it has a right to make representations at that point.
After all these things, which get us to the point where it has been considered in the first place, considered in whether a notice of a breach should be issued, and considered in the notice for the conduct investigation, and been given the opportunity to make representations, why do we need another clause that says that there is this thing that is called a countervailing benefits exemption as distinct from, at each previous stage—and there are many of them—the benefits or disbenefits and potential consumer benefits from different requirements that are to be considered? Frankly, I do not see it—unless it is, as my noble friend said, that there is a “get out of jail free” card that can be played. If it can be played, it will be played, so I do not think that we should allow it to be played.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I have been trying to understand the reason for the current government position. One issue that I have thought about, and which I have written about in the past, is the notion of unintended consequences. Often a well-intended government intervention can make things worse. Many of you will remember the example of the Government of the 1990s introducing the dash to diesel, as it was supposed to be better for the environment—and, in response, we found that actually it made things worse. That is not to criticise the Government of the day, as it was well-intentioned, and many people supported the reduction of greenhouse gases.
One thing that I have thought about with regard to better law-making is how we ensure that there are safeguards in place for when there are negative unintended consequences. For that reason, I have some sympathy for considering whether the unintended consequence of a CMA decision could make things worse for consumers. However, like many noble Lords I am concerned that this is a massive loophole for large tech companies to continue to engage in anti-competitive behaviour or, as other noble Lords have said, slow down the process.
Having looked at the amendments and the Government’s position, I want to ask my noble friend the Minister a direct question. Could he explain what the Government mean by countervailing benefits and give some real examples, or hypothetical examples, of where consumers may be harmed by a pro-competitive intervention by the CMA? If that response convinces noble Lords, perhaps the Government could consider bringing forward an amendment based on Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. When we debate in Grand Committee, it always strikes me that we do so in the Moses Room —Moses, the great giver of the law. However, the biblical characters that I am more thinking of today would be David fighting Goliath, because it seems to be that a lot of the conversation around this group of amendments is about how we create a proper balance between the large platforms and small entrepreneurial providers. My mother was a small businesswoman; she ran two record shops in the Greater Manchester area. We could have been put out of business very easily if somebody had been able to delay some anti-competitive business action against us. We also have the judgment of Solomon here; he was quick in his judgment—there were no lengthy processes that took for ever and a day. I tend to the view that the Bill, as it entered the House of Commons, was probably at about the sweet spot, but let us get this right so that Davids have a chance amid the Goliaths. And yes, I apologise for not declaring that interest—I am called David.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As ever, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in this group.
I turn first to the series of amendments on the countervailing benefits exemption. I start by addressing the proposal to remove Clause 29 as drafted, Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—in his absence.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister has already introduced a difference between the two. There is a difference between “there is no other reasonable or practicable way” and “indispensable”. They are not the same—they are not synonymous. If I have to prove that something is not practicable, that is not the same as indispensable. The Minister has absolutely proved the point.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Again, in my opinion, the two sentences are indistinguishable in their meaning.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, one of the arguments that has been advanced—I did not make it in my remarks because I forgot—is that part of the problem with changing the word from “indispensable” to what is now in the Bill is that the current phrase has not been tested in the courts, whereas “indispensable” has. The argument that changing from “indispensable” to what we have now provides clarity is one that is really hard for people to accept, because the clarity it is providing is not, seemingly, in everyone’s interests. That is part of the problem here.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
If “indispensable” and purely “benefit” are the same, why was the change made on Report in the Commons?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I was really interested in the introduction of the word “unknown”. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, set out all the different stages and interactions. Does it not incentivise the companies to call back information to this very last stage, and the whole need-for-speed issue then comes into play?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will revert first to the questions about the word “indispensable”. As I have said, the Government consulted very widely, and one of the findings of the consultation was that, for a variety of stakeholders, the word “indispensable” reduced the clarity of the legislation.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Before my noble friend answers that, can he shed some light on which stakeholders feel that this is unclear?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I cannot give a full account of the individual stakeholders right now; I am happy to ask the department to clarify further in that area. My contention is that the effect of the two sentences are the same, with the new one being clearer than the old one. I am very happy to continue to look at that and listen to the arguments of noble Lords, but that is the position. Personally, when I look at the two sentences, I find it very difficult to discern any difference in meaning between them. As I say, I am very happy to receive further arguments on that.
With respect to the participative arrangements by which a decision is reached around, for example, a conduct requirement, during the period of conduct requirement design, and during the decision-making period, it is, as my noble friend Lord Lansley has stated, highly to be expected that firms will make representations about the consumer benefits of their product. During a breach investigation, on the other hand, later on in the process, a consumer benefits exemption can be used as a safeguard or defence against a finding of breach.
Sorry, but there were so many questions that I have completely lost track. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will restate her question.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I think the Minister was in the middle of answering it and saying why something might be “unknown” right at the last.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As many noble Lords in the debate have alluded to, we have to be clear that this is a fast-moving field, and we have to at least allow for the possibility that new technologies can provide new consumer benefits and that it is okay to argue that a new and emerging technology that was not part of the original consideration can be considered as part of the defence against a finding of breach. The fact that the intended meaning is intended to be clearer in the current drafting is aiming to provide greater certainty to all businesses while ensuring that consumers continue to get the best outcomes.
Amendment 41, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would change the current drafting of the countervailing benefits exemption in several ways that together are intended to ensure that the CMA is provided as soon as possible with information relating to an SMS firm’s intention to rely on the exemption. We agree with noble Lords who have spoken today that it is important that the exemption cannot be used to avoid or delay enforcement action. The conduct investigation will operate in parallel to the assessment of whether the exemption applies, meaning that the investigation deadline of six months is not affected by the exemption process. The regime has been designed to encourage an open dialogue between the CMA and SMS firms, helping to avoid delays, unintended consequences and surprises on all sides. Therefore, in many cases, if a firm intends to rely on the exemption, we anticipate that this will be clear to all parties from early on in the process.
Lord Fox (LD)
I appreciate what the Minister said. By “early on in the process” does he mean after the process has been instigated, or before? A lot of this information is needed in order to understand whether there needs to be a process in the first place. There is a chicken and an egg here, in that some of this information is up front before we get to actions and enforcement.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. It is an important point. Right from the beginning of potential conduct requirement design or PCI design, it would be consulting very widely with all stakeholders, including SMS firms and tech challengers. As part of that consultation, consumer benefits would be expected to be stated, in what is designed to be a participative process on all sides. As I was saying, the CMA is required to consider consumer benefits early on, when setting conduct requirements. The SMS firms will therefore outline the consumer benefits associated with their conduct at that stage, long before a conduct investigation.
Finally, adding further evidential requirements risks overburdening the regulator with more documentation than necessary, and therefore potentially delaying any enforcement action. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
I come now to the discussion on the powers of the CMA to enforce obligations where they have been breached by SMS firms. Amendment 43, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would provide the CMA with a power to impose an enforcement order requiring an SMS firm to offer fair and reasonable payment and non-payment terms to third parties for goods or services. I can confirm that, under Clause 19, the CMA already has the power to require a firm to offer fair and reasonable terms through conduct requirements, and, where these are breached, the CMA has power under Clause 31 to make an enforcement order obliging the firm to stop the breach. As such, this amendment would not give the CMA any additional powers and could risk a narrower reading of its powers by raising the question of why other types of orders are not mentioned.
Amendment 107, also from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would allow the CMA to apply to the High Court where a firm was breaching, or attempting to breach, an obligation or one of the conduct requirement objectives set out in Clause 19(5). The objectives in Clause 19(5) are not intended to be binding on SMS firms. Their purpose is to guide the design of conduct requirements by the CMA. It would therefore not be appropriate for the CMA to find a firm in breach of these objectives.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, and others who have spoken today, that it is important that the regulator can respond quickly before irreversible harm results from SMS-firm conduct. Where urgent action is needed in relation to a suspected breach of conduct requirements, the CMA will have the power under Clause 32 to make an interim enforcement order before irreversible harm occurs. For PCIs, the CMA will be able to issue directions setting out specific steps that a firm must take to become compliant with a pro-competition order. Failures to comply with orders under either conduct requirements or PCIs can be enforced through robust penalties. There is also the possibility of affected persons applying to court to enforce relevant requirements, and to apply for injunctions under Clause 101.
Lord Fox (LD)
I appreciate the Minister giving way again and his answers. I am slightly confused; I either misheard or misunderstood, but did the Minister say that Clause 19(5) is, in essence, unenforceable by the CMA and is merely an advisory action?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I said that the purpose of Clause 19(5) is to set the parameters for the design of conduct requirements by the CMA. Its purpose is to guide the CMA, not to bind the recipients of conduct requirements.
Amendment 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would allow the final offer mechanism tool to be used earlier in the enforcement process. The final offer mechanism is a backstop tool designed to incentivise sincere negotiations about fair and reasonable payment terms between the SMS firm and third parties. It is crucial that there is room for good faith negotiation where disputes arise from sincere differences of understanding rather than deliberate non-compliance. Overly shortening the enforcement process would greatly reduce these opportunities.
We recognise, however, that some stakeholders may be concerned about SMS firms frustrating the process and refusing to comply with these conduct requirements and any subsequent enforcement. Here, the CMA could seek to accelerate the stages before the final offer mechanism, making use of urgent deadlines for compliance with enforcement orders and significant financial penalties where appropriate, ensuring that parties will also not be able to drag their feet and delay the process. In addition, interim enforcement orders can be issued on a temporary basis during a conduct investigation, before a breach has been found. They could be used to prevent significant damage, such as a company going bust, to prevent conduct that would reduce effectiveness of future remedies or to protect the public interest. Our regime aims to tackle the far-reaching power of the most powerful tech firms.
I know that my noble friend Lord Black noted the Australian legislation. Our regime contrasts the Australian legislation in that it has been designed to protect businesses and consumers across the economy including, but not limited to, news publishers. Alongside the final offer mechanism, the DMU will have other powers to tackle unfair and unreasonable payment terms via conduct requirements, ensuring that the final offer mechanism will rarely, if ever, need to be used.
Amendments 49, 50 and 51 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would allow parties to submit further final offers if the CMA considers that the first were not fair and reasonable. The final offer mechanism involves a binary choice between the two final offers submitted by the parties. It is the finality of the process that creates such a strong incentive for the parties to submit fair and reasonable offers. An unreasonable offer only increases the likelihood of the CMA choosing the other party’s proposal.
Introducing scope for an additional round of bidding would undermine these incentives and would only serve to delay the securing of fair and reasonable terms for the third party. As a result, we hope, for the reasons set out, that the noble Lord feels able not to press these amendments.
Finally, this group includes two government amendments, which are both minor and technical in nature, relating to Clauses 38 and 117. These amendments clarify that digital content is included in the meaning of the phrase “goods or services” when used in Part 1 of the Bill, including when mentioned under the final offer mechanism. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise—I should have maybe intervened earlier but I did not want to join the barrage, as it were. When my noble friend the Minister writes to us, as he inevitably will, I wonder whether he can help us to understand the Government’s position on countervailing benefits by outlining what they really mean by that and giving some real or hypothetical examples of where consumers may be harmed by a pro-competitive intervention by the CMA.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, indeed. I thank my noble friend for repeating the question and I apologise that I did not get to it earlier. I would be delighted to write and provide such examples.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of our amendments. It is worth saying at the outset that it sounds like we are being very critical of the potential SMS firms. This is not about being critical but about getting the balance right. That is what we are aiming to do. A lot of the discussion that we have had in Committee today has been about feeling that that has become out of kilter. We are trying to get the very careful balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about. Her committee felt, having agonised over it, that the original wording was about right. A lot of us feel that, which is why we are so anxious and testing of the changes that have come along more recently.
As we debated and identified in the previous discussion, the CMA already has a responsibility to act proportionately. This ought to apply to its judgments about countervailing benefits as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said that it is designed as a backstop. It is important that the threshold remains high; that is one of the key issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that because of the word “must”—that the CMA must desist if there are countervailing benefits—it becomes almost mandatory, so there will be no opportunities for the CMA to make balanced judgments. We agree that it is far too prescriptive.
I rather liked the canter through all the preceding clauses from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, before he concluded: why do we need Clause 29, because all those provisions are already there? He made an important point about all of that.
I listened carefully to the Minister. He repeated what he said at Second Reading: that this clause on countervailing benefits is only to pick up new, unknown consumer benefits that have not been identified before. Try as I might, I have looked at the wording of Clause 29 and I do not see that it says that there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, quite rightly pointed out, as it is worded there is a danger that the SMS companies could hold back evidence to that last backstop and then start challenging at that point. It would then be very difficult for the challenger firms to come forward with different evidence. The current wording opens up a disturbing void.
We have had a really good discussion about whether the previous wording or the new wording maintains the high threshold. I think most of us remain unclear about that. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who said that this new wording has not been tested in the courts, so it gives us not more certainty but more uncertainty. That is the last thing that we want at this point.
The Minister said that this was put in partly because stakeholders were confused. I would push back and say that the Select Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, looked at this in a lot more detail than some of those stakeholders have and concluded that the original wording is clearer and more robust than anything he has come back with. I hope the Minister will take that point away. I do not think he was particularly convincing about why that new wording was necessary.
On Clause 48, I have considerable sympathy with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and very much support his arguments. We do not want companies to be put in a situation where they have to accept suboptimal deals because they are running out of time and money when, if we are not careful, it could take many years for the process to be completed.
The Minister tried to reassure us, because if there was an anxiety about the time we could have interim enforcement orders, for example. However, the difference is that the final offer mechanism is more of a collaborative process. When we met with representatives from the CMA, they said that that is how they like to work: they do not want to go to court, they want to reach collaborative agreements. I feel that that our Amendment 48 would allow some of that collaboration to work along the system before it gets to the final, final offer. Again, I am not convinced by the Minister’s response on all of that. We want to keep it out of court as much as we can but he is tying the hands of the CMA too much in the way this is worded at the moment.
I am sure I have not picked up all the points but I think the Minister gets the idea that he is not really taking us with him. I therefore hope that he will reflect on these issues again but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that transactions in which an undertaking uses goods or services of a third party have the potential to be subject to the final offer mechanism.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
“(c) an undertaking which has received an SMS investigation notice in accordance with section 11(1), unless the initial SMS investigation has been closed in accordance with section 12 or an SMS decision notice has been given in accordance with section 14; and where such an undertaking is part of a group, any member of that group.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the merger reporting requirements to undertakings that are being investigated by the CMA as to whether they have strategic market status.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I hope that this group of amendments will not be as much of a marathon as the previous group—or indeed that performance from the Deputy Chairman. I start by apologising that I could not attend the first day in Committee, due to a combination of Avanti West Coast and Storm Isha. I would have liked to have spoken in support of amendments in the first group that day, and I entirely agree with what has been said about ensuring that we do not create opportunities for large tech firms to use their immense legal firepower to slow down the process of designating them as having strategic market status, and ensuring that the information and work already done by the CMA can be taken into account. It is fair to say that the same themes have continued today, and Amendment 59 is a continuation of them in a slightly different way.
As a number of noble Lords have already pointed out, we already know who the main strategic players are and that they are already abusing their strategic market positions, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, said so clearly on day one. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described how the big tech players know that the regulation is coming, but they are walking backwards as slowly as they can. As she pointed out, we see that very clearly with the EU’s Digital Markets Act, in which so far every potential SMS-equivalent firm has challenged its designation through every stage of the courts that it can. So at best we are unlikely to see any SMS designations until well into 2025, and possibly much later, if they are able to spin out the process.
If I read the Bill correctly, there is actually only one immediate additional obligation that designation imposes on a company: a requirement to report possible mergers on a more enhanced basis than currently applies. But this obligation does not come into force until the SMS designation has been made.
As I said, we already know who the main players are. That is not just speculation—the CMA has already confirmed some of them in its previous work. As an example, in its Mobile Ecosystems market study report of June 2022, just a year and a bit ago, the CMA confirmed that both Apple and Google would meet the test of having strategic market status in the supply of mobile operating systems and the devices on which they are installed, in native app distribution, and in mobile browsers and browser engines. It is not speculation; we know who these people are. Why, then, would we want to wait for another year or more, allowing them to game the system during that period, before applying the enhanced merger reporting requirements on them?
Amendment 59 would apply the enhanced merger reporting requirement to companies that have been given notice that they are under SMS investigation, rather than having been designated. We do not have to wait until the designation has been made. We have heard already the fears that the large tech players will seek to spin the designation process out. Without Amendment 59, the large tech companies would have an additional incentive to game the system by deliberately prolonging the designation process so that they could complete a merger that would be reportable once designated but which is not reportable before the designation is made. I do not think that it is a good idea to give them further incentive to do that.
This is important. For much too long, the large tech companies have been able to entrench their market power through acquisitions with relative impunity. Very few have been passed to the CMA for investigation. In the 10 years to June 2023, according to Wikipedia—admittedly not the best source, but the only one I could find easily—Alphabet, the owner of Google, has completed at least 129 acquisitions, Apple 81 and Microsoft 110. In each case, that has happened across an extraordinarily wide area of activities. These big companies can afford to gamble on acquisitions, even if all they do is succeed in taking out a competitor, or potential competitor.
The enhanced merger reporting regime that this Bill will introduce is a really important step, and I very much welcome it, but we should ensure that it cannot be side-stepped by making it applicable as soon as a company has been informed that it is under SMS investigation. This does not prejudge the merits of any merger; it would simply allow the CMA to take a look while the SMS investigation is under way, rather than it going through under the radar.
I am sure that the Minister will argue that it would be unfair to apply the more stringent merger reporting rules to companies that have not yet been designated, but I do not believe that that is right. First, under Clause 9, the CMA is able to investigate an SMS firm only when it has reasonable grounds to consider that it may be able to designate an undertaking as having SMS. As previously pointed out, we know who those companies are, and we know that there are reasonable grounds for a lot of them that exist at the moment, as the CMA has already pointed out. More importantly, would not it be extraordinary if a merger that would meet the new threshold, and that therefore might impact the strategic status investigation itself, was not reported to the CMA during the investigation? That cannot make sense.
This is very simple: we know who the strategic players are, we know that they abuse their market power, including through mergers and acquisitions, and we know that they are likely to seek to challenge and prolong designation to avoid regulation—we have seen them do it. So let us at least put them under the enhanced merger reporting rules at the earliest opportunity, rather than leaving it for another couple of years.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who presented very well the context to both of these amendments and made a very good point about the desirability of extending the scope of Clause 57 in the way proposed in Amendment 59.
Amendment 60 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—who may be able to say something in his absence through the medium of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
From my point of view, Amendment 60 goes back to the Furman review of 2019, which noble Lords will recall, which reflected a similar point to one that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Paragraph 3.44 of the review referred to the preceding decade and said that in that preceding decade
“Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft … have made over 400 acquisitions globally”.
Under the Competition and Markets Authority in this country, in that decade none was blocked, none was notified voluntarily and none was called in for phase 1 or phase 2 investigation. There were European Commission investigations—and that might be regarded as the more appropriate umbrella as a competition authority—but it cleared Google and DoubleClick, Apple and Shazam, and Microsoft and LinkedIn. They were not blocked.
The world has moved on since Furman, and you might say that we have learned more and know more about some of the benefits that are obtained by some of those acquisitions. But the Furman review looked very carefully at whether we should regard mergers involving digital companies differently. That is, I suppose, my point.
I refer to paragraph 3.81 and subsequent paragraphs of the Furman review, which said:
“In mergers involving digital companies, the harms”—
the balance of benefits and disbenefits in relation to future competition—
“will often centre around the loss of potential competition”.
It goes on to say:
“Although potentially harmful to consumers, these outcomes are likely to be relatively uncertain at the time of the merger. This may make it hard to demonstrate that a substantial lessening of competition is more likely than not”.
I will come back to “substantial lessening of competition”, which will be a term familiar to many noble Lords. It gave the example, at this point, of the 2012 Facebook acquisition of Instagram, which at the time was a small photo-sharing platform. It said that even if the OFT had gone on from its phase 1 to a more thorough phase 2 investigation—which of course is more than a decade prior to the period it was looking at—it may have been limited in its ability to block the merger by the balance of probabilities standard: looking at a substantial lessening of competition, would it be more likely than not that there would be a substantial lessening of competition? We do not need to debate Facebook and Instagram and how it all turned out.
The Furman review said:
“The CMA should take more frequent and firmer action to challenge mergers that could be detrimental to consumer welfare through reducing future levels of innovation and competition, supported by changes to legislation where necessary”.
That was its strategic recommendation B. It went on to say, in a recommended action:
“Digital companies that have been designated with a strategic market status should be required to make the CMA aware of all intended acquisitions”.
That is indeed exactly what Clause 57 achieves. To that extent, the recommendations of the Furman review were carried through.
Interestingly, the Furman review went on to discuss the question of whether the balance of probabilities standard could be replaced by a balance of harms standard. I am not going to pursue that, because I can see that it was very difficult to vary a standard which is, in effect, not in the statute but is in the substance of the practice. What I have done instead, in Amendment 60, is to ask what it is that is lacking, or may be lacking, and should we, through the mechanism of the Bill, examine very carefully whether we can do more to strengthen the powers of the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to digital competition in particular.
Once there is a notification in relation to a potential merger, Clause 57(9) refers to the steps that the CMA may take in relation to a merger. It refers to Section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002. It does not change it; it just refers to those steps. I have the benefit—I may not be the only one here, I am not quite sure—of having been on the Standing Committee in the other place on the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002. I see that my noble friend was on the Standing Committee on the Enterprise Act—and maybe both.
We will come back to the issue, but I say to my noble friend the Minister, in parenthesis, referring to the previous debate, that trying to compare a block exemption under the Competition Act, which is ex post regulation, with an exemption applied in relation to an ex ante imposition of a conduct requirement by the regulator is, I am afraid, a false analogy. I will not go back to that, but I think it does not really apply.
What I have done in Amendment 60 is to seek to vary Section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002—quite a big thing to do—but only in relation to designated undertakings. The amendment says that if one is a designated undertaking, not only does one have to notify but there is a difference in the structure of Section 33, so that where it says that a reference can be made in relation to
“(a) arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation; and (b) the creation of that situation may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services”,
I am seeking adding an “or”. So (a) would apply in all cases; (b) might apply; or (c ) would apply, which the amendment makes clear would say
“or, (c) if the relevant merger situation involves a designated undertaking under section 2 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 the creation of that situation may be expected to result in the loss of future benefit to consumers in the provision of digital activities as a consequence of the forestalling of prospective competition”.
The drafting may be deficient, but I make the point that we need to put in the drafting what we are trying to do. That is to give the CMA explicit statutory cover to look forward—as it does in its five-year forward designation—identify a merger situation and ask, in the context of its forward-looking assessment, which it must do for designation purposes, whether there is an expectation that that merger situation would result in the loss of future benefit to consumers if it were brought into effect. That is a reasonable alignment between the nature of the designation process and its forward-looking character and the desirability of the assessment of any potential merger situation having the same characteristic.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, clearly the noble Lord’s days on the standing committee were not wasted; we thank him for his incredibly cogent set of arguments. He has said some of what I was going to say, which is good, so I will not repeat it.
It is worth remembering that there is a point of scale here, and it is scale that creates the issue. Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Apple, in 2022, together had revenues of nearly £400 billion. How did they get there? Of course, they had their initial offering and their services and were able to attract customers, but then there is the law of networks and then predatory acquisition. The two feed off each other; one boosts the other and gives the finances and so on. Predatory acquisitions add to the network scale, and the network scale then makes the offer.
As we have heard, there has been a huge number of such acquisitions—not mergers—across those platforms, and they have very much been part of the strategy for those businesses. Few, if any, were questioned in time because, in classic competition terms, the scale of one outweighed the significance of the other in the short term.
The noble Lord pulled out the question of the acquisition of Activision. That was a departure—it did not go to court, but it did lead to a different way of looking at an acquisition by Microsoft. It was interesting that the authorities in the EU and the US did not take the same view. It was notable that the CMA stood apart and made that decision. It is a small step, and one that will clearly need much more support in order for the aims of this Bill to be properly supported.
The Bill introduces a requirement for SMS firms to report mergers, which is a start. They have to meet criteria relating to share ownership, voting rights, relevance to the UK and transaction value. This will help ensure that problematic acquisitions by dominant tech firms do not fly under the radar, but the Bill does not give the regulator additional powers, as such, to intervene in those deals.
Existing merger control practice in the UK and elsewhere has struggled to grapple with tech acquisitions, which can appear relatively harmless in the present, as we have said, while resulting in serious competition, as was elegantly illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. In the UK, the CMA can intervene in a merger only if it proves that the deal is “more likely than not” to result in a “substantial lessening of competition”. Of course, that was not tested with the Microsoft acquisition. To address this, the Bill should be amended to give the CMA greater scope to block or impose remedies on SMS acquisitions. The Bill should introduce a tougher merger control regime for acquisitions by SMS firms, in the sectors where they have been designated as SMS firms.
On that basis, we support both Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, relating to where an investigation is ongoing, and Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to Clause 57. As we have heard, it would amend the merger regime in the Enterprise Act. We think that may be a way of reaching in and giving the powers that the CMA will obviously need.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be brief. I strongly support the intentions of this part of the Bill. What the Government are attempting to do must be right. Relative inaction on mergers by leading regulators around the world has contributed to the problems that we are now trying to address with the creation of the DMU. Killer acquisitions are a serious and enduring problem in this market.
My view is that the CMA, among other regulators, probably could and should have acted earlier. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider why it did not. One reason is a lack of boldness; a reluctance to take risks by taking action with its existing powers; a fear of losing. Although we are empowering it a good deal through the DMU, it is important to bear in mind that, unless we secure a change of mindset in the CMA, I am not sure that we will get the benefits that we are hoping for from this Bill—certainly not all of them.
A second reason why a good number of the big regulators did not intervene earlier derives from the intellectual history of the current legislation, which is similar all around the world. Over the last 30 years, in the post-Cold War world, almost all the major jurisdictions, and a lot of minor ones, put on the statute book very similar legislation. About 150 jurisdictions have done so, based on a set of ideas often summarised as the Chicago school, although it is rather a caricature, which believed that there would be no need for such an interventionist approach because it would be difficult for any platform to sustain for long a dominant position, and another technological change would supplant them. That may yet turn out to be the case, with AI and new generations of technology.
However, we now know that it has not been successful with the existing range of platforms; they have been around for a long time, and we have ample evidence of abuse of market position by some of them. That is why we need to qualify the Chicago school approach in our minds. We need the people who run our competition regulators to shed what may be a lifetime of acceptance of some of their reflexes in respect of these big deals. They should start to challenge far more, and be far less accepting of, the tenets of the Chicago school.
Perhaps I could summarise my position overall by saying that I am sympathetic to all the clauses that have been tabled, but Ministers will need to reassure us that their intentions for these clauses really will be delivered by what is in the Bill at the moment. I myself am not sure that it is enough. There may be merit in some or all of the amendments in achieving what the Government themselves say they want to do.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, about recognising how important it is that we embolden the CMA to tackle these merger issues. I do not have anything like the expertise in detailed drafting that my noble friend Lord Lansley has just demonstrated, but I encourage the Government to listen carefully to his advice and review the drafting. We should see if we cannot come together with a solution on Report that achieves what I think we are all trying to achieve here.
I would also like to briefly correct the record. On Monday, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, I said that all the companies had appealed their designation of the DMA. Much to my amusement, Google was very swift to email me on Tuesday morning to tell me no, it was very keen to collaborate, so I would hate that to become a considered fact of this Committee—I owe Google that.
I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but I point out to the Committee that it is actually a very small amendment. The CMA told us in one of its briefings last week that it could undertake only two SMS investigations at any one time. We should recognise that it is a very minor amendment meaning that, while the CMA is investigating two entities, those two entities will be required to report. We should accept that that is a very small improvement that we should encourage the Government to accept.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that we do not have a great deal to say on this, except that we see merit in the amendments from both the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Lansley.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made a very good point: this is very simple. It is about providing and encouraging greater transparency in the merger process. It is straightforward in ensuring that all parties are aware of the status of the undertaking involved, and it brings clarity where the SMS is concerned.
It has to be regretted that companies might want to use mergers and acquisitions as a way of delaying SMS designation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has just said, there are delays enough in the process as it is. If the CMA is going to be able to do only two of these a year, there is hardly much reason to encourage more, greater and longer delays in the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, argued that designations could take until 2025 and delays will occur. With the sheer volume of acquisitions taking place, if companies are going to use that as a means of gaming the system then that cannot be right. It cannot be in consumers’ interests either.
I turn to the elegant amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It seeks to ensure, where a designated undertaking is involved, that there is an assessment of the impact on consumers. The Minister has argued from the Dispatch Box that the legislation is designed by the Government to place the interests of consumers at the very front of this piece of working legislation. So, if a merger is likely to lead to a loss of benefit to consumers, it must therefore be right that market intelligence is shared, and we assume from our perspective on the Labour Benches that that must be a public good to be supported.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I very much thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lansley for using these amendments to raise the very important and quite subtle issues of merger reporting and assessment in digital markets. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Tyrie and Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Harding for their thoughtful contributions.
Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would extend the duty to report possible mergers, provided for in Chapter 5 of Part 1, beyond firms designated with SMS to also include firms that are subject to a designation investigation. Firms can use anti-competitive mergers to further entrench their powerful market positions, especially in digital markets, where fast-acting damage to competition can be difficult or impossible to reverse. That is why SMS firms will be required to report certain possible mergers to the CMA before they complete. However—this may be a philosophical objection as much as anything else—it would not be proportionate or in keeping with the targeted and evidence-based approach of our regime to apply this duty to firms before the conclusion of a designation investigation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that firms under designation investigation may hold powerful positions in the market; some may even have been the subject of previous CMA scrutiny. Nevertheless, it is right that the duty to report should apply only once a firm has been found to have substantial and entrenched market power following a rigorous assessment and SMS designation. To reassure noble Lords, firms under SMS designation investigation will of course remain subject to the economy-wide merger regime. The CMA will be able to intervene where their mergers would harm competition in the UK.
Amendment 60 from my noble friend Lord Lansley—
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Before the noble Viscount moves on to the next amendment, there seems to be a slight logical problem here, in the sense that presumably the new enhanced regime was set at the level it was because those mergers are felt to be significant for a strategic market status entity. If it were to do such a merger during an investigation, it would presumably impact potentially on whether the CMA believes that it meets the SMS, and therefore it must be important that the CMA is informed about acquisitions that could impact the investigation itself. It seems that there is a circularity here, but the noble Viscount has not addressed that.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do indeed recognise it. As I say, it is a difficult one because equally, one cannot treat undesignated firms as designated until the designation has taken place. I am very happy to carry on considering this with the noble Lord, because the point is a powerful and important one. Before moving on, I just point out that over the course of the necessary consultation activities, it would of course emerge that a firm was considering or evaluating a merger.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
As somebody who spent most of his life doing mergers and acquisitions, I can say that they are not always made public.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I said, I am very happy to carry on with this; there is a sense of rounding up the usual suspects otherwise.
Amendment 60 from my noble friend Lord Lansley is intended to give the CMA jurisdiction to intervene in a merger when an SMS firm seeks to remove or absorb a smaller firm that could reasonably be expected to compete with it in future. I agree that it is important to ensure that the CMA can act against harmful mergers, including so-called killer acquisitions. I reassure my noble friend that the CMA can and does do so under the current legislative framework.
When reviewing a merger, the CMA can already consider whether it removes a potential future competitor. This can be seen in the Meta/Giphy case where, in its forward-looking assessment, the CMA found that the merger removed Giphy as a potential challenger and consequently ordered Meta to sell Giphy. The decision was upheld by the CAT, which I hope and think shows that the CMA has the necessary legislative cover.
It has been suggested that the CMA and other regulators have not scrutinised mergers by large digital firms enough in the past. However, since the Furman review, the CMA has undertaken a comprehensive review of its merger assessment guidelines and updated them in 2021 to ensure that they more clearly reflect the CMA’s current thinking and practice on digital markets, drawing on conclusions from expert reports, analysis and cases.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister leaves that point, and further to the discussion we have had about the importance of the CMA taking advantage of its powers, is he able to signal that he is sympathetic to the approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, will take later on with her proposal to give Parliament much greater powers of scrutiny of the CMA, to give us a better prospect that the CMA will continue with its more activist approach to dealing with these mergers? The risk for all of us is that there is a boost in activity for a period, with this legislation and the focus and attention that we all are giving this issue, but that, over time, the CMA slips back to the very comfort zone-oriented place it seemed to be in when it implemented a number of its statutory obligations in the past.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. He has alluded a number of times during our conversations to ensuring that the working culture within the CMA is suitably postured to deal with a fast-moving regime. I can indicate that I certainly have sympathy with the intent of enhancing the accountability both to Parliament and government of the CMA—with this and other ends in mind, but to ensure that it remains assiduous in its identification of opportunities to intervene.
The Bill will enhance the CMA’s ability to act to prevent harmful mergers by SMS firms. The reporting requirement will improve the transparency of merger activity in digital markets. Additionally, Clause 127 in Part 2 and Schedule 4 will introduce a new acquirer-focused jurisdiction threshold, which provides an additional basis for the CMA to review mergers involving large firms, including SMS firms.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lansley will be reassured for the time being and not press their amendments.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. I should say that I forgot to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who sadly really is not here at the moment, for supporting my amendment. He is here in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
We have heard some excellent points—in particular the description from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Fox and Lord Tyrie, of how regulating acquisitions in this sector is difficult and challenging. It is a sector where even quite small and apparently insignificant acquisitions can end up having a really substantial impact; we had the description from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, of the change in culture that will be required at the CMA to deal with that. This is an area that the Government will have to continue thinking about. We might want to discuss this further between now and Report.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for correcting me on Google’s desire to co-operate with the competition authorities, which is obviously most welcome. I am grateful for her correction. She is also right that my Amendment 59 is a small one, but I think that it is important, and I very much welcome the Minister’s offer to discuss it further as the process goes on. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 59.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that this subsection is subject to Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 as that Part is amended by Clause 77.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I shall speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord. The Government have put forward some amendments in this group to support clarity and enhance predictability. These amendments will make clear the conditions of the levy that will fund the new digital markets regime and improve consistency with information-handling under the regime.
Government Amendment 62 clarifies the safeguards that will apply to the CMA’s handling of legally privileged information when using its powers to seize information. Government Amendments 74 and 75 require the CMA to address payment of the levy in its rules—for example, setting out when levy payments are due. They also ensure that the CMA is able to charge interest on late payment of levy fees.
Amendment 78 prevents existing disclosure order restrictions in the Competition Act 1998 being undermined by limiting access to restricted information for private actions brought under the new digital markets regime. This amendment will ensure that sensitive information is dealt with consistently for private actions brought under the new digital markets regime and for breaches of the Competition Act 1998. The amendment extends the same effect of existing disclosure order restrictions. It will help to maintain the integrity of CMA investigations and ensure protections for information that the CMA receives from third parties. I hope, for the reasons I have set out, that noble Lords will support these government amendments.
I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which would allow private actions relating to breaches of the digital markets regime to be brought on a collective basis in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I thank him for his amendment, and I agree that it is vital that the CMA can take a clear lead in imposing and enforcing the requirements of the new regime. The CMA works on behalf of all consumers, so a CMA-led approach to enforcement will bring the greatest overall improvement in digital markets to the benefit of all.
It is right that harmed parties should be able to seek redress, which is why we have made explicit provision to bring private actions. However, there is the risk that lengthy and complex private litigation in the early years would create uncertainty and undermine the goals of the regime as a whole, with CMA resources diverted to engaging with lengthy private actions rather than reforming digital markets. As such, it is the Government’s position that it would not be helpful to introduce collective actions at this time.
Once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his amendment, but I hope he will feel able not to move it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments on Amendment 70 in my name. As he indicated, it would enable consumers to bring collective proceedings where there has been breach of requirements specified in Clause 101. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to conduct a review to ascertain whether there are any other types of claim appropriate for collective proceedings.
Under current procedural rules of the court in England and Wales, there are very limited circumstances in which more than one person can bring proceedings, even though they may have suffered harm or loss from the same defective product or conduct. A single set of proceedings with multiple claimants could not be brought, for example, where the harm or loss was suffered on different occasions and in different circumstances. Representative proceedings—or class actions, as they are usually called—would overcome these limitations.
Chapter 7 of Part 1 of the Bill, dealing with enforcement and appeals, makes provision for individual claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal or to a court for breaches of requirements, such as conduct requirements and pro-competition orders following pro-competition interventions. There is no provision in the Bill or elsewhere enabling consumers and businesses to make collective redress where multiple parties have been harmed by the same breach. In many cases, individual consumers and small businesses will be unable to finance proceedings. Furthermore, the knowledge of the likelihood of such a difficulty will be a disincentive to those who are subject to conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions to comply with their obligations.
Provision for collective proceedings, or class actions, is made in the Competition Act 1998, as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, that provision applies only to breaches of competition law. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to extend the availability of such proceedings to cases where numerous consumers have suffered from the same defective goods or conduct. The Competition Appeal Tribunal is now well used to representative proceedings in competition cases and is well aware of how best to handle them. This is an important opportunity for the Government to increase accessibility to justice to those who would otherwise not have the financial ability to bring proceedings, especially against large and well-funded entities. The Government should grasp it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in this amendment, which he has proposed extremely clearly; I can therefore be relatively brief. However, I probably have the most difficult feat of advocacy ahead of me. Normally in these circumstances one is trying to persuade the Minister to depart from the written brief in front of him, but now I have to persuade him to depart from the written brief which he has already read out, so I feel as though we know the answer to the question I am about to pose. None the less, I will proceed. I refer to my interests in the register as a practising barrister, including, as I will mention in a moment, practising in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, popularly known as the CAT.
It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that there ought to be an effective means for legal rights to be vindicated. Having a legal right without the ability to vindicate it is not of much use. There are areas of law where a breach of legal duty may affect many consumers, but it is likely to affect each of them minimally. Although such affected consumers can in theory bring a claim for damages, it is rarely worth their while because of the small amount of each individual claim. The irrecoverable legal costs—I again declare my interest—will swamp any damages recovered, even if the claim is successful. There is also the risk of an adverse costs order if the claim fails. The real-world effect is that these claims are brought only by large claimants who have suffered large losses. That means that legal rights are not in practice vindicated. That is, in effect, a gap in our justice system.
In order to make access to justice possible for consumers in these cases, and to create a means of effectively enforcing competition law, a class action regime was introduced into the Competition Act 1998, in Section 47B. That section does not create any new rights; it creates a new process for the more effective enforcement of existing rights. It does this by enabling individual claimants to pool their claims and have them brought by a class representative. The class representative does the running in terms of preparing, funding, and bringing the action. The individual class members tend to have very little to do, other than to receive their damages when they are awarded. Importantly, there is no exposure to adverse costs orders.
This regime has been very successful. There is a high degree of expertise, both procedural and economic, in bringing such claims, and for that reason, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is the only forum in which such claims can be brought. I am instructed in such cases in the CAT, both for potential claimants, through the class representative, and also for defendants. While there are a few rough points which need to be smoothed out, as in any new jurisdiction, there is no doubt that the jurisdiction is bedding down extremely well. There are specialist judges sitting in the CAT, and there is now a range of specialist practitioners, in London and elsewhere, who appear in it.
Clause 101 creates a new data right, which is unlikely to see much use, I suggest, unless it is collectivised—in other words, brought subject to the same regime so that right can be vindicated in the same way. The main thrust of the amendment to which I have added my name is that the class action regime in Section 47B be expanded to include such claims, which would benefit from better access to justice, and, really importantly, would avoid leaving claimants with a right but with no effective remedy.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I wanted to intervene briefly. I do not have an amendment in the group, I have not signed my name to any, but I wanted to piggyback on the introduction of the issue of private litigation to ask a question that has been put to me by one of the big tech firms. I thought it was a reasonable question, even though it was not one I felt moved to table an amendment on. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he might find it easier to reply by means of a letter to me that he can put in the Library of the House, rather than taking up time.
The question is why, in this Bill, if somebody wants to bring a private litigation, there is no provision for the CMA to be required to give consent before an action can be taken by way of private litigation. In contrast, in the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom’s consent is required before private litigation is taken on a matter that refers to conditions imposed on the various companies that come under its auspices. The relevant part of the Communications Act is Section 104, where claimants must obtain permission from Ofcom to bring private enforcement claims alleging a breach of the conditions that have been set by Ofcom: they cannot simply file a claim whenever they wish. The Act says:
“The consent of OFCOM is required for the bringing of proceedings by virtue of subsection (1)(a)”.
The purpose of this is to give Ofcom a sort of gatekeeping role and prevent overlapping, or private litigation happening while something is being carried out by the regulator.
I thought it was a worthwhile question and I am happy to ask it. The other issue that has been raised with me is that in these private litigations, the contentious countervailing exemption that we discussed in an earlier group is not available to the big tech firms in the same way that it is available to them in the procedure that is set out in the Bill.
I have given the Bill team notice of these questions. I know that they have some very good answers, and I suggest to my noble friend that he asks his officials to convert that into a letter that he can put into the public domain.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the hyperactive pen of my noble friend signed up to this amendment as well. It is a great pleasure to support the noble Lords, and particularly to get cover from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson—it is not usually like that. I am very happy to support this amendment, or the principle of this amendment: if not these words, some others.
Just to emphasise, when I was speaking to the last group of amendments, I set out a group of the major tech companies and said that in 2022, they had a revenue of nearly £400 billion, which is twice the size of the Ukrainian economy. That is the scale of the opponent that we are asking citizens to take on. To deny them the opportunity to band together, which in itself would still be a formidable challenge, is really to deny them justice. It is unrealistic to expect any individuals bar a few—and they are probably the ones who own the companies in the first place—to have sufficient resources to take on businesses of this scale. I would like the Minister at least to acknowledge that point. Perhaps we can go away and work out the best way to enable the reality of individuals being able to bring cases, because at the moment it is merely an idea; it cannot possibly happen.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I will just add a couple of questions to the ones that my noble friend Lady Stowell just posed, and I am sorry that I have not been organised enough to share these with the Bill team in advance. Both relate to the importance of the collaborative nature of this legislation and how important it is that the tech companies are actually incentivised to work with the CMA as they go through this process. I too have had a couple of questions posed to me, in addition to what I would describe as the Ofcom-model question that my noble friend raised.
First, should the legislation require courts to avoid judgments that conflict with the DMU’s existing decisions? Otherwise, I think there is potentially a risk that you get two jurisdictions coming to contradictory conclusions. Secondly, how can we avoid litigation undermining existing DMU resolutions and therefore just extending and delaying any implementation? In both cases, there is a risk—although I defer to the huge expertise in the Committee on the need for the civil proceedings. We have to make sure that we do not undermine the very principle of trying to incentivise the SMS firms to engage in constructive dialogue through the process.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
The CAT’s class action powers have been a success, although probably not an unqualified success—but that is for another day. I just want to pick up on one point.
Nowhere is the asymmetry of power greater than between an ordinary consumer and a platform. We must try to find ways of enabling consumers to have greater self-reliance, to have mechanisms to achieve some redress of that asymmetry. When I was in the CMA, I did quite a lot of work on this subject, not only with respect to platforms but generally with respect to big firms, and that work largely got lost.
I suggest to the Minister that he asks for some work in this field to be done by the CMA, not only with respect to platforms but across the piece, to see whether a much more comprehensive programme—taking into greater consideration the reality of the asymmetries of power that we see have now developed in the marketplace —can be put together and give consumers greater confidence that they are not being ripped off, as so many of them are at the moment, frankly.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being at Second Reading; I was only recently co-opted to support my noble friends Lady Jones, Lord Bassam and Lord Stevenson in the Bill’s passage through its various stages.
I thank the Minister for introducing this group of government amendments, which we are not opposing. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for speaking to his important Amendment 70 on collective proceedings, and all other noble Lords for their contributions. We have signed the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and support what he has argued.
I will be brief. I am not a lawyer, and I hesitate to stray into this issue to the depth that it clearly requires. After listening to the noble and learned Lord, however, and having read some background material, I am bound to say that this is an area that needs more attention. If there are not to be changes made in this Bill, for which there seems to be a case, at the very least there needs to be a review, as suggested in the amendment.
We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing this amendment and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response. If he is not able to give a positive response today, I am sure that this is an issue that we will need to return to on Report.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his amendment and, perhaps even more, for his articulation of it today, which was extremely helpful. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friends Lord Wolfson, Lady Stowell and Lady Harding and the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Tyrie and Lord Leong, for their valuable and thoughtful contributions.
I will start by shamelessly stealing my noble friend Lady Harding’s metaphor from earlier. We are looking here to achieve the Goldilocks spot when it comes to private redress. We recognise that if an SMS firm breaches a requirement imposed by the CMA, this could have serious implications for businesses and individuals. It is right that recourse to redress should be available for parties suffering harm or loss as a result of that unlawful behaviour. The right of redress is a long-standing part of common law and explicit provision is part of most regulatory regimes. Our Clause 101 makes this right explicit. Doing so will also incentivise compliance and support the credibility of the regime.
At the same time, it is also important that the CMA can take a clear lead in imposing and enforcing requirements to bring effective change in digital markets. This DMU-led approach is important in providing certainty for all parties and ensuring the regime is coherent and effective and delivers the best outcomes for consumers. We want the regime to be collaborative, but not litigious. This is why we have made provision for a public-led enforcement approach, which will ensure the CMA’s central role in ensuring the consistent application and enforcement of the regime, while still making explicit provision for parties to seek redress.
Lengthy and complex litigation in the early years of the regime in particular would run the risk of creating uncertainty for all stakeholders and could undermine the delivery of the regime as a whole, particularly where CMA resources are diverted to engage with private actions rather than focusing on reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made a very serious point about the enormous disparity in size, which I duly take seriously. Our argument is that in the formative stages of the existence of this regime, the best way to deal with that disparity in size and scale is to have public-led engagements taking primacy over collective ones.
My noble friend Lady Stowell asked about Ofcom’s role in private actions under Part 2 of the Communications Act 2003. I would be happy to write to her on this important issue, as she suggested, but I will now respond briefly to her remarks in advance of that letter.
Under the Communications Act, claimants must first seek consent from Ofcom to initiate a private action for certain breaches. We have given this model consideration but concluded that it would pose difficulties in a digital markets context. It could politicise the CMA, forcing it to make a deeply contentious decision at the outset of each private action. The decision itself would also be subject to challenge in the courts through judicial review, so it would not likely bring additional certainty or clarity. These issues are less prevalent for Ofcom’s regime, where redress is more commonly sought through the Communications Ombudsman than in the courts. For these reasons, we do not think that replicating the Communications Act mechanism would be appropriate in this regime, but, as I said, I am more than happy to write and set that out in more detail.
All of that said, I hope that noble Lords are content to accept these government amendments. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his amendment, but I hope that he will not press it.
House of Lords
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
East Coast Main Line
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with train operators about changes to the East Coast Mainline timetable in December 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, the department holds regular discussions with its operators to ensure that they continue to respond to changes in demand, balancing capacity and reliability with value for money for taxpayers. As part of the December 2023 timetable change, the department agreed that London North Eastern Railway should provide some additional Sunday services and the Rail North Partnership agreed some reductions to TransPennine Express services to stabilise the service while it completes its driver training programme.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, Berwick-upon-Tweed station, serving the Scottish borders and north Northumberland, normally has a quite good hourly train service on the east coast main line. However, now LNER has resurrected the previous abandoned plan to slash that service by half from December, so that the trains will be only every two hours and with longer journey times. Is the Minister prepared to challenge this—or is publicly owned LNER doing what the Government have told it to do?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The industry is currently close to finalising its response to the east coast main line major timetable change consultation that was undertaken in 2021. While it will not be possible to address every concern raised, I am confident that the industry proposal is an improvement over what was offered in consultation. The Rail Minister is in regular contact with Transport for the North, having met with the chair and chief executive in recent months.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister been able to assess the amount of spare capacity on the rail system serving both north and east of a critical place in what we call the east of England? Does he agree that there needs to be a plan for the future—maybe one that cannot be implemented immediately but that we can set our minds on to ensure that it takes place without waiting another 10 or 20 years?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that we had the Williams-Shapps review into the creation of Great British Railways but unfortunately have not had time in this Session to introduce legislation. However, I take his point, which is well made.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why this government-owned railway, LNER, has apparently changed all the fare structures to remove most saver and supersaver fares—presumably with the intention of reducing the number of passengers that use it?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
At the Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State committed to expanding single-leg pricing, on most of LNER’s network, for example. This went live on 11 June 2023. In the plan for rail, we set out our intention to simplify fares and improve the passenger experience. We are determined to find innovative ways to get people back into rail.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, next year will celebrate the bicentenary of the original railway line, between Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees. Would it not be extraordinary to reduce the service from Darlington—and Northallerton—to London in what is its bicentennial year? Will the Minister use his good offices to examine the timetable which LNER is proposing for next year, to ensure that we continue to have good hourly services to these regular commuter runs?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hear what my noble friend says. I will certainly take it back and have a look at it.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister implies that the 2024 timetable is more or less complete. That would have involved seven railway operators, Network Rail and the DfT achieving a consensus. Such a consensus would have had winners and losers. Who made the decision as to who would be the losers?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not too sure that I understand his question. Perhaps we can have a look at it later.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, when there was a proposal to close railway ticket offices, we saw how essential public consultation was in revealing the true impact of a planned change. In the Minister’s response, he referred to a consultation on this LNER timetable change that took place in 2021. Three years on, things are very different. Can he assure us that there has been public consultation since then and that there was full public consultation before this changed timetable was introduced?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to full consultation on the issue.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. Some of the difficult decisions that have had to be taken have been partly because of the upgrading of the trans-Pennine route, which is a huge investment as far as the Government are concerned over the next few years. Will my noble friend assure us that the planned upgrade for York station, which will allow greater capacity eventually to serve areas such as Berwick-upon-Tweed, is in the Government’s future plans?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
A lot of these changes to the trans-Pennine route are part of the Making Journeys Better plan, outlining how TransPennine Express under DfT OLR Holdings will work to make things better. Having completed an in-depth review of the business, these services are expected to be restored from December 2024. I will have to come back to my noble friend on his question about the railway station.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the problems of the east coast main line, important though they may be, pale into insignificance for those of us who have the misfortune to use the west coast main line? Given the fact that Avanti trains’ punctuality levels in the last six months of 2023 plumbed the depths of 43.5%—the worst in railway history, as far as I can ascertain—can he tell the House what those improvements outlined by the Secretary of State were before it was given another nine years of inflicting misery on the rest of us?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the department awarded a new National Rail contract to First Trenitalia to continue operating the west coast partnership in September 2023. The decision to award the contract to it was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers. The Rail Minister and officials have met regularly with First Group and Avanti’s senior management to understand the challenges and hold them to account for issues within their control. In fact, I understand that the Rail Minister met with them only this month.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, as I was coming in on a very pleasant journey from the beautiful city of Salisbury in the south-west on Monday, I went through the new schedule of train strikes that have been thrust at us again. I seem to remember that a couple of months ago we spent many long nights debating minimum service levels. I am confused, so could the Minister help me in my confusion?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend is right; we did spend many hours debating this. We now have the minimum services levels Act and, frankly, the department expects train operators to make use of the legislation wherever appropriate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the decision by the Government to award Avanti another contract not rewarding failure? Do we not need a regulator that will put passengers first and the companies second?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point, but the Government do put passengers first. The Government are concerned with passengers getting value for money, and we take this very seriously.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, in the last 10 years, £75.2 billion of subsidy has been handed to rail companies. In return, the public do not own a single engine, carriage or seat, and it is impossible to even get the machines at rail stations to tell you what a good route or fare is. How many more billions need to be handed to rail companies before we can get an affordable and reliable train service?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government have put an awful lot of money into the railways. It is about time perhaps that some of the railways delivered back for the good of the people—the taxpayer, who has put an enormous amount of money into the railways.
Schools: Persistent Absenteeism
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of persistent absenteeism in English schools; and what steps they are taking to address it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, tackling attendance and persistent absence is a top priority for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and all her ministerial team. We have a team of specialist attendance advisers, are increasing the number of attendance mentors to support vulnerable students, are expanding our attendance hubs—supporting over 1,000 additional schools—and have launched a campaign to emphasise the importance of school for learning, wellbeing and friendships. We also now expect schools to meet termly with local authorities to agree plans for at-risk children, and our attendance data tools give schools the information they need to allow earlier intervention and avoid absences becoming entrenched.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, there is a link between levels of deprivation, poor mental health in children and persistent absence. The children’s mental health charity Place2Be has told me that, for every £1 invested in mental health interventions in schools, there is a social benefit of £8. What assessment have the Government made of the financial benefit of mental health interventions in schools? How are they targeting the most disadvantaged children in tackling mental health-related persistent absence?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government look at both the impact of mental health support on students and the financial impacts. As the noble Baroness knows, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to have mental health support teams, which are now covering 35% of pupils in schools and further education. This will increase to around 50% by March 2025.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in disadvantaged areas of the country, absenteeism could be as high as 20%, where you cannot expect parents to get their children to go to school every day of the week? The reason why they are not going is that, when they go to school, they have to study just eight academic subjects, which is the curriculum that the Government have imposed upon schools. They do not believe that they are learning anything that will get them a job. Will the Minister accept the recommendations of the Education for 11–16 Year Olds Committee of this House, which recommended that technical, practical and useful subjects, and also computer studies, should be introduced immediately into the curriculum?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot accept entirely my noble friend’s assertion, because persistent absence, which the noble Baroness’s Question points to, has more than doubled since the start of the pandemic and the curriculum has not significantly changed.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, when the Minister kindly replied to my Written Question tabled on 11 January, she said that there were
“335 state-funded alternative provision schools”.
But in terms of unregistered alternative schools or settings, she said that because they are unregistered, they
“do not meet the criteria to register as a school”.
So local authorities are sending children to these unregistered provision settings, yet we do not know whether a record is taken of their attendance or whether they are safeguarded. This is not a satisfactory state, is it? Can the Minister look into this to make sure that these children are safeguarded, properly educated and recorded for attendance?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share many of the noble Lord’s concerns and am more than happy to follow up on his points.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, we know that mental and emotional distress has increased hugely since the pandemic, that children who are distressed cannot learn, and that children who are not learning but failing at school will stay away from school. I think the Minister said that, by 2025, 50% of schools would have good mental health support, but I cannot see 50% as being enough. Can the Minister comment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think we have to be careful: without question, mental health and anxiety have increased from the pandemic and the disruption that children experienced but, equally, a prolonged period of absence is also likely to heighten a child’s anxiety about attending in the future. I say to the noble Baroness, and to the House, that there are schools doing remarkable things, particularly in relation to children on education, health and care plans and children with special educational needs. I was in two schools in Birmingham on Friday: Lea Forest primary and Four Dwellings secondary. Those schools have a remarkable attendance level, particularly for the vulnerable children to whom she refers.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I know that the Government have looked carefully at areas where there is deprivation. In the light of the questions we have already heard, have the Government made any correlation geographically between areas that are recognised as being disadvantaged, as opposed to other areas which are better off?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Disadvantage has always been, and sadly continues to be, a major element in whether a child attends. However, we really need to look at those schools in areas of particular disadvantage or with particular challenges—for example, in coastal communities—to see which schools are beginning to break the back of this attendance and persistent absence challenge. We should listen and learn from them, which is where our attendance hubs come in. Those are schools which are having greater success in addressing attendance and sharing that insight with their neighbours.
Lord Sewell of Sanderstead (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us about some of the data analysis that the ministry has managed to work on over the last few years and how that relates to school attendance?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The data that the department is now collecting daily from about 88% of schools in the country—we are shortly going to make that mandatory, so that it will be 100%—gives us a real opportunity to have a more granular insight. Understandably, and rightly, there is much emphasis and attention on children who are described as severely absent, who are missing more than 50% of school. However, about a third of children, nationally, have between 6% and 15% absence. That is around the persistence absence threshold, and focusing on those children could make a real difference not only to them but to their teachers, their parents and their peers at school.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, when a parent goes into prison, no one is notified if they have a child. The charity Children Heard and Seen, which works with children who have a parent in prison, has shown that, with its support, those children’s attendance has significantly improved. Will the Government put in place a statutory mechanism to identify and support children with a parent in prison, as this would significantly reduce school absenteeism for those families?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am interested by the right reverend Prelate’s suggestion and the suggestion from the charity she refers to. One of the things I hear a lot in schools is the importance of a child feeling that they belong—the relationship they have with staff and their friends. I hope we would not need a statutory duty and that a school would know a child well enough, but if it would help, I am happy to meet with the charity and discuss this further.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am somewhat concerned by the fact that we have now been talking about this fairly consistently for some time. In the north-east, the difference between now and pre-Covid is marked; there are many children with whom schools have now lost contact, but they are also enormously under pressure financially. There are circles to be joined, which schools and local authorities are finding incredibly difficult. There are still too many school exclusions, and the Government have not come down hard enough on places that are still excluding children, because then the perpetrators of bad things know where to find them and know where to pick them up. Will the Government seriously look much more at how they support those areas of disadvantage, where children look as if they are having their lives blighted for the next generation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the essence of the noble Baroness’s question is about funding for schools; I remind her that funding for schools is the highest it has been in real terms per pupil in 2024-25. I am not saying there are not challenges, but there are also things every school can do that do not cost money that would mean more children were there, and we want to support them to be able to do that.
Gender Equality
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the White Paper International Development in a contested world published in November 2023 (CP 975), what steps they are taking to achieve gender equality and the autonomy of all women and girls by 2030.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, our White Paper sets the course for transformative change, including countering efforts to roll back women’s and girls’ rights. It builds on our new International Women and Girls Strategy, which commits to educating girls, empowering women and girls and ending gender-based violence. Evidence shows that these are the areas of greatest need. To deliver our ambition, we will ensure that at least 80% of FCDO’s bilateral ODA spend has a focus on gender equality by 2030.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to work with new partners to counteract the rollback that certainly has happened globally on women’s and children’s rights. Can my noble friend inform the House who the new partners are, and what the proven solutions referred to in the White Paper are? Will they help, for example, women and girls most at risk in Afghanistan, where the Taliban’s inhumane policies mean that women and children there have no right to education, work and freedom of movement?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Throughout the White Paper, a theme of trying to focus our development support on women’s and girls’ projects is justified by the fact that if you are doing the right thing for women and girls, you tend to be doing the right thing across the development piece. She is right that what is happening in Afghanistan is appalling. We have repeatedly condemned the Taliban’s decision to restrict the rights of women and girls, including through UN Security Council and Human Rights Council resolutions and public statements. The UK is committed to ensuring the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, including the continued participation of female aid workers and full access of women and girls to humanitarian services.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, unsustainably high fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa—for example up to eight births per woman in Niger—lead to poverty, desertification, conflict and emigration and are surely unsustainable. I welcome the Government’s reply so far and ask the Minister to continue to ensure that the status of women is high in our priorities and that therefore, over time, this will lead to an easing of the pressures on population, particularly if we insist that women are educated for longer.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and there are some stark statistics here. But the advantage from the global perspective is that every £1 spent on contraceptive services beyond the current level would save £3 on the cost of maternal, newborn and abortion care by reducing unintended pregnancies. Over 800 women or girls die every day due to pregnancy or childbirth complications and at least 200 million women and girls alive today, living in 31 countries, have undergone female genital mutilation. These are stark statistics and underpin the determination to address this area in our bilateral aid.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the reality is that in many areas, the Taliban’s policies are deeply antithetical to women. However, there are also persistent efforts on the part of Afghans themselves, with support from external NGOs, to evade some of the most extreme policies. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the plight of Afghan women and girls, but can he confirm both political and financial support for the cluster education schemes that are now spreading rapidly in Afghanistan?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an area of human courage that is almost impossible to imagine—people are defying the repulsive acts of this regime by providing education in sometimes very dangerous situations. We will look at anything that helps those groups of people. Of course, she understands the difficulties we face: we cannot take action other than multilaterally and through UN resolutions, but if we can find a way of supporting those groups, we certainly will.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, today is the International Day of Education and I agree with the Minister that education is critical to securing equality by the target date of 2030. Does he agree that it is concerning that access to education for girls, and for disabled children in particular, is getting worse? UNICEF has set an international benchmark for donor countries of 15% of their ODA being allocated to education. The UK had been at 5%; it has now fallen to 3%, putting us 22nd among donor countries. Will the Government look again at this to ensure that we are moving up to the benchmark rather than down from it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Many of these areas will be taken into such programmes by our drive to achieve the 80% figure by 2030. A child whose mother can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five —that is an extraordinary statistic—and girls living in conflict area states are almost 2.5 times more likely to be out of primary school and 90% more likely to miss secondary schooling, compared to those who live in more stable countries. We have to make sure that we are taking action now that means that future generations in these countries will have more of a chance. We know that that chance will be improved to a massive degree by education.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the most important ways to ensure that we move to equality internationally is to enable more females to become involved in public life. Will the Minister outline how we in the UK can use soft power, particularly in places such as west Africa, to ensure that more females are coming into public life, particularly peacemaking, because that is really important.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am throwing statistics around today, but it is interesting to see that peace agreements are 35% more likely to last if women are involved in the process. We are doing a great deal in this area. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s programme, sponsored by the FCDO, helped to embed gender analysis throughout all aspects of parliamentary business, support women’s political leadership and end violence against women in politics. We are giving substantial sums to a variety of organisations to ensure that we are supporting women in public life and that their contribution can feed through to a lasting peace in areas where there is instability, providing a more stable community around the world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I return to a subject that I have raised on numerous occasions, including with the Minister: malnutrition and nutrition. He mentioned childbirth complications, and it is clear that girls and women are disproportionately impacted by malnutrition, which affects future generations and impacts on a lot of the SDGs. This Government committed at the last Nutrition for Growth summit to follow the OECD nutrition policy marker so that we can assess the impact of our interventions, particularly on women and girls. When will we hear that that has been implemented, and see how much we are spending on nutrition-sensitive policies?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are determined that there should be transparency throughout the drive towards hitting the target of 80% of our programmes being focused on such areas. That is why we are working with the OECD through its Development Assistance Committee gender equality markers, which rate the bilateral programmes as significant or principal, so that this House or anyone else can identify the value of these programmes and where they are going. The nutrition summit at the end of last year was an enormous success in bringing together a great many countries, organisations, faith-based bodies and civil society to make sure that nutrition issues are written into our development aid programmes.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, it is not only women but men, is it not, who need to be educated on and helped with contraception? When I dealt with these issues a few years ago, I talked to a woman who was under 30, who had nine children. I told her about the importance everyone attaches to contraception, but she said with tears in her eyes that her husband would not let her use it. In many parts of the world, the men need educating on the importance of contraception quite as much as the women.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, and when we talk about the focus of our aid being on trying to increase the amount for women and girls, it is vital that we address that fundamental, often cultural difficulty. I take the point she has made. It is incumbent on us to make sure, working with our partners, that the large amounts of funds that flow to medical bodies such as Gavi are focused on tackling that fundamental part of the human relationship that causes so much difficulty.
Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Limited
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the December 2019 High Court judgment in the case of Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Limited, how many Post Office directors have been charged for breach of statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006, or for conspiracy to pervert justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. I can confirm that no prosecutions have been brought against Post Office directors to date. The Horizon inquiry will establish the facts of what went wrong. It would be wrong to take action before we have all the evidence. Punishing people without looking at all the evidence first is how this scandal started. We should not repeat that error.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that the Government have the sole responsibility for law enforcement. It is no good saying that they are relying on some committee to turn up evidence; they have had 49 months, and in that time little has happened. The Government need to take steps to charge people for violation of the Companies Act, false accounting, lying under oath and conspiracy. After six years, they have not even yet managed to deal with the directors of Carillion. That does not inspire much confidence that they will be able to deal with the Post Office directors. The whole thing is being kicked into the next decade. Rather than hiding behind this inquiry, will the Minister now publish a schedule showing a timetable for the Government’s actions?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I know that there is a lot of frustration in this House and the other place on the timelines. This has been going on for a very long time—almost one generation. However, we have been very clear that we have to separate the two elements of this sad story. The immediate action we are taking is to overturn convictions and give compensation. We then come to accountability. A statutory inquiry is in place, and it will look at all the facts of the matter. At that point, a cascade of actions will be taken by the various bodies concerned. We need to understand the role of directors, the ministerial oversight and the role of Fujitsu and the auditor, EY. All that will be done once the facts are established and the Williams commission has reported.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, that is all very well and good, but is it not obvious that there was a catastrophic failure of governance on the part of the Post Office? This is a government-owned business. It is inconceivable that the board did not read the newspapers and was not aware of this. The Post Office is still operating. Should there not at least be a review of the standards of governance on that board?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The Post Office is publicly owned and set up as a limited company with a sole shareholder, which is the Government. Its governance is as an arm’s-length body with its own board, where the Government have a shareholder representative. It is clear that, over the years, not enough inquiry was made—particularly by non-executive directors—about what was going on. Why was it not asked why, pre-Horizon, prosecutions were between five and 10 per annum and then moved to between 80 and 100 per annum? The question is obvious: what happened here? As a High Court judge said at the 2019 appeal, the faith in the Horizon system was the modern-day
“equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat”.
There has been a massive failure of corporate governance. Once we have the outcome of the inquiry, steps will be taken to make improvements to ensure this will not happen again.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, is it sensible for the Post Office to even continue in business as presently constituted? Is it not now a totally and irredeemably toxic brand? I personally would not trust the Post Office if it told me that today is Wednesday. As well as holding individuals to account, as owners, should the Government not look at a fresh start with a new brand, new leadership and a new business model incorporating the appropriate ethical principles?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. That is exactly what the outcome will be. No prosecutions have been brought since 2015. The board has been reconstituted. There is a new chief executive, a new Postal Minister and new oversight. I take issue with the view that the Post Office brand is irredeemably damaged, because I believe the Post Office brand is based on the 11,500 postmasters and, if anything, their reputation has been enhanced by this. The reputations that have been damaged are those of management, directors and perhaps Ministers.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, did the shareholder member of the board report to government what was happening? The board must have known about the faults of Fujitsu. If that shareholder member did not, has government asked why?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Baroness. This is exactly the issue we need to get to the bottom of. It goes back over a large number of years. We will be going back through files, ministerial appointments and meeting notes to find out exactly what notice was given and when. A ridiculous level of faith was given to the Horizon computer. Fujitsu has acknowledged culpability in this matter. Once the Williams report establishes the facts, we will be able to take necessary action to hold people accountable.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, to date, all the talk has been around what happened to sub-postmasters, but we should remember that Horizon was being used in the Crown offices, the branches that Post Office Ltd managed, so it would have seen the shortcomings of this system through its own management. It is not just a question of having to read the papers, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said; it was happening to its own businesses, and it was covering it up. Is this not further evidence that things should be done now, rather than waiting for some far judgment?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Horizon system has been upgraded—and upgraded again since 2017—and we now have a reasonable audit that it is now working satisfactorily. It will now be further replaced by a cloud system that will run alongside the current system, so I think there is now a feeling that there is efficacy in that system. What the noble Lord refers to is why there was an unshakeable belief in the computer system that went on for so long. We need to understand exactly how that happened, what the role of Fujitsu was in that, whether this was corporate malfeasance or the role of one or two individual bad actors, et cetera. We need to get to the bottom of that, and that is what the Williams inquiry will do.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the reference my noble friend Lord Sikka made to the comparative inaction in respect to the directors of Carillion is but one of a number of scandals of which the Post Office Horizon scandal is the latest. It is another example of how poorly equipped the UK is to deal with corporate abuses.
Let us look across the Atlantic to New York. At the instance of Manhattan’s District Attorney, 17 of the Trump Organization’s many corporations were convicted of criminal offences, including tax fraud. Its chief financial officer pleaded guilty, was fined the maximum in compensation, and went to jail for five months. Now, the Attorney General of New York is asking a court to ban Trump and his three eldest children from ever running a corporate business in New York again, and to fine them $250 million. Can the Minister point me to any similar type of prosecution in this country, or tell me how that could ever happen here? I believe it could not.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Financial Reporting Council is the UK body that deals with accounting failures. It had a considerable review following the failure of Carillion and British Home Stores—the Sir John Kingman review in 2018. A number of Carillion’s previous directors have been disqualified and other cases are still under way. The FRC is now much more effective as an audit regulator—it has had a change of personnel, and the relationship between the FRC and the audit companies has been removed at further arm’s length. There is still a long way to go, but the FRC is now in a position to take more stringent action.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, this is not a new question. Noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have been asking it, and I first raised it in 2019 after the court case. As a sole shareholder, His Majesty’s Government have both a right and a responsibility, so I take the Minister back to those original questions. What are we going to do to hold to account the board members who failed in their Companies House and directors’ duties when the Williams report comes?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The noble Lord is right to say that it is for the members of a company to take action against directors who have breached their statutory duties. In this case, the sole shareholder is the Government. Therefore, once the inquiry has finished, the Government will be in a position to take action specifically against any directors who have failed in their duties.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That, in the event of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with today to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it may assist the House if I set out how the proceedings this afternoon are expected to run. Attentive Members of the House will have noticed that the Bill arrived from the House of Commons very recently. We will, therefore, commence Second Reading after the repeat of the Prime Minister’s Statement, which will follow shortly.
After Second Reading, Members will have a further 30 minutes to table amendments and should contact the Public Bill Office should they wish to do so. Once the time for tabling is over, if there are no amendments, the House will return, and I expect all further stages of the Bill to be taken formally. The House will then proceed to Committee on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. If there are amendments to the Bill, they will be debated in the Committee and arrangements for that will be advertised on the annunciator.
Built Environment Committee
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the Committee of Selection met last week. These 30 Motions give effect to the rotation rule, which is applied each January to secure a regular turnover of Select Committee membership. I wish to thank those Members who are rotating off committees for their service and to welcome those noble Lords who will be joining the hard-working committees of the House.
There are also Motions to appoint the 2024 special inquiry committees and to give effect to the decision of the House to appoint a new Select Committee on financial services regulation. Your Lordships will note that, while the appointments of the new special inquiry committees and the Financial Services Regulation Committee are effective from today, the Motions to appoint new members to the sessional committees will take effect from Wednesday 31 January. This will allow the special inquiry committees to meet as soon as possible, which I hope will prove useful in the event of their work being disrupted by a general election at some point later this year.
I know that a number of the sessional committees still have work to complete; the prospective Motions give them the time to do so with their existing memberships. The difference of approach is for the convenience of all committees. I beg to move.
Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 13 and 14 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the principles set out in this Statement are similar if not identical to those in last week’s Statement. Perhaps that is why noble Lords are leaving—they knew that they would be much the same.
The issues are similar, but they are also absolutely crucial. All efforts must be made to resolve this issue by diplomatic means; where military action must be taken within international law, it should be targeted and proportionate; and there is a need to ensure ongoing international support and co-operation. As we have said, any potential further action should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So, in the light of Houthi attacks continuing in the Red Sea and the intelligence regarding their ongoing military capacity, we back the military action taken on this occasion. We support the ongoing diplomatic engagement as well as the principles of sanctions that were outlined in the Statement.
The Houthi Red Sea attacks are a danger to civilian shipping and a danger to life, and they bring serious economic risks, particularly to the poorest and the most vulnerable. The attacks are unacceptable and unjustified, and there is a clear imperative to protect those waters for international shipping. Again, the professionalism, commitment and bravery of our Armed Forces, both in defending commercial shipping and in the military response, are impressive and commendable, despite the pressures they face. They are so often the best of us, and we are grateful for their service.
In his Statement last week, the Prime Minister seemed optimistic that there were unlikely to be further military strikes because of the success of the operation. I appreciate that, following the attack on Houthi military sites, any assessment of the remaining capability is not immediate, and intelligence about a range of issues has to be taken into account, including any flow of resources to the Houthis. Last week, I asked the Lord Privy Seal for more information on the strategic objectives of the military response and to confirm whether the objective was to degrade or destroy the capability to launch attacks on international shipping. He confirmed that the strategy was
“to ensure and maintain the principle of free and open navigation”.—[Official Report, 15/1/24; col. 272.]
We concur with this.
However, when reporting on the UK-US military action, the Prime Minister used the term “eliminated” regarding the identified targets. Yet the Houthi attacks have continued, so we know that they retain capability. We agree with the strategic aims, as set out by the Government and the noble Lord, but it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand how effective our military strikes have been in achieving these. So can the Lord Privy Seal say something about when he will be able to share any further information about the Houthis’ military capacity following this week’s action?
More broadly, the avoidance of any escalation across the Middle East obviously remains a primary objective, and collaboration with the international coalition is absolutely vital. We share the Government’s rejection of Houthi claims that their action in attacking international shipping can be justified in any way by the conflict in Gaza. There is no benefit to the Palestinian people, who desperately need a sustained and effective ceasefire and urgent humanitarian aid and support. We continue to urge the release of all hostages. The only way forward for a just and lasting peace is a secure Israel alongside a viable and secure Palestinian state. A sustainable ceasefire and humanitarian truce are needed, first, to allow the return of all hostages and the provision of urgent humanitarian relief, but also to enable progress to be made towards a two-state solution. Israel existing alongside Palestine is the only path to a just and lasting peace in the region.
We welcome that the Foreign Secretary is visiting the region today. Given the desperate need for increased humanitarian support and a path towards peace, I hope he will make a Statement to your Lordships’ House on his return, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal can confirm or give further information on that.
Finally, and crucially, the Prime Minister’s Statement set out the continuing humanitarian aid and diplomatic support to the people of Yemen. We agree and would welcome any further information from the Lord Privy Seal about what specific steps are being taken towards these ends. The people of Yemen have suffered civil war for almost 10 years, and any recent efforts to bring stability to the country risk being undermined by opportunistic action from those who would seek to encourage further conflict.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader for answering questions on this Statement. It is useful to have this debate, although, as the noble Baroness said, large parts of the Statement are almost verbatim what the Prime Minister said last week. I will therefore repeat what I said last week: these Benches support the proportionate military action taken against the Houthi aggression and salute the professionalism and courage of the RAF personnel involved in the raids.
The Statement illuminates the complexities of the situation in the Red Sea and the region as a whole. I hope the noble Lord will find space in government time for a proper debate on this issue, as it is very difficult for noble Lords—other than the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I—to engage with such a complicated issue via a single question. I believe that such a debate is happening in the Commons today; I hope we can have one in your Lordships’ House in the very near future.
The Statement says that the UK’s diplomatic efforts are being increased and that the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Iranian counterpart last week. This is extremely welcome, but it leaves us in the dark about the Iranian response to our requests for a cessation of arms supply to the Houthis. Did the Foreign Secretary feel that he had made any progress with Iran? What happens next in our engagement with it?
Next, the Prime Minister says that he plans to
“end the illegal flow of arms”
to the Houthis. How is this to be achieved? How many naval vessels have we deployed to intercept these flows and what other navies are supplying vessels for this purpose?
On sanctions, what estimate has been made of the use by the Houthis of western financial institutions to channel resources for buying weapons? Do we have the ability to freeze or cut off these resources? Which other countries, beyond the UK and the US, would need to do so for any sanctions to be effective? On humanitarian aid to Yemen, I pointed out last week that our current level of aid can feed only a small fraction of the children currently wholly dependent on it for their food. Have we any plans to increase our humanitarian aid, given the scale of the need?
The Prime Minister repeats his assertion of last week that there is no link between our actions of self-defence in the Red Sea and the situation in Israel and Gaza. This may in a limited sense be technically correct, but the Government cannot credibly argue that the Houthi attacks have nothing to do with what is happening in Gaza. It is noteworthy and worrying that this very link is increasing the popularity of the Houthis, not just in the areas they control but across the whole of Yemen. It is therefore only appropriate that the Statement proceeds as if they are linked and sets out the latest UK position on the Gaza conflict as a whole.
It is welcome that the Government are working to establish a new aid route through the port of Ashdod, and for a humanitarian pause, but progress is, to put it politely, very slow. In the meantime, thousands more men, women and children are being indiscriminately killed in Gaza. There have been reports in recent days about a possible new deal on the hostages which would lead to a pause in hostilities, and there appears to be an Arab-led initiative that would see Palestinian control of Gaza without Hamas involvement, alongside concrete moves towards a two-state solution. Predictably, this initiative has been rebuffed by the Israeli Prime Minister, but can the noble Lord give any indication of the UK’s involvement in this move and the extent to which the Foreign Secretary will feel able to put pressure on the Israeli Government to respond more positively towards it?
The situation in the Red Sea and in Gaza remains extremely volatile and dangerous. The Government need to continue to act with both determination and care. It is also important that they do so with the united support of Parliament, so I hope that we will continue to have further regular updates on what is happening in this most troubled region.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Following on from what the noble Lord said, I understand that there is a high degree of concern and interest in these matters in your Lordships’ House and outside it. The Government’s accountability to Parliament takes place partly here and partly in the House of Commons; the House of Commons is debating matters relating to the Red Sea and on Friday we will debate the situation in Ukraine, which is not being debated in the other House. That does not absolve either House from being concerned about both things, but the Government are aware of their responsibility to keep both Houses informed on these matters. We will reflect through the usual channels on what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said.
Of course, I am very grateful for the considered support that has been given from the Benches opposite. When there are matters of conflict and matters in which people’s lives and livelihoods are in peril, whoever and wherever they are, it is right that not only support but action should be considered, commensurate with the problems seen. I assure the House that this is very much the attitude of His Majesty’s Government. We feel fortified in that by comments opposite. I very much welcome—and I know that the Armed Forces would welcome—the comments by the noble Baroness opposite about those members of our Armed Forces involved.
I do not think the Government have ever claimed that this defensive action to defend freedom of navigation—so far as we can and intend to—was going to be resolved by the first strike. In response to this gross violation of international law by the Houthis, which is threatening humanitarian aid, among other things, the Government are seeking to degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out their dangerous and illegal attacks. Our assessment of the first round of attacks was that they were successful and had that impact. Obviously, we are currently assessing—and, as those who have been involved in these matters will know, it takes time to accurately assess. In the present light of knowledge, it is our belief that the actions undertaken by His Majesty’s Armed Forces were successful in their objectives and have hopefully degraded further the Houthi capacity.
Since the first round of strikes, the Houthis have conducted 12 further attacks on international shipping. I am not going to come to this Dispatch Box and say that there will not be more, but I think we are agreed across the House that it is vital to take a realistic, proportionate and legal response to this—the legal case has been set out.
The noble Baroness asked about strategy, quite legitimately. These matters have to be very carefully thought through. I can tell the House that it is not isolated, individual action; there is a coalition of nations involved in the operation in the Red Sea, Operation Prosperity Guardian. As was repeated in the Statement, a number of nations have been involved in this latest action. We will continue to keep our posture under review, alongside our allies. The House will forgive me if I do not speculate on any further specific action, but we will not hesitate to ensure the security and safety of the British people, our interests and our assets. Strikes are one tool we have used in order to do this. They work alongside the deterrence and defence work in Operation Prosperity Guardian and importantly, as noble Lords opposite so rightly said, the diplomatic pressure we are seeking to apply bilaterally and in forums such as the UN.
Again, I do not wish to go into specifics, but there is work going on by the international coalition to seek to prevent weapons smuggling, and weapon parts have certainly been intercepted in these circumstances. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary, who was sitting here last week when we had the Statement, is not able to be here, precisely because he is engaged on a new round of diplomatic activity of which a major part will be to try to encourage further movement towards perhaps opening a new route through Ashdod, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement. He is meeting the Israeli Prime Minister and, I believe, the Foreign Minister. He is also going on to meet other counterparties in the Middle East. I take note of what the noble Baroness said about coming back and I will take that away and consider that with my noble friend and others, in the general light of accountability to Parliament.
On escalation, the Government and their partners, including the United States, believe that we are confronted with, as I said, a grossly illegal breach of international law in the interception of shipping. What is escalatory is the Houthis’ attempt to interrupt lawful occasions on the sea by launching missiles and drones against not only commercial ships but UK and US warships. I think Noble Lords have said that they would expect— as I would—that military action was and is a last resort, and it will continue to be a late resort. We have provided warning after warning, and the Foreign Secretary has twice said to the Iranian Foreign Minister that he hopes very much that Iran will use its restraining influence—if that term is well understood there. The Iranian regime needs to be judged by its actions and by the actions of its dependants, which have not been encouraging so far.
The fundamental point remains that the Houthis have the ability to stop these attacks. If we did not take action, it would weaken international security and damage the global economy, including—as the noble Baroness opposite rightly said—some of the poorest people in the world, who suffer from the interruption of the movement of goods by sea. As I said on the Statement last week, I totally agree with her on that important point.
As far as sanctions are concerned, the Prime Minister said in his Statement that these matters are under consideration. I hope that, if action is taken, information will be given to Parliament.
As I said, the Foreign Secretary has humanitarian matters at the forefront of his mind during his current trip to the region. We have to recognise that the Houthis, by their actions, are making it much more difficult to do the things that we all want to do to get humanitarian aid into Yemen. On the Gaza conflict, which noble Lords alluded to, we are very much focused on the need to make humanitarian aid more substantial, more proximate and more open.
If I have not answered any questions, I apologise to the House. I will look very carefully at Hansard and reflect on the matters of further engagement with the House as we go forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is surely obvious to everyone—at least, I hope it is—that the Iranians are completely behind all these Houthi operations, with their advisers crawling all over northern Yemen and Sanaa. Indeed, some of their advisers may be actively helping to launch the rockets. It is pretty obvious that the motive is that they want to assert, against the opinion of the Saudis and others, that they are the top dogs in the region. I do not think they want escalation—otherwise, they would have given the green light to their Hezbollah friends, which they have not done—but they are very determined to show that they are the leaders in the axis of resistance, looking east.
In light of that, what moves does my noble friend suggest that we can take now to contribute more effectively? That could be either through stronger sanctions than those that came into action last December or by working in closer alliance with other powers in the Middle East. How can we build up and contribute to that kind of pressure and bring even more clearly to the attention of the world stage the fact that this is a murderous regime that is highly unstable internally and well in a position to be surrounded and not cowed to in any way?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly stresses the importance of the role of the Iranian Government and the Iranian regime. One must not forget that, looking at the whole span of human history back to ancient times, Iran has been a vital and greatly civilised place in the world, and it will always be a powerful force in that region, whatever the circumstances. However, it is incumbent on people who have authority, power and strength to use them with wisdom and for specific and constructive purposes. That is not, as my noble friend said, what the Iranian regime is doing at all; it is doing the reverse and is responsible for a lot of the instability in the region, including in relation to the Houthis. We have made it clear to Iran that we view it as bearing responsibility for the actions of these groups. We will continue to discuss with allies what the appropriate further actions on Iran may be.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Leader of the House is clearly right when he says that it is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of the kind of action that has taken place, although the Statement says that the first assessment of the wave of strikes that took place provides
“evidence that they were successful in degrading the Houthis’ military capability”.
Surely one other, perhaps more precise, measure of the effectiveness of any strikes would be the effect on traffic in the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. Does the Leader of the House have any precise information about the effectiveness so far on the levels of shipping in that area?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the efforts that we are making with Prosperity Guardian are to seek to secure, so far as we may, the most secure and most effective situation for the movement of traffic by sea. The choice of where to travel in such circumstances is a matter for those who are operating vessels. It is the case that some vessels are diverting and some other vessels are not diverting. The noble Lord is quite right to say that these matters need to be kept under careful examination. We are doing that, and our allies are doing that. The end result we wish to see is that all people operating commercial shipping feel able to continue using these waters, rather than feeling that they have to divert around the Cape.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in his Statements this week and last week, the Prime Minister suggested that it is wrong to accept that there is any relationship between what is happening in the Red Sea and what is happening in Israel/Gaza, and yet we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that one of the key links between those two areas is Iran. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the role of Iran in supporting Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah and of what response the United Kingdom can make? I may be a lone voice, but however persuasive the Foreign Secretary may be, conversations between him and the Government of Iran may not be sufficient to persuade the Government of Iran to take the decisions that we all need to bring about greater security in that region.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is a challenge. In the international world, people in different places make their calculations on different bases. The fundamental point that I have been trying to relay, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been trying to relay, is that there is an issue which this country for centuries has been concerned about, which is ensuring freedom of navigation and freedom of movement and trade on the seas. That stands as an integral, vital, independent issue. Noble Lords have referred to the complex and dangerous tapestry of activity around the region and the role of Iran. I can only repeat, without going into specifics, that we have taken action against the Iranian proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. We are on due guard to make sure that we protect our interests in the region as a whole. The British Government do not favour war; it is not the first resort of the British Government to resort to military action, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are watching very carefully the role of the Iranian Government and that they know they are being watched.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Leader of the House just said, because we must never enter lethal conflict lightly; we have to consider it very well not just to avoid deaths of our own service personnel but for the sake of civilians and others elsewhere. Regarding Iran, does my noble friend consider that in fact, the Iranians’ wish—the whole purpose of this—is to test the resolve of the West by attacking shipping to see whether we are actually willing to stand up? Regarding Gaza, does my noble friend agree that, if Hamas was to lay down its weapons and release the hostages and the criminals responsible for the attacks of 7 October were to flee to the Gulf and live in luxury hotels with their friends, there would be an immediate ceasefire, the possibility of a new Government in Israel and a possibility, however remote, of a decent settlement which allowed both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace?
Lord True (Con)
I fully agree with my noble friend. The Houthis should cease their action; Hamas should never have undertaken the action it did. We are putting the Iranians under pressure, and I remind the House that we have already sanctioned 400 Iranian individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will continue to watch their role in weapons proliferation, regional conflict and human rights violations—all the things they are up to in the region.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the RAF operations have been widely publicised, and they have come from Cyprus. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that any necessary defence of our facilities in Cyprus is in hand and will continue to be in hand as long as we operate against the Houthis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right that the strikes were launched in that way by, in this case, four Royal Air Force Typhoons, supported by a pair of Voyager tankers. I repeat what I said: the Ministry of Defence has very much in mind the safeguarding of our assets and British nationals and British forces right across the region, and that is under constant review.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the large-scale attack we made first of all was never going to stop the Houthis making their attacks, as the Minister said; it was going to degrade only. Indeed, post then, the Americans have made a number of strikes in retaliation when weapons have been fired at them. The attack we are talking about now will hopefully degrade the capabilities of the Houthis to attack innocent shipping even more. I fear that the shipping companies seem to be showing a huge reluctance to think about getting back in the Red Sea, even though the Houthis have been degraded, and I can understand that. Therefore, this is likely to be quite a long, ongoing operation. It is quite right that we are enacting the rules of self-defence, and it is very good if you can do that immediately. In other words, when someone fires something from the shore at you, you hit where they fired at you from. That is why the Americans have been making these responses. One of our problems is that our aircraft are attacking from Cyprus, as the noble and gallant Lord said, several thousand miles away from this operation. Is the Minister surprised that we have not put an aircraft carrier there, because one could then respond immediately to these things and put that much more pressure on their ability to fire weapons at us? Having said all that, it is absolutely right what we are doing: freedom of navigation is so crucial to our nation.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much that the noble Lord said. We are working in a coalition here. The Prosperity Guardian operation involves 21 nations plus ourselves. The strikes, the response, the action that was taken which we are talking to, took place with the support of Bahrain, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia. This is an international response to unlawful action at sea. We always review deployment of our assets, but, for the moment, the British Government believe that the forces that the coalition has available are sufficient to deal with the threat that is currently presented.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support the Minister and what the Government are doing 100% because this action had to be taken. However, to reinforce the point, it is vital that every effort is made to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, because unfortunately the Houthi movement appears to be gaining credibility and support in the Arab world as a result of what has happened. The action must continue but can the Minister reassure me on that point?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in these strikes we have been very careful to take those matters into consideration. That the strikes took place at night also minimised the risk of civilian activity in these areas.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the House understands why the military action has taken place and the Prime Minister reported that it has had some degrading effect on the Houthi attacks. However, it is the nature of this situation that it is unlikely to be immediately successful and that this could escalate.
I have two brief questions for the Leader of the House. First, at what stage might the Government decide that it would be beneficial to consult Parliament, with debates and votes on what should occur in the future? Secondly, when it comes to diplomacy, a great deal of the sea traffic that is being adversely affected by the current situation comes from the Far East, especially China, and surely in diplomatic terms there is a case—perhaps it is happening—for China to be brought into play to exercise and bring to bear some pressure on, for example, Iran. Are there moves to this effect going on?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is an enormous weight of diplomatic activity going on. It is important to note that China backed the UN resolution which called for this activity to stop and to enable lawful traffic on the seas to go ahead. As far as the accountability of Parliament is concerned, I have spoken about it. We also have a Question on the matter from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, tomorrow, which may provide a further opportunity.
The Government are conscious of their duty and of their duty to protect servicepeople who may be sent into hazardous operations. There is also a balance there as to the time and nature of information that can be disclosed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the UK is a penholder within the United Nations. In addition, the UK signed a development partnership agreement with the internationally recognised Government of Yemen last summer. Can the Leader of the House outline whether that agreement is still in place? Also, in the Statement he said that humanitarian assistance was central to this issue. I agree with him, but he will know that the UK has reduced humanitarian assistance for Yemen by up to 80% over the last three years. If the partnership agreement with the internationally recognised Government is still in place, what plans are there to restore the humanitarian assistance to Yemen that we have reduced?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, these arrangements are still in place. My noble friend Lord Ahmad on the Front Bench here was whispering in my ear that he was speaking to the Foreign Minister of Yemen only last week, so we count this to be extremely important and ongoing.
It is vital that we continue, if we can, to get support into Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. As noble Lords will know, the Houthis have said that UK and US staff working for the UN in Yemen should be ready to leave their controlled areas of Yemen in 30 days. Those kinds of statements, plus these unlawful attacks on the shipping that imperil the bringing in of aid by sea, suggest that the noble Lord should use considerable influence, as I know he does, to ensure that these malefactors cease making it more difficult to get humanitarian aid to their own people.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think that Denmark and Germany have not yet supported the action and that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are sending their ships around the whole of the continent of Africa. What are the security implications for this country? I entirely support the government action against the Houthis but notice that the Foreign Office advice is that a terrorist attack in Denmark may be likely. I presume that our alert here must be at an increased level as well.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish a comment on the postures or action taken by other friendly nations. I again remind my noble friend that there is, not just through Operation Prosperity Guardian but through the United Nations, a very strong, broad coalition of nations, which are using diplomacy and all their efforts to try to bring this situation to an end. It is true that the economic impact of attacks could be severe if there were ongoing disruption and ships continued to divert around. There would be delays and additional fuel, insurance and shipping costs. But these are commercial decisions for people making shipments as to the course that they take. Our effort is to try to make the Red Sea a safe place for them to send their ships and the brave merchant seamen who trek the waters of the world every day.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult to understand what advantage there is to be gained by the Houthis in sending their missiles into the Red Sea. The idea that it might be in support of their friends in Hamas does not seem to hold too much water. It is much more clearly the result of Iran’s sponsorship. Influencing Iran’s behaviour is extremely difficult, as we have heard from many noble Lords. One way is by encouraging in some way, perhaps surreptitiously, the poor people of Iran, who are rising up and suffering under the regime of the ayatollahs. What efforts have been made to utilise that approach?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is a little beyond the scope of the question, and I would not like to comment or speculate on anything in that region. What I will do is agree profoundly with the noble Lord that this is a regime that governs in the name of God but acts in a way that seems to be in defiance of the great moral principles of the ages. Ultimately, it will be judged by its own people and by history.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I move to the Bill, this is the first opportunity I have had at the Dispatch Box to welcome my noble friend Lord Empey back to his place and to pass on formally my commiserations on the loss that he suffered at the end of last year. I also wish the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, a speedy recovery from the bout of Covid from which she is currently suffering.
As many in this House will be aware, I am an unashamed and unapologetic unionist who believes that the best future for Northern Ireland lies within a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. Over my 35 years of involvement in the affairs of Northern Ireland, defending, protecting and strengthening the union has been at the forefront of everything I have sought to do, while always recognising the legitimate interests and aspirations of nationalism. That, of course, will never change. It was for these reasons—to raise up a new Northern Ireland that works for the whole community and to strengthen the union in so doing—that I supported the agreement reached on 10 April 1998. That agreement has been the bedrock of all the progress we have seen over the past 26 years. The commitment of His Majesty’s Government to the agreement, including devolution and power sharing, remains unwavering.
The focus of this Government has always been on facilitating the return of the devolved institutions and upholding the Belfast agreement in all its parts. We want to see locally elected representatives taking local decisions, accountable through the Assembly to the people they serve. That is what this short Bill is intended to help achieve.
This House is well known for, and rightly prides itself on, its ability to scrutinise line by line detailed, complex and lengthy legislation. This Bill does not fit into any of those categories: it has a sole purpose and one main clause. The legislation will retrospectively extend the Executive formation period set out in the 2022 Act from 18 January to 8 February this year. This short extension will create the legal means to enable the Northern Ireland Assembly to sit and re-establish the Executive, which, as the law stands, expired on 18 January.
Importantly, a restored Executive will have access to the significant financial package announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shortly before Christmas, worth around £3.3 billion, to secure and transform Northern Ireland’s public services. Ministers will be empowered immediately to begin working to address the needs of local people and realise Northern Ireland’s potential. Our firm desire is that this Bill will help to deliver that outcome and support the return of devolved government to the people of Northern Ireland, which, in my view, is the soundest and surest foundation for the future of the union.
On that note, I hope that, for the very last time, I commend a Bill of this nature to the House.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the Minister. It must be one of his shorter speeches in a Second Reading debate, but it beats the length of the speech of his Secretary of State in the other place, which was even shorter.
The Bill is inevitable, but putting the election back by two weeks is clearly designed to put pressure on unionists. It should include powers to get the money paid out to the public sector workers which the Government have announced they have but are withholding, for political reasons, from workers who are entitled to it.
The Minister said that he hopes this is the last time he has to do this. But as he knows, we are in this position because the current talks and process have to resolve the issue of the Irish Sea border, which is the consequence of the constitutional outrage, as it was described by one commentator this week, of the sovereignty- denying Northern Ireland protocol—or Windsor Framework, as it has been renamed—and the denial of equal citizenship to the people of Northern Ireland.
One way of looking at this is that the legislation is inevitable, since the deadline for formation of the Executive has passed. However, the interesting aspect is that the election deadline is being put back by only two weeks, so we are going through the whole process of rushing emergency primary legislation through the other place and this House in one day, to get Royal Assent, in order to push a deadline back by two weeks. One has to question what is really going on.
We want devolution in Northern Ireland. The DUP has been in a difficult position on previous occasions and took the courageous decision, when there was much opposition in the unionist community, to move ahead and restore Stormont back in 2008. We took decisions then that many people did not agree with, because we are committed to devolution and are prepared to try to move Northern Ireland forward, even though the people in power along with ourselves and other parties continue to eulogise, promote and defend terrorism. That is very difficult for many of us who were personally on the receiving end of assassination attempts; but many of the people we represented for many years had their lives destroyed through the activities of the IRA, and other terrorists from the loyalist side.
The fact is that we now have only Sinn Féin going about eulogising these people, so this is a difficult position that people find themselves in as democrats, never mind as unionists. Nevertheless, we have been committed to devolution. Some of the strongest and most sustained periods of devolution were when the DUP had the First Minister’s position. Nobody need come to us and say that we do not want devolution, but it has to be on a sustainable basis—one to which unionists as well as nationalists can give assent. It has to be on the basis of fulfilment of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, and it has to restore equal citizenship for the people of Northern Ireland. Those are not major or surprising demands; those are basic demands—rights that we are entitled to.
On the issue of what the Government should be doing, it is really an abdication. I know that the Minister said he is a committed unionist. It really is the responsibility of His Majesty’s Government to move ahead on those areas for which they have responsibility. They are the sovereign power and under the Belfast agreement, as amended, they ultimately have responsibility for Northern Ireland’s internal government. To see a political manoeuvre being perpetrated on those public sector workers, whereby money that has been announced is being withheld for political reasons, is really unconscionable.
There is a whole list of other areas of which one could say the same. Fifty pay awards, I think—it is certainly many dozens—have been made in Northern Ireland in the period of the Assembly’s suspension. Yet when it comes to this major issue, which was the subject of strikes across Northern Ireland last week, the Government are deliberately withholding the money. They need to step up and move that issue forward.
The Minister thinks that two weeks will be enough to get out of the present position. I hope that is the case and trust that, in the next few weeks, we will get proposals that, as the leader of our party in the other place, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, made clear, meet the seven tests and deliver on what we have been discussing with the Government for some considerable period.
There are constitutional, democratic problems, and we saw a number of examples just last week. On the Rwanda Bill, the supremacy of the protocol means that the EU’s charter of fundamental rights continues, including article 18 on the right of asylum. The issue of addressing immigration will not apply in the same way to Northern Ireland, and we already have major issues as far as that is concerned. There was animal welfare legislation last week that could not apply to Northern Ireland because of the protocol. Whatever your views, yea or nay, on the live export of animals, it could not apply there because of the protocol. On the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill, we had the bizarre situation whereby the legislation extended to Northern Ireland but according to the Explanatory Notes, the substantive parts of it did not apply because of the protocol.
Our Select Committee looking at the Windsor Framework protocol is taking evidence on veterinary medicines. We heard evidence last week from farmers and the agri-food industry of serious concerns about the fact that we are approaching a deadline whereby essential veterinary medicines will not be able to be supplied to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, with possible knock-on effects for public health. The Government say they are working on it, but we have not seen anything come forward. There were other examples in the newspapers back home—and that was in only one week. I say to the Government: that is why it is important that these issues are dealt with in a fundamental and complete way, because when any unionist decides to accept or settle for any deal on these issues, they will take ownership of them.
That is why it is important for the people who are negotiating, for all of us within our party and for other unionists to be absolutely certain that these issues are properly addressed, now and in the future, so that we are comfortable with how Northern Ireland will be treated with regard to these constitutional, democratic and economic issues. We will not be subject any more to this unacceptable, anti-democratic and unconstitutional difference. Of course, within the Northern Ireland Assembly, when devolution is open, it is up to the Assembly to decide for itself, under its devolved powers, what it wishes to do compared with England, Scotland and Wales.
But in Northern Ireland we are the recipient, across 300 areas of law governing our economy, of laws made by a foreign polity in its interests, to which we have no input. We have no power to develop or amend and, under the Stormont brake proposal, only the power to reject—and even then, not necessarily effectively and subject to retaliation from the EU.
That is no way to govern part of the United Kingdom; it is not the basis on which the Assembly was set up. It is not equal citizenship. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take the message back to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Office that these are the issues that are causing the problem. I share his desire that this is the last time that he has to bring such legislation, but it is really dependent on him and his Government as to whether that is the case.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. I watched very briefly the beginning of the debate in the other place, and I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on the opening contribution from his right honourable friend in the other place. Indeed, I thought the shadow Secretary of State stole the show with at least some attempt to put some kind of gloss on what was before us in a very threadbare Bill.
I am entirely unconvinced as to the rationale for even having this Bill at this point, because I cannot imagine that there is any case at this stage, a few days after the last deadline ran out, for anybody to stand over a judicial review against the Secretary of State for not calling an Assembly election. For the sake of a few days, I do not think that that would survive. I hope that it is not a piece of political theatre that we are witnessing here.
Before dealing with the substance, I will follow on on the point about public sector pay. If ever there was any ambiguity over whether there was cross-party support for the Secretary of State’s actions in withholding this money, that was set aside in the Commons by the shadow Secretary of State earlier today. He made it very clear where he stood, saying that this tactic—because that is what it is—was fundamentally flawed and morally and politically wrong, and will not sustain itself even if we are forced through the fortnight this Bill provides for. I note the strikes that have occurred and the stresses that the withdrawal of significant parts of public services are putting on people. Let us imagine the parents of, say, children with severe disabilities, who are depending on a bus to arrive to take them to a day centre. Those parents do not know whether it will be coming this day or not. Do they have to make alternative arrangements? Do they have to get a relative to come in? Do they have to stay off work?
What are we putting these people through this for? We know the money is there; the Government are boasting about it. So let us sort that out; I think it would almost improve the atmosphere if it were done that way, because all we are doing is adding more stress to people who are already highly stressed. I hope that my noble friend can take that back to his right honourable friend in the other place, making it absolutely clear that there is no cross-party support for this policy. It is entirely counterproductive.
I also have to say that I feel that, when these one-day wonders come through—as they do from time to time on Northern Ireland affairs—one almost feels that this Parliament is like a legislative takeaway. You send out for a piece of legislation and ram it through both Houses in one day. People are fighting for pieces of legislation for a lifetime and yet we can stuff them through in one day. It is a terrible way to do business. I know that is not my noble friend’s choice, but it is almost always Northern Ireland stuff that is treated in this way.
The Secretary of State tells us that great progress is being made on restoring devolution. I hope that is true. In his opening remarks my noble friend talked about the Government’s commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. I point out to him that that was an all-party agreement, yet talks have been going on for two years in secrecy and none of the rest of the parties has been engaged except in a peripheral way. We all have talks with government and always have done, but this has gone on far too long. In fact, the best solutions always come when all the participants are at the table and accept the outcomes of the negotiations—otherwise we would have had no agreement. Trying to do it in a hole-in-the-corner way, with nods and winks here and nods and winks there, does not work. It does not stick. What happens if the DUP and the Government agree and come together? What about the rest of us? Maybe some of us will not agree with it when we see it: what happens then? It is a bad way to do business. Yes, people have to have their concerns addressed—I totally support that—but I think we have taken it far too far.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments that went on in this Chamber for so long over the departure from the European Union. I am no Europhile fan of the European Union. I am against the principle of a federal state: I never agreed with that. But the sort of problems that have arisen over our departure from the European Union were foreseeable, and they were foreseen in this House time and time again. A party delegation went to meet Prime Minister Cameron in February 2016 and, after that meeting, it was perfectly clear that there was no adequate plan to deal with our departure from the European Union should the people so wish.
We pointed out that a referendum has two outcomes and asked what the plans were if the people decided to leave. The answer we got was entirely unsatisfactory. Consequently, we recommended that people did not support leaving at that point under those terms and conditions. I would have to say that things are actually worse than I expected and that what we are dealing with now is the latest version of an attempt to bridge the virtually unbridgeable—which, of course, is the Windsor Framework, which is heralded as one of the Prime Minister’s most significant achievements since he has been in office.
I am quite sure that my noble friend will want to share with the rest of us what changes have been made to this agreement since February last year, and to show us the pages and the paragraphs where improvements have been made and some of the constitutional absurdities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, dealt with. How are the seven tests that my noble friend behind me alluded to earlier today getting on? Is it going to be the case that this framework mark 2 is going to come up and we will have solutions? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what negotiations have taken place with the European Union, whether they have been successful and what mechanisms are going to be adopted and changes made to make these arrangements more palatable and more constitutionally correct—because, at the end of the day, that is what a two-year boycott has been about.
I listen to people talk about the Act of Union. We hear that some keyboard warriors have suddenly discovered that they have great skills in this area. It is a pity they were not exercising those skills when we had to deal with the Provisional IRA’s campaign against Northern Ireland over the years. Anyway, they have suddenly discovered the word “subjugation”, and I know my noble friend thinks of little else. However, can he explain to me why, if the Act of Union is the be-all and end-all and such a great thing—given that it was introduced in 1801 and it covered all of Ireland and Great Britain—there is an Irish Republic?
The truth is that this Parliament can legislate to say that apples are oranges. Important though it is, the Act of Union with Scotland would have been worthless if one more person had voted to leave than to stay. The same principle applies here. The best way to maintain the union is to maximise the amount of support on the ground so that more people want to stay in it than want to leave, and no Act of Parliament can substitute for that. In my view, we are fighting a sham fight while the people of Northern Ireland are suffering. We have heard about all the problems over health, education and industrial relations, which used to be the best in the UK. Now we are in a parlous situation.
Whatever comes out of this measure over the next couple of weeks, there at least has to be honesty, not a spin that something is something that it is not. People are sick of that. They want to know. If there are changes of substance, let us see what they are. If there are no changes of substance, people can say, “Look, we tried our best. It hasn’t worked out. We can’t go on like this. We’ve got to try another way”. Fair enough; we do not always get what we want, and not everything is successful the first time round. But the one thing I do not think people will tolerate is being led up the garden path and told something that is fundamentally untrue, so we will be watching very closely.
Lastly, I heard Sir Jeffrey in the other place saying that threats have been made against him. I totally deplore that. I can well understand it, because I know the threats that were made 25 years ago against our colleague Lord Trimble. He was tormented for years, I suspect by many of the same people who are tormenting Jeffrey today. The question is: what did they ever achieve? What did they ever get us? More misery, more deaths and destruction, and no progress. If anything is to come out of this, it is that that is not the way to go forward.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank noble Lords who have already spoken. I shall kick off where the noble Lord, Lord Empey, finished. I think all of us from Northern Ireland involved in public life are shocked to hear Sir Jeffrey refer in the other place to threats. It appears that there is nothing new under the sun. These people who hide in the shadows and use the internet, in the way that we have talked about on so many occasions, seek to do damage and to push things in a particular way. I send my solidarity to Sir Jeffrey and I am sure the whole House will want to echo that in respect of the threats that he has received.
The Minister has made remarks about the union and his strong support for it. I very much welcome those remarks at the opening of this short debate on this very short Bill.
I will make three points. First, these negotiations between the Government and the DUP are essentially about the union and its operation. The union brought me into politics at a very young age, as the IRA tried to terrorise us out of the union in the late 1980s. Of course, the union is about more than trade and transactions. It is about cultural, political and social issues. It is about our shared institutions, security, safety, defence, and our place in the world; it all depends on the union. Economics and internal trade have been the focus of discussions around the protocol and Windsor Framework. It is so important that the internal market of the United Kingdom is restored and that the promise—I will use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—of the Act of Union is fulfilled in so far that internal trade is unencumbered.
During the three years that devolution was blocked by Sinn Féin—between 2017 and 2020—civil servants in Belfast and Dublin constructed arguments for what they called the all-Ireland economy. They did this by retrofitting areas of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—perfectly normal, practical co-operation between two jurisdictions. They used that as a way of constructing an all-Ireland economy. Very clearly, there was not an all-Ireland economy before they constructed it and there is not one now. A cursory look at the Northern Ireland economy shows the integrated nature of the supply chains between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
This assertion, by civil servants—who by their very nature were unaccountable because devolution was blocked at that time—caused untold difficulties in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and European Union, because the assertion was just accepted as fact and was not challenged. I am pleased that the United Kingdom Government moved, after the May years, to grasp that fallacy and assert the primacy of the United Kingdom economy. That is really important. I hope that the negotiations, when they conclude, will underline the importance of the United Kingdom internal market and reject the notion—because a notion is what it was and is—that there is an all-Ireland economy, built up by civil servants. Many of them, Members of the House will be interested to know, are now political commentators on everything that goes on in Northern Ireland.
My second point relates to finance. It is so important that the finances of Northern Ireland are put on a secure footing. I welcome the funding package that has been referred to. Given that a lot of the money in that package—I think it is £538 million—is recurring expenditure, which will happen year on year and is not a one-off, can the Minister confirm the position regarding that funding? Is it an ongoing commitment? Will it be baselined into the Northern Ireland block grant or is it a one-off amount of money that has been made available? I think the Minister will agree that it is important to have stability in finances as well as in politics, because the two are often inextricably linked.
The third and final point is that we have heard a lot from Members of this House, and from outside, about reform of the Belfast agreement. There was very little talk of reform of what Mark Durkan, the former deputy leader of the SDLP, used to refer to as the “ugly scaffolding” when it was working to the advantage of others in Northern Ireland. Now it is not, the calls are very loud. Reform will come when there is an all-party and all-community consensus in Northern Ireland for it. Imposed changes will not work. It appears that there are many who want to use the parts of the Belfast agreement they agree with but change the parts they do not agree with.
I was no fan of the Belfast agreement, especially in relation to the release of terrorist prisoners and the lack of linkage to the decommissioning of paramilitary weaponry, but the Belfast agreement was endorsed fully by a referendum of people in Northern Ireland and people in the Republic of Ireland. The basis of that agreement is consensus politics between the communities—not imposition. Noble Lords should remember that when speaking about issues in Northern Ireland.
I say to the Minister that I wish the Government and the parties well as they seek to find a sustainable, workable and—God willing—durable solution to the problems of the protocol and the Windsor Framework.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, before I come to what I want to say today, I want to remind the House that on Saturday evening I attended a memorial service at a local border school to remember its former headmaster. He was abducted by the IRA while across the border having a meal with his wife and was found the next day with a bullet through his head. The memorial also remembered three former pupils of that small border college in Aughnacloy on the Monaghan border.
There were many people there that evening who had served in the security forces, and I looked across their faces and wondered whether I would have been as brave as those men during the Troubles, when more than 3,000 people lost their lives. Some 60% of those deaths are attributable to the Provisional IRA, 30% attributable to loyalists and 10% to the security forces—but, as I have said in this House before, when you drill down into that last figure, it is something like 1%, because the 10% includes incidents where the security forces intercepted terrorists en route to shoot or blow up something.
That was a very solemn occasion and it vividly reminded me of what went on in Northern Ireland during those years. We hope that is behind us. I have three colleagues sitting on these Benches today who have the marks of those years on their bodies. The IRA tried to murder them. Today, those same people are feted as great, courageous people. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Dodds mentioned that we took risks beyond what we should have ever been asked to take to bring us to the situation we have today.
Did we need to be here today discussing this Bill? If only government had listened to us when we said the protocol would not work. But who did they listen to? They listened to the rigorous implementers saying, “Get it done—implement it rigorously and vigorously”, until government then had to acknowledge. We would not be here today had government listened to us. For two years, we pleaded with the Government: “This is not going to do the job. This will not work”. It was only when Sir Jeffrey Donaldson removed the First Minister, and then removed his Ministers, that government started to sit up, listen and take note. I hope and pray that we never have to get to a situation again where government will just turn their heads, look the other way and listen to only one side of the debate.
I commend the three speakers who have spoken before me. They have hit all the right notes and all the issues. But, in looking at the Bill, which changes the date by which the Assembly election must be called, we must be real about why we are here. We are here for one reason and one reason only: the Northern Ireland protocol—now renamed the Windsor Framework; I do not know whether it will eventually come out like that —creates an injustice that is very simple. In 300 areas of law, it subjects the people of Northern Ireland to laws by a foreign parliament.
It thus effects the partial disfranchisement of 1.9 million people. Does anyone in that House care that that is happening? We in Northern Ireland certainly do. We need to see that fixed. Until the end of 2020, it did not matter what part of the United Kingdom you resided in; we could all stand for election to make all the laws to which we were subject. From 1 January 2021, that changed. Today, when UK citizens in England, Wales and Scotland can stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject, people living in Northern Ireland are afforded the right to stand for election to make only some of the laws to which we are subject. To date, around 700 laws have been imposed on us; that figure will continue to increase as the years go by.
I am not going to debate the Stormont brake, as it has been mentioned here before, but what does it do? It cements this injustice rather than removing it. In the first place, it applies to only some areas of imposed law, and so falls at the first hurdle. In the second instance, even if it can be made to work, which many doubt, it does not restore to the people of Northern Ireland the right to stand for election to make all the laws to which we are subject. It just gives us the demeaning second-class—perhaps third-class—right to stand for election to try to stop laws that have already been made for us by a foreign parliament applying to us. As such, it is a far more humiliating provision than Poynings’ law—noble Lords can look up what that was; I did but I will not go into it—which is now regarded as a matter of shame by many people in GB. At least under Poynings’ law, the Irish Privy Council had the power to initiate and define legislation in the first instance.
In this context, we must be clear that it would not make any difference whether or not the Government removed every check on the green lane; let us remember that that pertains only to consumer goods that have a confirmed address in Northern Ireland. The fundamental injustice that is the protocol would remain. If we are not to find ourselves back here again in a short while with a similar Bill, the Government need to take responsibility for their own citizens and explain to the European Union that our votes are not tradeable—we are not some sort of a commodity—and that the integrity of our political system depends on treating all citizens as ends in ourselves rather than as a means to an end.
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement—whatever term you wish to place on it—ended a 60-year period during which the Republic of Ireland refused to recognise the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Its constitution claimed the north, as it would call it; however, as a result of the Belfast agreement, the Republic recognised the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom for the first time and ceased to claim “the north”, in return for the provision of a border poll in the event that polling suggested majority support for the break-up of the UK and Northern Ireland joining the Irish Republic. The agreement also contains cross-border provisions that then became necessary to facilitate a good working relationship in the context of recognising and respecting the reality of the newly recognised border. I emphasise that at no point does the Good Friday agreement say that there can be no customs border.
There is much more that I could say, but, before I sit down, I want to say this. A guarantee was given that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position would not change without a referendum and the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I stand in your Lordships’ House today and contend that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position has changed, but we have had no opportunity to say anything. So do I now conclude that that guarantee in the Belfast agreement—that there will be a constitutional referendum—has now been pushed aside and is no longer relevant? I am fearful, and I would like the Government, the Opposition and everyone else from any party that sits in this House to declare where they are. Our constitutional position has been changed and we have had no say whatever. I will stop there.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the chairman of the Democratic Unionist Party, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and to listen to his words of real experience. I hope that some of that gets back to the Secretary of State.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I listened to a lot of the debate in the House of Commons earlier, and I was pretty horrified by the Secretary of State’s short and contemptuous speech of less than two minutes to introduce the Bill. Like others, I thought the shadow Secretary of State tried very hard to deal with some of the issues. It was as if he genuinely understood the issue and the problem. I did not necessarily agree with his final analysis, but at least he made an attempt. The Secretary of State has continued to show contempt for unionists, unionism and the very important issue of why we are here.
Let us face it; it is not about money. The DUP was perhaps rather short-sighted in getting the money aspect and the constitutional issue linked. But I agree with all those noble Lords who said that it is disgraceful that the Secretary of State, knowing that the money is there to solve and to end the public sector workers’ strike, has refused to do that and simply said no. He probably thought, “Great—all the trade unions will now blame the DUP”. Of course, from the headlines—even yesterday in one of the Northern Ireland papers—we have seen the trade unions fairly and squarely blaming the Secretary of State. So that has backfired very much on him.
The contempt shown today has been going on for some time. All the things it was said that the Windsor Framework and the protocol were going to solve have proven to be nothing: there has been no real change. Northern Ireland is in the UK customs union, they said—but then of course we have to apply the EU customs code. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned something that happened last week. It was very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, moving the amendment, which clearly showed that, once again, a Bill that we were saying extended to Northern Ireland—most people would think, “Great, Northern Ireland is part of it”—in fact does not apply to Northern Ireland. That is quite disgraceful.
Again, there is an attempt to hide things with words and flannel, almost as if the Secretary of State feels that Northern Ireland people are not clever enough to understand and see through some of these words—for example, saying the framework removed the Irish Sea border. What nonsense. That contempt now continues with the fact that there is no transparency whatever in what is going on. Even very active members of the Democratic Unionist Party probably do not know what is in this so-called deal.
I expect noble Lords will be very relieved to hear that the Public Bill Office ruled out my two amendments because this is a very narrow Bill—probably designed very carefully to make sure that we could not extend the discussion too much. However, when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland, we all find ways of hammering home some of the issues and points that so many noble Lords have not engaged with. I was trying to table an absolutely crucial amendment that was a real indictment of how the Government behaved right at the beginning of all this when they changed, in a statutory instrument, the mechanism at the end of this year for the Northern Ireland Assembly to approve or disapprove of the protocol from cross-community consent to a straightforward majority. Nothing else gets through via a majority, but suddenly, somehow, the Government felt that it was fine to change that from cross-community consent.
I was also trying to move that we should absolutely ensure that, when there is something in writing—I do not even know whether there is anything in writing being discussed—it should be published within a very short period of time. If there is any draft legislation, we need it as early as possible. We need clear answers from the Government on how long they will continue with these kinds of discussions. We keep hearing, “There’s progress and we just need a little bit more”. I have no idea what that “little bit more” is and neither do the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—but we should know more about what is happening and what the Government are offering. Deep down, we all know that they have not been negotiating with the European Union. The EU has not been involved and, therefore, it is very unlikely that anything in the Windsor Framework will change sufficiently to satisfy the DUP’s seven tests.
So let us not try to put the blame on the DUP or say that it created the problem that we are dealing with today. This problem was created squarely by a United Kingdom Conservative and Unionist Government who decided that Northern Ireland was expendable when it came to leaving the European Union. As I say every time, we had the same ballot paper and the same discussions; it was a United Kingdom vote, but Northern Ireland has not got Brexit.
Forget talking about the Act of Union—the question for me is whether, at the end of all this, Northern Ireland will still be under EU law for substantial parts of its trade agreements. Everything coming to this House and the other place now needs additional bits about not applying to Northern Ireland. The one that is quite disgraceful, which we will discuss in a few weeks’ time, is the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. Hardly any live animal exports go from Great Britain to the European Union, while lots of live animal exports go from Northern Ireland and the Republic to the European Union. Yet the one area being left out is Northern Ireland, because the EU does not have the same law and we quite rightly want to keep the flow between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government have now used the excuse that the WTO will not allow it. Why have they not tried even to challenge it? That is perhaps an issue for another day.
I want to say one more thing about how the Government have handled and are handling this issue. Without doubt, a former Secretary of State has been ringing round senior DUP people, senior unionists and others, making suggestions about how they might be rewarded or that they should definitely begin to think about giving in.
I think that is absolutely shocking from any ex-Secretary of State, who has probably been brought in by the current Secretary of State because they feel that he knows quite a lot about what is going on in Northern Ireland. Those kinds of threats in a nice way will not work with people. We have seen some of the things that have been done in the past by Secretaries of State who did not listen, and perhaps in the whole working of New Decade, New Approach, who handled it in a way that was seen to be more in support of the Irish Government than our own Government. That is something that I hope the Minister—who knows Northern Ireland very well—will take up.
Obviously, I condemn any threats to Sir Jeffrey, and any other threats. However, all of us who come from Northern Ireland or have relatives in Northern Ireland who are involved politically or are living there now have all had threats of different kinds. It is important that, while we condemn that, we do not think that it is just one person who is being threatened. Threats come in different ways and in different strengths and are taken very seriously by the PSNI.
Everyone says that this Bill is inevitable. It is not inevitable. The Government could have said that they were going to go along with what they have said, that if by such and such a date, the Assembly was not back, there would be an election. They do not want an election, because they know that the mandate that the unionists—the DUP, in particular, and the TUV—would get to stay out until the seven tests are met and until we are back as an absolutely integral part of the United Kingdom would be bigger. That is why they do not want an election, and that is why, in a sense, the Bill is something that could have been solved by simply having an election. However, I am afraid we may well be back in a few weeks’ time because a two-week gap is pretty ridiculous.
In the end, the Government will realise that from day one they have handled this extremely badly. They have not stood up to their commitment to be Conservatives and unionists. Probably very soon, we will see a new Government, who I hope might take a slightly different approach from the way they have been handling unionists—pro-British people in Northern Ireland.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks. I have no doubt whatever in his strong unionist credentials. I must say that I do not have the same confidence, perhaps, in some of the other colleagues, but nevertheless, I have no doubt in his unionist credentials.
In preparation for this important debate, I attended the debate in the other House to listen to it. I found it very informative. I did indeed hear the words of my leader, the right honourable Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, in mentioning the threats that have been made against him. That is despicable, wherever that has come from or from whomever it has come. I and some other noble Lords in this House know exactly what it is to live under threats and to have those threats carried out. I had to be driven in an armoured police car for 25 years to carry out my duties as a Member of Parliament in the other place. Indeed, as noble Lords know, I received an actual bomb at my home on my 40th birthday and the house was shot up with over 50 bullets, just as the last action of the IRA, so that I would not be here. However, I thank God there is a greater power than the Provos, and that is why I am here. I thank God for his sovereignty and his providential care.
If anyone thinks that the threats across our community have finished, we know that dissidents are still threatening people. It is not only dissidents: outside Dungiven, we saw how those people went into the GAA place with their guns and threatened the people there. They had their weaponry with them, and they said they were the IRA. Therefore, those threats still go on.
I make this clear: irrespective of where the threats come, over the years those with principles have been willing to stand by them. We will not be threatened; we will not be bullied. Whether it be by the terrorists, government or anyone else, we will not be bullied into submission or move away from the principles that we believe in with all our hearts—I must lay that down right at the beginning.
Like my noble friend Lord Morrow, I attended an event on 17 January to commemorate the 32nd year since eight young men, who were travelling home from work, were brutally murdered on the Omagh-Cookstown road. For the past 32 years, I have stood with the families along that roadside. Come hail, snow or rain, we have stood there every year at the commemoration stone, even though others have sought to destroy it with bullets, hammers, sledgehammers and other things. The stone commemorates the lives of Gary Bleeks, Cecil Caldwell, Robert Dunseath, Oswald Gilchrist, David Harkness, Bobby Irons, Richard McConnell and Nigel McKee. We still remember them, and we will continue to remember their sacrifice and the pain that is still real in their loved ones’ hearts.
As I listened to the debate in the other place, I heard impassioned speeches from some, as well as some of the usual threats from others—not from the gun, but the usual political threats—should unionists not conform. In his introductory letter, the Secretary of State said that Northern Ireland has been without a fully functioning devolved Government since February 2022 and that the Government’s utmost priority remains restoring strong, stable and locally elected devolved institutions as soon as possible. Of course, the Government and Members of this House are fully aware of why my party pulled out of the Executive at Stormont. The Democratic Unionist Party did not create the impasse. Northern Ireland was plunged into constitutional uncertainty because of the actions of this Government in entering into an agreement with the European Union, over the heads of the people, that places Northern Ireland under laws from Europe that no representative of the people had any input in, influence over or ability to change. So much for democracy—and yet we are often reminded of what democracy would demand of us in going back into the Assembly.
What is being forced on the people of Northern Ireland under the protocol and the Windsor Framework is not democracy at work. How can we have 300 areas of law forced on the people of Northern Ireland when they have no power to change them? They have no representation in the place where those decisions are being made. In fact, they are being told to suck it up and take it—that is the way.
I am sad to say that the vast majority of Members in this House, when both the protocol Bill came through and the Windsor Framework was being debated, were willing to say, “Let’s have it”. In fact, when we debated the protocol, this House said that it could not be changed in any shape or form. Members sitting in this House said that the Democratic Unionist Party can blow in the wind and that this does not matter because the protocol will not, and cannot, be changed. We know that was not true; nevertheless, that was what was said. They were then forced into the position of saying that another agreement, the Windsor Framework, was the best thing: “Let’s forget about the protocol, let’s go with the Windsor Framework”. It involves a foreign jurisdiction making laws that we in Northern Ireland must adhere to, even though they are divergent from those that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. We are supposed to be an equal part of the United Kingdom.
The Government said out of the other side of their mouth that they now wish to strengthen the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that they may bring forth legislation to do so. Did they really think we that we would believe them? Actions speak louder than words. We were told in this letter from the Secretary of State that a restored Executive would have access to a significant financial package, an extra £3.3 billion, to secure and transform Northern Ireland’s public services. That is a large amount, but when we realise that there is a major black hole in the finances at Stormont because Northern Ireland has been underfunded compared with the other devolved Administrations, and on top of that moneys have been allocated for the remuneration of public sector workers, we find that that substantial package is greatly depleted. Let nobody be under any misunderstanding: if they think that that amount of money will transform Northern Ireland’s public services, they are mistaken. There are major problems in the health service in Northern Ireland. There are major problems with education. Finances are needed across a vast area of Northern Ireland life, and yet we are told that this will solve the problem.
One of the most disgraceful and callous actions of the Secretary of State was using public sector workers who have not had a pay rise for three years and, as the shadow Secretary of State in the other House said in the debate, holding them hostages in this political game. We say that, yes, they were hostages: they were being held hostage and were pawns in his political game of trying to put the blame on the Democratic Unionist Party. Like every other Member in the other House, he has been told today, as he had already been told, to stop playing politics with teachers who provide an excellent education for our children under very difficult circumstances, stop using nurses and doctors who walk the wards of our hospitals day and night to aid our sick, stop abusing police officers who stand between us and those who terrorise the community. Secretary of State, release the money now that they are overdue. It was a deliberate decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to act. I trust that the noble Lord the Minister will take the message from across this House that that money should and must be released. Last week, my party colleagues personally put into the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a demand that he release the money. I have been told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to release that money. Therefore, there is no excuse under the sun why the Secretary of State could not immediately order the payment that is due to those who keep our public services going in different spheres across the Province.
I noticed that the former Secretary of State, Julian Smith, said in the other House that what is being offered is a very good deal, that it is not perfect, but it is much better now. That is interesting, because he must have seen it. If he has seen it—and I am glad he has seen it —perhaps he could let some of the rest of us see it as well. He may have seen it, but if anyone thinks that anyone in Northern Ireland is going to take this Government at their word on trust, they are sadly mistaken. We have learned from the reality of the situation of life in Northern Ireland that we have to look at the detail and scrutinise the small print and then decisions can be made.
I notice that the Alliance Member for North Down once again threatens unionists that, if they do not give in, submit, surrender, they will be faced with Dublin’s involvement. It is sad that that Member comes from a very unionist constituency—there is a vast unionist constituency in North Down—yet, since he has come into the other place, he acts as a surrogate for Sinn Féin-speak. It is a total and absolute disgrace that he threatens unionists that if we do not bow to the diktat, we will have Dublin rule. I appeal to all unionists to stand united and strong as we face the onslaught of propaganda—and we will—and be sure not to give the enemies of unionism a bonus by turning in on ourselves. The old statement has always been: “United we stand, divided we fall”. Much has been heard about the Belfast agreement and its 25th anniversary, but we were told that the foundational principle of that agreement was cross-community consent: a majority of nationalists and a majority of unionists. It will be most interesting to see whether, whatever deal the Government finally offer unionism, a unionist Minister in the Assembly will be made to implement and enforce the Irish Sea border, as under the Windsor Framework, or has that been dealt with? Governments in the past have sold Northern Ireland short before; we are aware of that. Therefore, actions will speak louder than any pious words.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, as perhaps the unelected Member for North Down, it is appropriate that I follow my colleague after his remarks. This is a very net Bill, and I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that this is a form of takeaway legislation. Those are valid criticisms, although I would also say that, whatever concerns we have about that, the appropriate places to discuss such matters are this House and the other House—in democratic institutions. That is why I join others from across the House in saying that any attempt to threaten or intimidate any Member from whatever source—towards whichever Member—is utterly wrong. Politics must always be decided in a democratic and peaceful manner, and had others applied that lesson over the last number of decades, we would be in a much better place in Northern Ireland.
The Bill itself is one that, given the circumstances, is, as my noble friend Lord Dodds said, effectively inevitable. As for whether an election takes place or not, I am fairly relaxed one way or the other. Perhaps, given the polls, my party would pick up an extra seat or two, but the reality is that an election would not really tell us anything different from what we already know. It would, broadly speaking, highlight where the divisions are. Similarly, we have a shift of dates, but, as have we always said, what is actually important is not the calendar but whether the conditions are met. If extra time is being provided, what the Government will do with the extra time will be the critical matter to be resolved.
In resolving the problems that lie before us, the solution does not lie in bullying or bribery through a financial package. For months, I and my colleagues in this House and the other Chamber have highlighted that Northern Ireland has been underfunded. That is not something that we have simply plucked out of the air, but the application of the Holtham formula, if it were applied to us on the same basis as Wales, suggests what the fiscal floor should be for Northern Ireland. Those figures have been worked up through the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. We have made the case time and time again. I know that the Member for Belfast East in the other place has highlighted this.
It is useful that, finally, the Government have accepted the merits of this argument; but to tie this in with a belief that you get this only if you are good boys and accept whatever is thrown at you is unacceptable. The crassest example of this culminated last week when the Secretary of State clearly tried to use the issue of public sector pay as pressure to say, “Well, if only the DUP agreed to this, all this money would be available”. The reaction, not just across the Chamber but from the trade unions, was remarkably consistent. I saw on television a range of trade union leaders whom I know and who, frankly, would run a mile before voting for the DUP. In the advantage that we have of PR elections, they would probably vote on the ballot paper for every preference other than the DUP. Yet they consistently said, to a man and woman, “No: if the Secretary of State has the money, government should be releasing the money”. The attempt by the Secretary of State was not only ill-judged but entirely counterproductive.
What will resolve this is dealing with the constitutional issues of the Irish Sea border. From the start of this process, it has been consistently said over many decades that we will have stable government in Northern Ireland only when we have systems which both unionists and nationalists buy into. Back in 2017, the Irish Government and Irish nationalism took a very tough line on north-south trade. At one stage, to his discredit, the then and current Taoiseach raised the spectre of violence re-emerging across the border if any level of customs was put within that.
In many ways, Irish nationalism got what it wanted in terms of north-south trade, but we have not seen equality of treatment for the concerns raised by unionists. It is perfectly reasonable for the EU to say, “For trade coming into the European Union, there need to be arrangements that protect the single market”. That is perfectly understandable. What is not understandable or acceptable is to extend arrangements which interfere entirely with the internal workings of the United Kingdom. For example, goods that are never going to go within the EU are subject to a range of restrictions and pressures; democratic institutions are held hidebound because of the lack of democratic accountability. This is not simply a constitutional issue, but one which applies from a practical, economic point of view.
We have seen—and not just in a theoretical sense—some large companies already starting to divert trade away from movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A question mark exists as to whether a company in Northern Ireland could produce something to the same standards as GB and sell it in its own hometown, for example. That is the level of restrictions in place. Removing that Irish Sea border is the key to unlocking this solution.
Unfortunately, I have heard at least one noble Lord—not one who has spoken in this debate—parroting the line of Sinn Féin that the real reason why the DUP is opposed to restoration at this stage is that we cannot accept a Deputy First Ministership. Well, if that is the case, call our bluff. Deal with the constitutional issues and we will either accept it or be exposed to the world. We do not seek supremacy. What we seek is equality with our fellow citizens across the United Kingdom and equality between unionism and nationalism. Only with that level of stability, of getting something that both unionists and nationalists can buy into, can we have long-term stability in Northern Ireland. We need something that is clear, transparent and does the job. Part of the problem with the Windsor Framework is not simply that it did not solve the problems created by the protocol but that it was so overspun that there is a lack of trust in anything the Government put forward. Therefore, we need solutions that can clearly be demonstrated to have solved the problem.
I hope that today, small though this piece of legislation is, can be the first step on a route map to resolving the problems—either that or we will be back in a few weeks’ time in Groundhog Day. The choice very much lies with the Government to be able to deliver on that.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, which was one of the most thoughtful that we have heard this afternoon.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
The noble Baroness should not dare to accuse me of thoughtfulness.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I also agree with what the noble Lord said, and share his sentiments, about the threats to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson. As he said, such threats, wherever they come from and whoever receives them, are never, ever acceptable.
I thank the Minister for his introduction to this short Bill and echo his sentiments in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Empey, back to his place. We always enjoy his contributions, and we missed them when he was not around so much recently.
It is now nearly two years since the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed—two years in which civil servants have had to take decisions which should have been taken by the politicians elected to deal with the very difficult situation that faces the people of Northern Ireland on so many issues. As other noble Lords have said, the health system is in crisis, and vital decisions are not being taken on education, the economy and future financing. The people of Northern Ireland are being badly let down and, as others have already said, last week’s public sector strikes showed all too clearly the level of frustration that people now feel. Ample time has been provided to reach a conclusion. There have now been so many occasions when we had been led to believe that a decision was close, and then it does not materialise.
However, from these Benches, we recognise the huge amount of work undertaken by the Government in the last two years and that some progress has been made. We welcomed the Windsor Framework, and we welcome the financial package announced before Christmas—in particular, the separate stabilisation fund to undo some of the harm created by cuts and to tackle backlogs, and the transformation fund to allow Northern Ireland to improve its public services.
However, financial stability alone will not address all the issues. Financial stability requires political, constitutional and institutional stability. In that context, from these Benches, we sincerely hope that this latest attempt and necessary extension of the timeframe will result in a return to a fully functioning Executive and Assembly. For that reason, we will not oppose the Bill. We can but hope that this latest attempt is successful and that this is indeed, as the Minister has said, the last such Bill of this kind.
However, if this latest extension to 8 February does not result in the outcome that we all hope to see, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to return with a more comprehensive Bill, which would not be subject to this truncated timetable? As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, this really is not the way to do business. Will the Minister further confirm, were such a situation to arise—which we all hope it will not—that he would be willing to consider more extensive reforms at that point?
Northern Ireland has to be governed and, however good the civil servants are, it is unacceptable—including for the civil servants themselves—to continue with the current situation. The people of Northern Ireland have been incredibly patient, but, every day that these issues are parked and the can is kicked further down the road, more and more damage is being done. Northern Ireland deserves better.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, we have been here before—quite a few times. Even though that is the case, I and the Opposition support the Government in bringing the legislation forward. It will avoid an election, which I do not think anybody wants, and, because of the shortness of the period that the extension is covering—just two weeks—perhaps we are allowed some hint of optimism that something might be happening, and that there may indeed be a breakthrough or a deal before two weeks are up. We will not oppose the Government on this.
It has been an interesting debate. I certainly endorse the views of Members of the House about threats to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and others. It is entirely improper. I know from my time in Northern Ireland that those threats sometimes became real and ended in tragedy. I am sure that that will not be the case for Sir Jeffrey, but we nevertheless sympathise with him. He does not deserve that.
I also agree with the Minister that we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Empey, back after some months away. I very much welcomed his contribution. As always, it was wise, useful, important and came right to the heart of the matter. I also regret that my noble friend Lady Ritchie cannot be here as she has Covid, because she would have put a different point of view in this Chamber. We have heard, rightly, from the DUP, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, a unionist point of view. I sympathise with the dilemma that unionism in Northern Ireland is in—of course I do. What I do not sympathise with is, however important that is—I will come to that in a second—it meaning that Northern Ireland should be without proper government and a proper democratic Assembly for two years now.
As a consequence of that, the civil servants are taking, or trying to take, major decisions that they cannot take; we have seen a strike of 100,000 people with 16 trade unions, which is, in effect, a general strike in Northern Ireland; we have seen a real collapse in public confidence in politics in Northern Ireland; and we have seen an apathy elsewhere in the United Kingdom about what is happening in Northern Ireland. If it were happening in Wales or Scotland—or, for that matter, Yorkshire—and a part of this United Kingdom was without government for two years and a proper decision could not be made, there would be an uproar. Instead, we hear, “Northern Ireland—it always happens there”. But it does not. The Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements were all about avoiding this happening.
I was the direct rule Minister for five years in Northern Ireland. I did not like doing it, because it was not up to me as a Welsh Member of Parliament to take decisions about the future of men, women and children in Northern Ireland. The way it is going, we will drift back into that unless there is an agreement. We will drift to the general election, because that will put people off making decisions. That cannot be right.
I come back to the points that noble Members of the House from the DUP made about the protocol. I understand the dilemma that it puts unionism in, but that constitutional difficulty arose from the simple fact that Brexit occurred. Had there been no Brexit, there would not have been a protocol. Had there been no protocol, we would not be in the position that we are in at the moment, without democratic institutions in Northern Ireland.
We should always remember that there is another side to this argument: 56% of the people of Northern Ireland, a sizeable majority, voted to remain in the European Union. I know that that is not constitutionally proper because the United Kingdom is the member state. Nevertheless, if we are to talk about what the people of Northern Ireland thought about Brexit, it was a result of a constitutional and democratic referendum. It is not as simple as that, of course: if you break that down into how nationalists and unionists and those who belong to neither voted, it becomes more complicated. But my argument has always been that you can resolve, or hope to resolve, that issue simultaneously with the continuation of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Now, we are where we are and that has not happened, so we have to hope that there will be progress in the next two weeks.
I endorse the views of every Member of the House who has spoken on the pay settlement for public sector workers in Northern Ireland. They should be paid because it is the right thing to do, and they deserve that increase. Their cost of living should not be made worse because of this disagreement. Of course, they should be paid, and I hope that the Minister can give us a positive answer on that. It does not answer the dilemma of how Northern Ireland receives its money. There is a case, made convincingly in this Chamber over the past two years, that the Barnett formula as it operates is unfair to Northern Ireland. That must be remedied too, but let us remember that all these things can be more properly done if there is a working Executive and Assembly.
I do not know what is going to happen in the next two weeks. Let us hope that there is an agreement. If there is, or if there is not, when that Assembly returns, and when there is a working Executive, they should turn their minds to how to avoid this situation in the future. The Good Friday agreement has to be implemented in all its forms, but that includes a consensus among all Members of the Executive and Assembly, and all politicians in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee of the other place has suggested an independent review of the workings of the Good Friday agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will know, the agreement itself said that there could be reviews of the agreement after a quarter of a century. Instability has ensued over the last number of years—not just because of what the DUP has done, because Sinn Féin did exactly the same thing—so there has to be a prospect of stability and durability about democracy in Northern Ireland. I hope that is resolved by people in Northern Ireland themselves. Whatever the problems, differences or dilemmas, all of us in this Chamber hope that this will be resolved in the next fortnight.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as always, I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon and into this evening.
I, like a number of noble Lords, listened to the speech of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in the other place this afternoon. It was a powerful contribution from the leader of the DUP, and I supported much of what he said, particularly in respect of those who—as my noble friend Lord Empey said—have tried to frustrate progress in Northern Ireland over many years and have delivered nothing. I was also moved by his comments about the threats and intimidation that he has received. I know I speak for all Members of this House when we pass on our support for him and wish him well. It was one of the Mitchell principles back in the 1990s that politicians in Northern Ireland should pursue their objectives exclusively by peaceful and democratic means. That is as sound a principle today as it was then and should be for the future.
With the leave of the House, I will try to respond to a number of the points that have been made. Inevitably, a number of speeches this afternoon strayed outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps that was inevitable, given it has only one main clause and one main purpose, which is to move a date.
I am pleased that, at least, there appears to be broad agreement on the substance of the Bill, and I am particularly grateful to the opposition parties for agreeing to its expedited passage through this House and the other place. Our priority must be the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, and this is the issue on which we are completely focused. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on that.
We all want to see progress within the next fortnight. As was said during the debate in the other place this afternoon, there is no deal at the moment. We hope there will be one within the space of time that this legislation provides. I say in response to a number of noble Lords who were looking for more detail that should there be a deal it will be brought before Parliament, and both Houses will have the opportunity to carefully scrutinise the details or, as my Democratic Unionist Party colleagues normally put it, the fine print. We are not there yet, and the House contains enough seasoned negotiators in Northern Ireland politics to recognise that it would be unwise, even if I were able, to go into detail at this stage about any discussions that might be taking place. In response to my noble friend Lord Empey on the rationale for the Bill, suffice it to say that we believe the next fortnight provides an optimum period for the possibility of reaching an agreement. That is where we are focused.
I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that we will continue to prepare for all eventualities, and will update the House if it has not proven possible to restore the Executive by the date which is set out in the legislation, 8 February. She asked whether we would bring forward more substantial legislation. We are currently looking at all eventualities, but if new legislation comes forward, Parliament will have the opportunity to examine it carefully.
The noble Baroness mentioned the possibility of further reform, and my noble friend also touched on reforms to the institutions. The approach of the Government to this has been consistent over a number of years, and we will always look at sensible suggestions for reform. I agree with those who suggested that the Belfast agreement was never intended to be set in tablets of stone. It has already evolved, and there were changes. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, refers to the Belfast agreement as amended by St Andrews, as there were significant changes in the St Andrews agreement, and changes in the Stormont House agreement, and so on. The test for any reforms has to be that they will command widespread support and consent across the community, and they must be consistent with the underlying and enduring principles of the Belfast agreement.
Much of the debate focused on the reasons why devolved government is not currently in place in Northern Ireland, and the principal one is the DUP’s current opposition to the provisions of the Windsor Framework. If noble Lords will forgive me, and in the interests of time, I do not intend to have a lengthy debate about the Windsor Framework, which has been debated in this House on many occasions. Suffice to say, the Government are well aware of the concerns of the Democratic Unionist Party—it would be strange if we were not given the number of times they have been expressed. We are looking at what we can do to clarify any outstanding points there might be, recognising that the substantive negotiations came to an end shortly before Christmas. We are, and always have been, willing to clarify certain points that might arise.
Another key theme of this afternoon was the union. I set out my own rock-solid support for the union at the beginning of my opening speech. I will part company slightly with some of my colleagues behind me in respect of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. There are two constitutional outcomes provided for in the 1998 agreement, which are reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998: Northern Ireland is either part of the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland. I am very sure that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of this United Kingdom, something I wish never to see change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster—she is my friend—referred to the concept of the all-Ireland economy. I entirely agree with her, and the Government have made it clear, that there are two economies on the island of Ireland. One of those, the Northern Ireland economy, is an integral part of the world’s sixth-largest economy, from which Northern Ireland gains considerable strength and security. We should never forget that fact.
I hear what has been said about public sector pay; there appears to be unanimity among most of the parties in the House on this issue. I see the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, confirming that from his sedentary position. Let me reiterate, as I did at the outset, that the £3.3 billion package is very much on the table for an incoming Administration in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned money for tackling current pressures. She will be aware that the issue of the block grant is, rightly, one for negotiation between His Majesty’s Treasury and an incoming Northern Ireland Executive, but I will take back her comments and may write to her in more detail on that subject.
In conclusion, I hope shortly to be in a position where we have the return of devolved government in Northern Ireland and no longer need to have these rather novel pieces of legislation. I agree with my noble friend that it is very unsatisfactory. All I would say is that it is certainly not the first time we have introduced novel and expedited legislation in Northern Ireland. I look forward to a time when any Northern Ireland legislation is dealt with in a proper and considered way while most of the decisions are taken, rightly, in the Assembly, by local politicians in that Assembly answerable to their electorate. On that note, I very much hope that we can make some progress in the next two weeks, before 8 February, as set out in the legislation.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we will now have a short period to allow Members to table amendments. Members wishing to table amendments should do so by 6.43 pm, so in 30 minutes, and should contact the Public Bill Office. We will now have a repeat of an Urgent Question and then a short adjournment at the end of the tabling period. When we return, if there are no amendments, we will take the remaining stages of the Bill formally and then move straight to Committee on the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Extreme Weather: Resilience
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question in the form of a Statement:
“First, I would like to say how sorry the Government were to hear that four people sadly lost their lives due to Storm Isha, two in this country and two in Ireland. I extend my sympathy to their families and friends. At the same time, I praise our emergency and utility workers, who have worked so hard in some very difficult conditions to help the public.
Forecasters at the Met Office raised a rare whole-country weather warning for the wind over the weekend, in preparation for Storm Isha. The warning encompassed even rarer amber and red warnings for wind in the areas forecast to experience the worst of the storm. Indeed, wind gusts reached a peak of 99 mph in Northumberland and 124 mph across the Cairngorms. Although the storm had the potential to be extremely destructive, the vast majority of the transport and power infrastructure stood up well and recovered quickly, which is a credit to the resilience of our critical infra- structure and the response capabilities of our operational partners on the ground.
Storm Isha was closely followed by Storm Jocelyn, which reached a peak of 97 mph. I am informed that it was the 10th named storm to impact our country this season. Again, the impacts from Jocelyn in England were less than feared. There were operational partners working around the clock to clear any disruption on our transport and power networks.
The forecasting capabilities of our experts in the Met Office, and the accuracy and speed at which they can warn and inform the public of incoming severe weather events, no doubt saves lives and protects our homes and businesses. My officials and those across government were working hard last week, and over the weekend, to co-ordinate the extensive preparation and mitigation measures being taken across the Government. The fact that no escalation to a COBRA-level response was required for either storm is testament to our effective response structures at local and national levels. I am very grateful for the response from colleagues in the devolved Administrations and to local resilience forums around the country. Our local authority and agency partners kept public services running and reacted to any local issues that emerged.
We are adapting to weather events not previously experienced in our country, and events such as these coming with increasing frequency and severity. The UK is driving forward cross-government action to respond to climate risks and their impacts on our economy and way of life. Our third national adaptation programme, published in July last year, sets out an ambitious five-year programme of work, driven by three themes: action, information and co-ordination.
We are ensuring a more integrated approach to climate adaptation over the next five years, through stronger government engagement and co-ordinated policy-making. As part of this, we have already established the right government structures not only to monitor progress but to tackle strategic cross-cutting challenges which will drive the UK’s resilience to climate change. This is all in line with the Government’s broader strategy, as set out in the resilience framework, which committed us to strengthening the links between our understanding of the risks that the UK faces and the action we take to prevent those risks materialising. We must continue to drive forward the initiatives that help us curb the impacts of climate change and, at the same time, build systems that help us to withstand extreme events as they arise”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the Minister in saying how sorry we all were to hear of the loss of four lives as a result of Storms Isha and Jocelyn in the UK and Ireland. Our thoughts are with their families and friends. Our thanks go to the emergency and utility service workers who worked tirelessly to protect homes and lives, often in the most challenging of circumstances. The Environment Agency estimates that the number of homes at risk from flooding could double by 2050 due to the impact of climate change. The UK needs to be better prepared. Will the Minister accept that a COBRA-style flood resilience task force, as proposed on these Benches, is needed to tackle the problem?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Baroness said about the emergency services and all who are involved in this. Indeed, without the changes we have made and the effort they put in, these recent storms would have caused much more damage and perhaps more loss of life, so that is very good news.
The COBRA system, which the noble Baroness mentions, is of course already baked into standing cross-government flooding response mechanisms, as the last tier of escalation for the most severe flood events. These mechanisms are stood up to support the operational response at local level, which is obviously necessitated by the increasingly sophisticated weather warnings that we see coming through from the Met Office. We managed well across the country on this occasion and the COBRA unit in the Cabinet Office—the ministerial unit—was not needed. That does not mean to say that officials did not get together. They worked well across the country with local people and the devolved Administrations. In some sense, it is a success that it was unnecessary to have the full COBRA ministerial meeting on this occasion. I have referenced the future resilience work that we are doing. We have brought these much better co-ordination systems into the Cabinet Office and work very closely with Defra, which is responsible for building up long-term flood protection. We have also invested a lot of capital in recent years. There is £5.2 billion available for flood defence projects, which I think is a doubling on the previous period.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement. I join her and the Labour Benches in offering our condolences for all those who lost their lives, and in thanking the emergency services for everything that they do. UK winters are getting warmer and wetter; there is a lot of variation year to year, but winter rainfall has increased by 27% overall since records began in 1837. The impacts of climate change are here now. The NAO report Resilience to Flooding found that the Government do not have clearly defined targets or an effective strategy in place for making the UK resilient to extreme weather. They do not even track or evaluate spending on resilience to extreme weather. When do the Government plan to publish an extreme weather strategy, to include defined targets, risk assessments, and measures of outcomes?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Earl. I am glad he mentioned the NAO report, because it did welcome the work that had been done—I know this has been welcomed across the House—on setting up the Resilience Directorate and, indeed, publishing the resilience framework in 2022. Setting appropriate targets and ambitions for the level of flood resilience—in particular, for critical infrastructure because that is a key part—is part of the Government’s broader thinking on resilience standards.
There are more than 100 risk priorities in our risk register; we are working on all of these and have committed to create by 2030 common but flexible resilience standards right across critical national infrastructure, as well as across the private sector more broadly. One of the lessons of the storms we are seeing is that it is important to work with the private sector as well. One reason that people have been less affected has been the improvements that have been made in power, transport, trains and the rest—partly having early warning, partly working together, and partly having this sense of mission that we must try to respond to the warmer, wetter winters and the arrival of a certain element of Mediterranean weather in our beautiful island, as the noble Earl said.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned the private sector, because I would like to take it to an even more granular level—the individual household sector. Has she had conversations with the insurance industry, to make it absolutely clear to home policy owners what damage is covered and how to deal with neighbourhood disputes resulting from falling trees, falling fences and similar damage, where it may not be immediately obvious whose responsibility it is?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about insurance. We do have discussions with the insurance industry on resilience. Of course, in recent years we have developed Flood Re, which is a very important reinsurance scheme that makes flood cover more widely available to households that are particularly vulnerable to flooding so that people can get insurance. Another part of the picture is the compensation schemes that are part of the flood recovery framework. In England, for appropriate events, there was £500 per affected household and £2,500 for affected businesses provided through the local authority, and some temporary council tax and business rate relief. The arrangements in the devolved nations are a bit different and, in some cases, more generous.
I think we must look at it in the round. How can the Government help? How can they prevent this? Can they communicate much better to make sure that people are not harmed and are kept safe? Where, sadly, there is damage to property, can we make sure that the insurance system helps to minimise government expenditure, which is occasionally necessary?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said in her opening remarks that the problems in the last few days were such that we had not seen before, but is that the case? This is the ninth season that the so-called European windstorms have been sufficiently serious for them to have names attached. On each occasion, we see apparently more serious effects in the UK than in other countries—electricity supply off for days on end, trains and other forms of transport severely disrupted. It is fair to ask why that should be. Do the Minister and her Government not believe that more resources need to be given to local authorities, and indeed to rail companies and other forms of transport, to enable them to prepare more effectively? These windstorms will not go away; they will increase in severity.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My own view on resilience is that it has to be a whole-of-society effort; I was trying to explain that point in relation to the previous question. Therefore, local authorities play an important part. Clearly, this is part of local authority funding in the broadest sense, and there has been some further assistance for local authorities, although I know that difficulties remain. We have tried very hard to focus attention on the local resilience forums; DLUHC agreed an extra £22 million three-year funding settlement for them in England. That followed a pilot, and the good news—I think it has probably been announced before—is that there will be stronger local resilience forum pilots in eight areas, going live in June. They will be in London, West Mercia, Suffolk, Gloucester, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Thames Valley and Northumbria—so this is investment in the local effort in different sorts of areas. I am a great believer in piloting because you can then share that elsewhere and make things better.
On funding, obviously we need to spend enough on flood protection and resilience, but we also need to try to do it in a better way and with the help of all parts of society. I mentioned earlier the efforts that have been made—by power companies, for example—to improve things and get electricity out much more quickly. We have had a lot of storms; the weather is perhaps getting worse, but we are trying to learn from that and to perform better in these sometimes very tragic situations.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now report the Bill to the House without amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (23 Jan 2024)
Baroness Brinton
“(aa) witnessing criminal conduct,(ab) having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct,(ac) experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to extend the definition of a victim under Part 1 to include people who support and provide care for victims of serious sexual and violent crimes.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as we start this Bill, from these Benches we are pleased to see that the first part of it relates to victims. Even though we want to improve the Bill, I thank the Minister for the meetings and dialogue we have had so far and look forward to more as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 1, in my name, starts this group on the definition of a victim. I thank Restitute, the lived-experience CIC, which supports third-party victims of crime—whether they are the parents, carers, partners, siblings or loved ones of people who have survived sexual abuse, sexual violence or other serious crimes including domestic violence and stalking. It specialises in building the service that its members wish they had received, and which professional service providers often do not spot, nor have the resources to be able to provide: namely, crisis support in the short term and, above all, someone to help them and their loved one, who is the direct victim, to navigate the new world of professionals they encounter during their case.
Why is this important? Unless you have been the victim of such a crime, you cannot understand how it affects those who care for you. Most professionals would not recognise that your loved ones may also be victims of vicarious harm due to the crime. More than that, parents may have to give up work, partners need time off and children have poor educational outcomes. Families that have previously had two incomes often see that cut in half at a stroke. Carers are not entitled to any therapeutic or emotional support. The impact on their health and well-being is devastating. That is before we even face the problems related to family breakdown.
Most of Part 1 of the Bill focuses on the rights of the direct victim of the crime, and the services that they will encounter afterwards. One of the worst examples is the impact of child sexual abuse on victims/survivors, including on non-perpetrator family members. The impacts on mothers, for example, can mirror the experience of their child. Social services can also force them to make rapid and difficult decisions at the exact moment they are coming to terms with the abuse that their child has suffered. Healthcare and the criminal justice system often do not recognise that the impact goes beyond the direct victim.
This can include siblings who are children themselves but who, under the Bill, would not be able to access any support under the victims’ code. The siblings of abused children may have feelings that they have let down their sibling because they could not prevent the incident, or may be fearful that in the future it may happen to them. These children also see distressed adult carers struggling to navigate the system, which currently does not recognise them as victims either. Without support these families struggle, and it becomes harder for all of them to recover from the incident.
Amendment 1 extends the definition of a victim of crime to include someone who is
“witnessing criminal conduct … having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct … experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct”.
I have also added my name to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would ensure that bereaved victims of homicide abroad are given the same support as victims of homicide within the UK. These victims not only face the extreme distress of losing their loved one in a horrible way but have to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions.
Many years ago, my sister worked for Thomson Holidays. Her role was to deal with the immediate aftermath of death—including homicide—of her holiday- makers. Once the families had returned home, for many, having to deal with an overseas criminal justice system was even more bemusing, and they felt very isolated. We know that just being the family survivor of a homicide is hard enough.
I also support the other amendments in this group, all of which raise key questions about the definition of a victim of crime or try to establish how victims can get parity of treatment at their review—as in Amendment 8—whether they are victims of a perpetrator serving a custodial sentence or a perpetrator being detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Amendment 3 adds in a person being killed by a family member such as a dangerous driver. Amendment 4 adds serious anti-social behaviour. Amendment 12 takes us into the debate on the content and context of the victims’ code, and states which services must be involved in decisions regarding leave or discharge for the perpetrator. Currently, the victim is far too often the last person to hear that the perpetrator has been released. That is unforgivable. Amendment 19 would ensure that victims have information to understand the justice system and relevant state agencies.
The Government will have gathered that noble Lords across your Lordships’ House believe that the definitions in Clauses 1 and 2 are too narrow and will exclude certain people who are seriously affected but not defined as a victim. I look forward to the Minister’s response. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment 1.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 3 acknowledges that the definition of victim in the Bill is quite broad, and that will mean, I hope, that as many victims as possible are supported by the victims’ code and related services. However, I want to probe the Government as to whether they intended the definition of victim to be so broad as to include the close family of a person who died as a direct result of their own criminal conduct; for example, by dangerous driving or possessing and consuming illegal drugs.
Clause 1(2) defines a victim as including
“where the death of a close family member of the person was the direct result of criminal conduct”.
This appears to include where the deceased caused their own death by their own criminal conduct. This broadness is underlined by Clause 1(5), which makes it “immaterial” whether anyone has reported the criminal conduct, or if anyone has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence.
The family of someone who dies as a result of consuming illegal drugs are victims of the Government’s ideological war on drugs. The Government refuse to treat drug use as a health issue and to implement a safe, regulated market of drugs that would take the multi-billion pound drugs trade out of the hands of criminal gangs.
Can the Minister please clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that family members of people who die as a result of their own criminal conduct will be supported by the victims’ code and the associated support services provided to victims?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as outlined in the register. I support Amendments 8, 12 and 19, which seek to ensure that people who have suffered as a result of a crime committed by a patient with a mental health disorder who is detained in hospital under a restriction order are afforded the same rights under the victims’ code as victims of offenders who are held in the prison estate. This is not the case presently.
The amendments seek to extend the principle that all victims have a right to be heard in the justice process and to include the NHS and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service in the list of responsible agencies. This would bring mental health tribunal processes in line with the rest of the criminal justice system and remove a long-standing and unfair disparity in treatment for people who have experienced these crimes. The principle that everyone who experiences a crime should have the opportunity to make their voice heard in the criminal justice process is at the heart of why these amendments are necessary. Those who have experienced crimes committed by patients with a diagnosed mental health illness deserve parity of treatment with all other people who have experienced crimes.
Under the victims’ code, people have the right to make a victim personal statement before the Parole Board when the person who has offended is being considered for release. Anyone who is directly affected by violent crime should have the right to be heard, but, as the victims’ code does not extend to mental health tribunals, victims of an offence caused by somebody held under a mental health restriction order cannot make any personal statement in writing, or in person, to the mental health tribunal panel.
The VPS is the single key entitlement which allows people to explain the impact of the crime committed against them, and there is a widespread consensus that the opportunity to submit a VPS is beneficial for all victims. It can offer some catharsis, which is essential in assisting the recovery from the trauma of a crime. In addition to this being beneficial to people who have experienced crime, this process may offer the opportunity for patients with a mental health disorder to gain further understanding of the impact of their actions on other people. This is particularly important when these people return to the community and sometimes feel that it would be better not to take their medication. Understanding the risk of not doing so might be beneficial for the proportion who are able to leave hospital.
The anticipated number of victims wishing to speak directly to the mental health tribunal is likely to be small. I understand that in cases of people wishing to address the Parole Board in person, it is currently fewer than one in 10. The majority are likely to submit a written statement to the panel that explains the impact that the actions of the patient has made on their lives.
The practice of allowing statements to be made to the tribunal is established in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland and Australia. In research undertaken by the Victims’ Commissioner in 2019, a family in Scotland discussed their experience addressing a mental health panel. They attended a separate hearing where the patient was not present but a legal representative attended on their behalf instead. The family did not get the outcome from the hearing they had hoped for but, crucially, they felt acknowledged and a party to the process despite that. They said:
“We … did feel given a voice, and one of the few occasions in the whole process we felt we had a voice and able to articulate our position”.
Clearly, it should be possible to balance the rights of patients.
Of course, as a nurse, I cannot overemphasise the need to maintain the confidentiality of medical records in tribunals. None of this needs to be shared with the victim making the representation and those impacted by crimes, so why is there such a different process in England and Wales, even just north of the border? As victims of crime are not currently able to address mental health panels in writing, by video link or in person, we are left with a two-tier system in which a distinction is made based on whether somebody is detained in a prison or in a mental health hospital. It is those who have suffered from the crime who lose out in terms of being heard.
I have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner, who has long called for this change. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments and identify any changes to mental health tribunals that may be necessary.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister kindly came to today’s Cross-Bench meeting and talked us through the Bill from his point of view. He started by saying that we will have quite a problem defining a victim because, as evidenced by this group of amendments, there are an awful lot of groups of people who clearly identify as victims and for whom there is evidence that they are victims. Although I understand the Government’s wish to try to contain this to some extent, it is important that we have a proper discussion about all these different groups and work out whether there is an intelligent, sensible and pragmatic way for us to be cleverer about the definition than we are at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who put his name to my Amendment 4, apologises for being unable to be here to speak because of another appointment. Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour—we all love acronyms, and I will mostly refer to it as “ASB” from now on—are recognised as victims and provided with their own code rights. Persistent anti-social behaviour can be defined as behaviour that meets the level required to trigger an anti- social behaviour case review; this means three reported incidents of ASB over a six-month period.
Currently, many victims of ASB are not recognised under the code because the criminal threshold has not been met. The police may treat and regard some of these incidents simply as misdemeanours or disputes between neighbours. The police’s failure to recognise the reality of what these victims undergo can make it worse, so it is important that we and the police are able to look at the whole picture.
The cumulative impact of ASB can be, and is, devastating. It affects victims’ sleep, work, relationships, health and feeling of safety, even in their own home. Left unpoliced, the consequences can be absolutely devastating. In this instance, an example would be the deaths of Suzanne Dow, Fiona Pilkington, Bijan Ebrahimi, Matthew Boorman, Stephen and Jennifer Chapple, David Askew, Louise Lotz and—last but by no means least—Garry Newlove, the ex-husband of the former Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. In the case of David Askew, he collapsed and died on his own doorstep after years of torment.
Every day, victims of ASB in England and Wales are failed by the system and are unable to access the support they need and deserve. Every year, the charity ASB Help receives tens of thousands of pleas from victims trying to work out how they can find help. This is made worse because no single agency holds responsibility for tackling ASB, resulting in a not untypical diffusion of responsibility across the police, local authorities, housing associations and private landlords.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the way in which she introduced this important group of amendments. I am also grateful to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their support for my Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that victims of homicide outside of the United Kingdom receive adequate support and are provided for in the victims’ code. The distress they experience can be exacerbated by having to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions and other difficulties that re-traumatise.
There are approximately 80 homicides of British nationals overseas each year. In addition, there are suspicious deaths, accidents and unexplained deaths. Families bereaved by a homicide in the UK are recognised as victims in their own right and are able to access rights under the victims’ code. Yet these same rights are not extended to those bereaved by homicide abroad, for no reason other than that the homicide occurred overseas. To lose a person you love to murder is a devastating and traumatic event wherever the crime occurs, but there are many additional problems and hurdles for British families bereaved by a murder overseas. As has already been explained clearly, these difficulties include repatriation, travel, accommodation, language barriers, lawyers, foreign judicial processes and many more.
These issues are exacerbated by the fact that these families have no right to access support to help them deal with these problems, putting them distinctly at odds with their compatriots. Bereaved families frequently have great difficulty accessing financial support for advocates and witnesses to travel abroad to attend trials. They cannot claim criminal injuries compensation because the crime occurred in another jurisdiction. Yet we know that it does not have to be this way. If the victim is killed by a terrorist, the family have a legal right to claim compensation. This clear distinction between these two cohorts of victims has no apparent rationale. It appears discriminatory because, for the victim’s family, murder is murder.
When it comes to supporting bereaved victims of homicide abroad, the responsibilities of the UK seem unclear. Of course each case is different, but it is unclear which UK agency has an overarching view of the end-to-end experience of the victims. Families frequently feel unsupported, describing falling through gaps between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—FCDO, the Ministry of Justice, the jurisdiction of the crime and our own police. The FCDO is the key body that the victims will interface with when homicide occurs abroad, but this department is not included within the remit of the victims’ code. The only document that exists to help provide a minimum standard of assistance to victims is a memorandum of understanding between the FCDO, the association for chief police officers and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales. This memorandum is not legally enforceable, and the Homicide Service, which is contracted by the FCDO to support victims of homicide abroad, is not a signatory to it.
There is therefore a complete lack of accountability and oversight when it comes to support for victims of homicide abroad. The damage that this absence of support causes is immeasurable and often has a long-term and wide-reaching impact. There are numerous case studies of victims who have been let down by UK agencies. In one shocking example, the FCDO gave a family a list of local lawyers based in the location where the murder occurred. The family was not told whether any of the 12 names supplied had been vetted or whether they spoke English, and the FCDO refused to give advice or a steer about which lawyer to use. As a result, the family ended up with an unreputable lawyer, costing £3,000, further compounding their enormous family pain.
A harrowing example of a family having to deal with the criminal justice system of a foreign jurisdiction is illustrated by the case of Halford and Florence Anderson, a British married couple. The 74 and 71 year- olds were both murdered in 2018 near their home in Jamaica, after reporting being victims of fraud. A senior coroner in Manchester, where the couple was from, concluded that they were both unlawfully killed. However, no one has been charged with their killings. Their son, Mark, has expressed the devastation that the family is going through, with still no sign of justice and no official updates on the case. This contrasts starkly with the positive experiences of victims who receive support from the charity, Murdered Abroad, which provides valuable support, both practical and emotional, as well as putting victims in touch with reliable lawyers and providing peer support for victims through group meetings.
But the burden of support should not be solely on charities. UK agencies have a duty to British citizens and should provide support to families impacted by homicide, regardless of the geographical location of the crime. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I have worked with, and have the support of, the Victims’ Commissioner, which is reassuring. I know that she has been calling for this change since her last time in that office. I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment and be prepared to discuss it further before Report.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, although it was not meant to be—there was some confusion between “Sally” and “Sal”—but I am glad that it has remained there. I also commend the noble Baroness for that neat handover of the chair.
The noble Baroness introduced the amendment thoroughly, but, reading the briefing from the Victims’ Commissioner, I remembered one experience of a friend. It was nothing as extreme as a homicide, but her husband died unexpectedly on a business visit to the United States. It was hugely emotionally difficult for her, as well as practically difficult: different language is experienced even in the United States, and certainly there are different procedures and cultures. One needs signposting to the right people, who can deal with the procedures as well as support. I remember her talking about the difficulty in bringing him home.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this discussion and having a sense of clarification about who a “victim” is in a Bill at least half of which is about victims. I especially support Amendments 2 and 8, but I have some questions for those who tabled the other amendments. Although having too narrow a definition can be a problem, it strikes me that we could cause real problems for victims if we had too broad a definition. I am obviously thinking about resources and overstretching support. So many people can be victims of crime if you start broadening it so much.
As hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her interesting Amendment 3, it is a tragedy for the families of perpetrators too. They can also be victims, and whole ranges of people—friends, acquaintances and other people who have genuinely suffered—could say that they are victims, but are we seriously trying to put them all in scope? I want to know how we can ensure that, even if we are acting in generosity to try to broaden the definition, we do not water down a focus on the actual victims of crime that the Bill is designed to help. In other words: where do we draw the line?
In that context, I am slightly concerned about a broadening of what now constitute victims of crime. In Amendment 4, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, explained, it then becomes anti-social behaviour. He gave a moving account of what it feels like to be a victim of anti-social behaviour, but we could probably all stand up and give moving accounts of being victims of something—bullying and all sorts of other behaviour that makes people suffer. I am slightly concerned that we might end up relativising the experience of victims of crime in an attempt at broadening this too much. Whether we like it or not, culturally, we live in a society in which victimhood is valorised. I do not want the Bill to contribute to that relativising experience, because there is a danger that, if we make it too broad, we could trivialise the real victims of crime. But then you could rightly ask me: who do I mean by “real victims”? I do not want it to go so far so that we lose all sense of its meaning.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this Committee, both as Helen Newlove and as Victims’ Commissioner. I thank all the victims I have spoken to over the years. We are bringing their voices to this Committee, right through to the end, because we cannot be grateful enough for their bravery and their having come forward.
I have a list, but I will try to get through it. Amendment 2 is welcome and rightly looks to put bereaved victims of homicide abroad into the code. As has been said, to lose a loved one to murder is horrific and devastating—I can personally say that—no matter where the crime takes place. However, the families I have met whose loved ones have been murdered abroad have to get through significant additional financial, legal and logistical burdens in a different language and a different system—it is not as simple as we put on this script for Hansard today, believe you me.
To have to repatriate the body of a loved one is not simple, because families have to look to the coroner so that they do not harm evidence. That has to be co-ordinated with a foreign criminal justice system, where some families have sat in police stations with photographs of their loved ones, waiting for someone to pick up on that in their language. That image has never left me to this day. To feel alien in a country, knowing how you have lost a loved one, must be horrendous. It is bad enough in the system in this country, but to have that in a foreign country is very demeaning to a hurt family.
As has been said, there are only 60 to 80 such families a year, but that is enough. It is important that this small group of families has the same entitlements as those of bereaved families in this country. There really needs to be change. They are not entitled to criminal injuries compensation unless the death occurred as a result of a terror attack, as we have heard. This is particularly unjust when you bear in mind that they will have the same additional financial burdens as a victim of terrorism abroad. We all live on mobile phones; to have to pay a mobile phone bill just to get family help, when you do not have the finances, must be horrendous. We need to look at how we can balance this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to be participating in the discussions on this important Bill. We have got off to a great start today—albeit a little later than we were expecting. I say from the outset that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I are very keen to work with colleagues from all parts of the House, and the Minister and the Bill team, to ensure that we end up with the best possible Bill and the best possible future of support and attention for victims in our criminal justice system, as eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
The amendments already show that commitment. I am thankful for the briefing that we have received from many directions, including from the victims’ commissioners of both the UK and London, the Children’s Commissioner and many other organisations, whose help and support will be important for our deliberations over the days and possibly weeks to come.
I will speak to all the amendments in this group, with particular reference to Amendment 4, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 12 and 19, to which my noble friend has added his name. These amendments address what should be included in the definition of “victim” in the Bill in Clause 1. In this debate, we are testing whether that definition is inclusive enough to cover the range of people who find themselves victims.
In Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to include people who support witnesses or victims of the most serious crimes. She explained—with great clarity—what that would mean and how that would work. Amendment 2 recognises that being a victim abroad means you are a victim and recognises the distress that that experience brings. It was movingly described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Finlay.
Amendment 3 very interestingly probes the width of the definition, as exposed by the discussion and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Amendment 4 addresses the issue of anti-social behaviour victims, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I thank both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for the way that they have talked about this. I added my name to this amendment because, although the Bill seeks to introduce measures to help victims, we have to have confidence that the right support is available and that, if they report a crime, the criminal justice system will treat them in the way they should rightly expect.
However, this Bill misses the opportunity to extend the right to access support to victims of persistent and anti-social behaviour in cases where the police choose not to take action. We can have a discussion about why the police may or may not choose to take action, but it seems to me that our duty to put into the Bill a way in which to recognise that these people are victims and that they need support in the victims’ code. This Bill presents us with the opportunity to recognise the victims of persistent anti-social behaviour and to set out their entitlement in the victims’ code.
This is an important matter. While it is possible that this amendment may not be the right way to do it, we need to do what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has suggested, and work out with the Bill team and the Minister how we can do that in a way that recognises the very serious issues. I was very struck by both the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and by the comprehensive brief that her office provided for us about this matter. For example, in one case study, 280 incidents of anti-social behaviour were reported over 10 months, including noise, nuisance, anonymous harassment, threats and intimidation—incidents that culminated in a firebomb attack on victims’ property. The continued impact of anti-social behaviour resulted in one victim attempting suicide on two occasions, and victims eventually having to move house due to the trauma that they were experiencing. These are victims and we need to work out how we can best recognise and support them in that.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my lateness—I got slightly confused about the Northern Ireland Bill and when it was coming.
I will speak to Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. I follow my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, so there is very little more to be said. The only thing I can say is that ASB is so important. ASB is far more common than we know and far more common than the police will say. It must be taken seriously. I have a friend whose father was the victim of ASB over many years and actually snapped. He attacked the person who was causing it and ended up with a custodial sentence himself. So you can turn victims into perpetrators with this and it needs to be defined in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very sincerely for their most moving and constructive speeches. I will first respond to the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conduct these proceedings in as open and consensual way as possible. In the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Argar did precisely that, and I propose to follow exactly the same approach, and to discuss as widely as we can the various difficult issues that are in front of us. That is an essential function of this Chamber.
To a great extent—I think my noble friend Lady Newlove accepted this, up to a point—we have made very considerable progress in support of victims generally over the last few years. But the problems that remain are, in particular, that victims are still often unaware of their rights, that the required services are not provided, or that the relevant authorities are not accountable. So the questions in front of us are not so much points of principle as questions as to how we change the culture of a system to make sure that victims are properly supported, as they should be.
I suggest, in shorthand, that essentially we should seek four things. First, victims should be aware of their rights and entitlements under the code. Secondly, those services should be accessible. Thirdly, those responsible for providing them should be accountable. Finally, the system should be affordable; speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to make that point. Essentially, we have four As: awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. It is within that framework that I will respond to the various points that have been made, with great conviction and sincerity, about the definition of “victim” in the current draft of the Bill.
We are dealing with five questions all together. One is about carers and those who suffer vicarious harm, which is raised in Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The second is about people who have been victims of a defendant who has subsequently been made the subject of a hospital order as distinct from another criminal sanction. Thirdly, there is the question of anti-social behaviour. Fourthly, there is the question of homicide abroad. Finally, where the criminal conduct has been caused by another family member, there is the question of whether they are still a victim; that is raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I will take those points, and probably in that order.
As regards Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I read it, the definition of “victim” is not confined in its present form to victims of serious sexual or violent behaviour; it is very broad, extending to all crimes. It refers first to persons who have been subject to witnessing a crime. The Government’s position is that those who have witnessed a crime are already covered fairly explicitly in the definition in Clause 1.
That takes us on to the difficult question of how far you go on the carers of victims and others who have suffered indirectly rather than directly. On that point, the Government’s present thinking is that we should have a system that serves the direct victims primarily, and that we cannot, at this stage at least, extend the definition of a victim too far. If I may say so, there is force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: if one makes the concept of a victim too wide, one may well finish up with a system that is not as workable as it otherwise would be. There are all kinds of people who are, in one sense, victims but who are not necessarily the direct victims to whom we must give priority. The job of a Government is to make decisions as to how to prioritise services. We are very pressed on resources on all fronts, so I urge your Lordships to take that point into account and to consider that the definition of victim in Clause 1 is already very wide. I will come to certain points made in that connection in a moment. It would not be the right approach, by statute, to extend that already broad definition any further than it is. Broadly speaking, that is the Government’s position on Amendment 1.
On the point about hospital orders in relation to Amendments 8, 12 and 19, the question is whether the victim is a person who has been subject to criminal conduct. A person may well be the perpetrator of criminal conduct but still finish up being ordered by the court to be detained in a secure hospital, rather than serve a criminal sentence. The Government’s position is that many of the victims whose perpetrator has finished up in front of a mental health tribunal are already victims under the Bill. They are covered so long as the conduct is criminal. Your Lordships may have seen the tragic case in Nottingham this week, where the defendant, who was clearly schizophrenic and should never have been on the streets, was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility. It was criminal conduct, so those unfortunate families are victims. The point that is rightly made—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
If the Minister would not mind giving way, I will clarify—I am sure that this is what he meant—that there are many people who are successfully treated for schizophrenia who live in the community. I think that he is referring to an individual who was very ill and who sought the charge of manslaughter yesterday because of diminished responsibility. I would not want the impression to be given in Hansard that people cannot live their lives—quite challenging lives—with schizophrenia in the community.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely accept that point. I have in my own family direct experience of a similar situation. That particular individual had already committed a number of crimes and there was a warrant out for his arrest. That is a very specific case and that is the context in which I made my comment.
On the assumption that, in many of these cases, we have someone who is already a victim under the meaning in the Bill, the problem rightly identified is that the procedures of the mental health tribunal do not, at the moment, quite correspond to the procedures in the main courts, particularly on the right to give a victim statement. The Government’s position is that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs; they are working with the authorities in the mental health tribunal and others to operationalise how we have the same system for mental health tribunals as for the main courts system. I hope to be able to give your Lordships further information that will enable your Lordships to say that this point—which is rightly being made—is being addressed by the Government. As soon as I am in a position to give further information about that, I will. The point of principle that a number of noble Lords have made is accepted; there is no dispute about that.
We then come to the equally difficult question of anti-social behaviour. Again, the first question is whether the victim has been subject to criminal conduct. Strictly speaking, whether or not the police have taken any action is not decisive of the question of whether the conduct is criminal. It may well have crossed the criminal threshold and, if it has, the victim should be entitled to relevant circumstances.
If the conduct has not crossed the criminal threshold, that is a more difficult situation because the scope of the Bill is victims of criminal conduct, and it is quite difficult for the Government, at least at this stage, to contemplate bringing within the scope of this Bill conduct that is not criminal. But a lot of anti-social behaviour is criminal, so how are we going to tackle this? Again, I am not in a position to give your Lordships as much detail as I would wish, but there will shortly be before your Lordships the Criminal Justice Bill currently making its passage through the other place, which will tackle and address a number of legitimate concerns about anti-social behaviour by enhancing the powers available to the police and other local agencies under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I am grateful for any further meetings about anti-social behaviour. I get that we have three Bills coming—it is like buses; we do not have anything, then we have them all at once—so I am keeping track of those as well. On the Criminal Justice Bill, I think we are looking at Clause 71 on the ASB case review, which used to be called the community trigger. I have my eye on that, and I gave evidence about that. Again, it is about the victim being involved, but that is for another day.
I am conscious that when we talk about anti-social behaviour and the threshold, if you have it constantly it is harassment, so there are already laws for the police. We do not have to have a criminal threshold. I would welcome further conversations because you can shift the boxes around for the police to look at, but there are laws in place that will protect the victim that would automatically go under the victims’ code. When you focus on just anti-social behaviour and the police look at that as low level, they are never going to protect the victim. They have never learned from Fiona Pilkington. The victim is having to log this. I think we need to run this in parallel so that the police follow this from day one and do not leave the victim feeling that their life is worthless. Anti-social behaviour is not litter. We have heard about the level of violence—firebombs and everything else. It is quite serious.
I heard what the Minister said, and I would like to take this forward when we have a meeting with other Peers. We really need to look at the police knowing what laws they already have to help these victims instead of just focusing on the words “anti-social behaviour” because they see it as low level. We need to get that first and foremost to protect victims.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely accept the points that my noble friend is making, and I am very happy to have a further meeting to discuss this, the interrelationship between the bits of legislation that we are dealing with, the interrelationship between the various authorities and who exactly is responsible for what.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, to further emphasise that, I think it would be helpful to the Committee to recognise the sheer scale of anti-social behaviour. Some freedom of information requests looking at the period between 2019 and 2021 identified that, believe it or not, there were 3.5 million reports of anti-social behaviour, so it is on a similar scale to stalking on an annualised basis. Those are probably the largest two areas of cases involving victims across England and Wales.
Those statistics were done across 34 out of the 43 police forces. They demonstrate the huge variability across the country, police and crime commissioner by PCC, and police force by police force. That is the problem. Some areas are doing really well with existing resources, without needing extra money. With proper leadership, organisation and training, they are doing a really good job. Kudos to the Government and the Minister for achieving good results in some areas. The challenge for the Government is: what is the problem with taking action to ensure that is replicated efficiently and systematically right across England and Wales? The evidence is clearly that it is not. If the authorities can do it within existing resources, we are not talking about huge amounts of extra money. That is not the issue; the issue is the way they go about what they do.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and entirely accept the point he makes about the variability across the country. Although this evening we are not on Clause 6 and supplementary Clause 11, for example, or Clause 10, about code awareness and reviewing compliance by criminal justice bodies, one of the main drivers of the Bill is to raise the standard of victim support equally across the country; to publish league tables; to have the data; to put pressure, if you like, by almost shame and stigma on those that are not performing as well as they should so that it is publicly known; and, in extreme cases, to give directions that they need to improve and so forth.
The steps we need to think about are how we make the various parts of the legislation consistent and operational, what role the code plays in anti-social behaviour when it is criminal conduct, as it often will be, and how we operationalise the way in which particular police forces and other agencies offer consistent services across the country. That is my thought on this point.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
On this particular point about anti-social behaviour, Louise Lotz was a friend of mine. The problem was that her local police force did nothing about the earlier stages of anti-social behaviour. One of the things that this amendment is trying to achieve is that police forces just watch the pattern of anti-social behaviour; if they see it going up, their response should also start to change. I wonder whether the Minister will take that into account. I look forward to joining any meeting about that as well.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I certainly take that into account. I again think that we collectively need to understand a little more about what the Criminal Justice Bill progressing through the other place is doing about this, because the problem of anti-social behaviour is that it exists and is not being controlled. That Bill is trying to address that problem. Here we are dealing with the victims, which in some ways is the end result, rather than the fact that it is happening in the first place, so tackling it and what is happening in the first place is probably a very important aspect that we need to understand further. I take all these points, and I think we should take it further collectively as soon as we can.
Then we come to the difficult issue of homicide abroad. I hope that nobody infers that the Government do not have enormous sympathy for those who suffer these very difficult situations, but I respectfully suggest that a crime of homicide committed abroad is in a slightly different category, as far as the victims’ code is concerned, from a crime of homicide committed in this country. Clearly, the various rights under the code —for example, the right to make a victim statement—as well as the nature of the offence, what the criminal processes are and so forth are rather different if we are talking about a crime that has been committed in South America or somewhere outside this country. The responsibility for looking after victims of homicide abroad falls primarily on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which offers support through the homicide service. Noble Lords may well say that it is not adequate support or enough support.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I have worked with the Foreign Office on this as well, and every time I have gone there, its first point of call is “We don’t have many resources; there’s not much money; we make the money from passports; it is only a small number of families that come through”. If we keep putting it to the Foreign Office, it will keep batting it the other way. Not only are we talking about families dealing with countries with different languages which are trying to get financial gain and who also have jobs to hold down but we have a Foreign Office that really does not do much for them and they feel lost. I appreciate what the is Minister saying, but I think it is about resource. I am not asking for lots of resources, but I want them to work collaboratively to help those families resolve the issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I of course understand the point that the Minister is making—procedures in other countries and what is available in other countries by way of support are different—but should that stop us requiring part of the Government, the organisation in this country which has immediate, close responsibility, to take on a role of proper signposting, which may be to equivalent services? Partly, it is interpreting, but it is obvious that there is a lacuna here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If there has been a homicide abroad and those families are living here, there is a real danger that the message will be that the Government think that that homicide does not matter as much as a homicide that happened here. The Government might say that they do not have the resources. I pointed out that it is about 80 homicides per year—the numbers are not huge—but those people who are so severely traumatised, retraumatised and carry on being further damaged by the experience often become enormous consumers of resources because of mental health services, because they are unable to work and so on, and eventually they may need benefits. There are all kinds of things that they may need. It is a false economy to look at it in terms of resources to the FCDO. I hope that the Minister will meet me and others to discuss ways that the victims’ code could be asterisked where there are things that may not be as appropriate if the homicide occurred here, but it would say that the lives of British citizens are of equal value wherever they are in the world and that whether it was a terrorist attack, a homicide here or a homicide overseas, those lives are of equal value.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, of course I am prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and any other noble Lords on this point to discuss it further. There is certainly a point about the signposting in the code, what the code should say about all this, whether we should give further additional priority to homicides abroad, and exactly what the role of the Homicide Service is and other related resource issues, as well as where the earlier point I raised about priorities comes in: we cannot do everything. This is an important topic for further discussion, and I do not rule out examining further how far we can go in response to the very legitimate concerns raised.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will forgive me for coming to her last, but I think her point was about the definition of a victim where the person is a victim as a result of the criminal conduct of a close family member. The obvious example would be a road incident where somebody who had been driving over the limit or driving dangerously had killed themselves, leaving behind bereaved children. On the wording of the code, those children would be victims. The Government do not think that even in those circumstances should we reduce or limit the concept of a victim. It is conceivable that somebody could be a perpetrator and a victim at the same time, because if you have driven dangerously, had a crash and killed your child, you may both be guilty of criminal conduct and a victim of your own conduct, as it were. That may be a highly theoretical and hypothetical example, but the Government are not proposing any change to Clause 1 in relation to those very tragic kinds of case.
I hope I have dealt with the main amendments proposed in this first group, and I respectfully invite your Lordships not to pursue them at this point.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his detailed responses to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on a range of different issues, even though they are all part of the concern about some of the holes in the system. I thank him for offering some meetings, which I think is extremely useful, because as I think he will have heard from the debate, we all have a reasonable amount of knowledge and not necessarily the same knowledge.
On his comments on my Amendment 1, I absolutely accept that my proposed new paragraph (aa), inserting “witnessing criminal conduct”, might already be covered earlier in Clause 1. Proposed new paragraphs (ab) and (ac) are not covered at all. They are the direct consequences for a family member or person close to somebody who has had a very traumatic experience. They would have their life changed in all the ways that I described. I would also welcome a meeting on that to discuss how the Minister believes that it is already covered, because as far as I can see, it is not.
I want to make a more general point about the Bill. The Minister, uniquely, has his four As for what we should seek to achieve—the victims being aware, access, accountability by those providing services, and it being affordable. One of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made is that costs may not actually be so great, providing that the first, second and third categories are completely fulfilled. That is an area where—as we have said to him in private meetings already—there will be cost savings. Not all of them will be to the Home Office or the justice system, but there will be substantial savings in healthcare and in social services, particularly where children are involved, if the victims’ code is on a statutory footing and applied across the board. He is right that changing the culture is vital. The problem is that if you do not give public organisations targets, they do not work to them, and the real problem we have here is that there is no onus on the services to make sure that those are provided for. With that, I beg to leave withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“(e) where the person is a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by reiterating my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the way in which the noble and learned Lord wound up the previous group of amendments and about working consensually across the Committee as we progress through the Bill. My second point is simple, but I think it worth making. As noble Lords will know, I sit as a magistrate in London in family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I rarely see victims. I see victims only in trials—they sometimes turn up to trials to give evidence—and I hear from victims only when I sentence and the victim’s impact statement is read out. Through all the rest of the processes which I routinely go through sitting in a magistrates’ court, I do not hear from victims, and I do not see them. It is a simple point, but I thought it was worth making.
The Minister also had his four As, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just referred to—awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. We agree with those as far as they go, of course, but of course many of the elements in Committee will concern whether accountability should be enforceability. That will be the crux of a number of our debates in Committee.
This group deals with child victims. Amendment 5 in my name clarifies that the definition of “victim” should include a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation that constitutes criminal conduct. I will go through the amendments in the group and then comment more widely. Amendment 6, and Amendment 10 in my name, extend the definition of “victim” to a child who is
“a victim of child criminal exploitation”.
Other noble Lords will speak to that as well. Amendments 7 and 11 seek to ensure that the explicit definition of a victim includes those who are subject to modern slavery—another aspect that we will debate within this group. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, is specifically about verbal abuse of children.
While the Bill makes important reference to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and to children as victims of domestic abuse, the same organisations that fought for that Act are now asking for the same ambition to be applied to children who have experienced abuse and exploitation. Last week, I and other noble Lords now present in the Chamber went to a survivors’ presentation organised by a coalition of charities led by the NSPCC, where we heard first-hand about survivors’ experiences and how the support organisations and criminal justice system responded to their trauma.
What was particularly telling about those survivor experiences was that, although the abuse itself was, of course, wholly negative, we did hear from one or two survivors who had had a relatively good experience of the criminal justice system—although there were other experiences that were much more negative. That contrast made those testimonies even more powerful. This morning, I, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, visited the Lighthouse project in Camden. This provides a one-stop shop for child victims of sexual abuse. It is a model of how these services should be provided.
It is in that context that this group is being debated. I want to set out the scale of abuse and exploitation of children. Children—that means people under 18—make up about 20% of the population. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse has found that children are the victims of about 40% of all sexual offences. One in 10 children in England and Wales is sexually abused before the age of 16 and that number means that there are an estimated half a million child victims every year.
Children abused by parents or carers are almost three times more likely to experience other forms of domestic abuse as well, and it was found that 42% of childhood abuse survivors suffered more than one type of abuse. The Bill explicitly recognises children as victims only of domestic abuse and as a result fails to acknowledge the multiple forms of abuse and exploitation that children can experience. They can be subjected to multiple forms of abuse and exploitation during their lifetime. To avoid failing these children, the definition of a victim must cover all forms of abuse and exploitation, in addition to domestic abuse.
The victims’ code of practice recognises that those under 18 are vulnerable and affords them enhanced rights. The children’s coalition, a coalition of charities that are informing what I am saying now—and has no doubt briefed all noble Lords here in Committee as well—has argued that there should be consistency across all legislation, recognising as distinct victims all children, not just those who are affected by domestic abuse. The coalition urges government to ensure that the Bill reflects the code by ensuring that children who experience abuse and exploitation, in addition to those who experience domestic abuse, are in the Bill so that the entirety of the harm they experience is explicit within primary legislation.
If the definition is not amended, the children’s coalition foresees that this will have unintended consequences for the relevant authorities and those in charge of delivering victim support services. Resources will be directed to focus on the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse above other forms of harm. The coalition is concerned that there is the potential for a hierarchy of abuse that would leave thousands of children affected by other forms of abuse and exploitation without recognition and, ultimately, without support. By not explicitly recognising children as victims in their own right, the Bill could have significant implications for the level and quality of support available.
I am told that evidence already shows that a lack of support for children following abuse and exploitation exists and that ensuring that children and the full scale of the harm they experience are explicitly in scope will act as a cornerstone for responsible agencies commissioning services to make sure that they reflect the needs of children in full. So this is a specific example where legislation will make a difference.
It is impossible to design an effective justice system response to childhood victims without understanding the scale of what we are talking about, which I set out earlier. This cannot be done without recognising all forms of abuse, but this is a specific example where the black letter of the law will have an impact on the services that are delivered to childhood victims of abuse that falls outside the scope of domestic abuse. It is in that spirit that I beg to move Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 7 and 11 in this group and I want to be clear that I agree very much with the views that are behind all these amendments.
I hope that my first question—a technical question—will not be regarded as negative. Is a child a person within Clause 1(1)? That will affect amendments and how they are framed. My second question is probably a bit indelicate. It has only occurred to me this evening, while listening to the examples that your Lordships have given. It is a direct question to the Minister. Is the MoJ aware of examples of possible candidates—that is probably not a very happy term—who have been exploited or subjected to criminal or marginally criminal behaviour, which have not made their way to us? It may be possible. I possibly should not put the Minister on the spot now, but maybe we can talk about what the MoJ has considered and discarded. Amendments 7 and 11 have been brought to us by Hestia, which supports victims of modern slavery. It is concerned with ensuring that those who are born to victims of modern slavery are covered.
I know that we have Clause 1(2)(b), which refers to circumstances
“where the person’s birth was the direct result of criminal conduct”,
but it would be very unfortunate if we were to run into the weeds of whether someone is a victim of rape—in other words, what is the relationship between the mother and the offender?—or if there is a doubt as to who is the father because the woman has been subjected to forced prostitution and the object of multiple rapes, because that kind of issue detracts from the support that is needed by the children of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, whose experience in itself requires support.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on Amendment 5. The Bill offers a landmark opportunity to make a difference to victims’ and survivors’ lives and has the potential to restore confidence in our criminal justice system.
As noble Lords know, alongside organisations focused on supporting women and children, and together with many other noble Lords from across the House, we fought hard for children experiencing domestic abuse to be recognised as victims in their own right, and I am proud that that is included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, I am saddened—I think that is the word I am looking for—that we are having to make this very same case again.
Sadly, children experience multiple forms of abuse and exploitation, sometimes including domestic abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse has found that it is common that victims and survivors experience multiple forms of victimisation in childhood. Over half of adults in England and Wales who reported being sexually abused before the age of 16 also experienced another type of abuse, whether physical, emotional, or witnessing domestic abuse. As has been said, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found that 52% of victims and survivors who gave evidence spoke about experiencing at least one other form.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested, we were reminded of these facts just last week at a meeting here in Parliament. We were given the privilege, I would say, of hearing directly from the survivors of child abuse about what this opportunity means to them. At this event hosted by the Children’s Charities Coalition, they all shared the same vision: that the Bill offers an opportunity to transform our response to children affected by abuse and exploitation. Often, it is not until you speak directly to victims and survivors of crime that you truly understand the magnitude and impact of what we are discussing today. Yet their ask is very simple: recognition and support for all children who experience abuse and exploitation.
At the event, we heard harrowing experiences from survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation. In sharing their experiences, they also shared their bravery and resolve to improve support for children today and for generations to come—which, in some cases, was so lacking when they truly needed it. We heard from David Tait, who shared his experience about the horrific abuse he faced as a child. He challenged the room and asked whether any of us felt it was appropriate that children were not specifically recognised within the Bill. The room was silent, in realisation that it is almost unthinkable that children are not specifically recognised. I offer my deepest gratitude to all those who bravely spoke out. It sharpened my own focus on how the Bill can truly make a difference for them.
The final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse gives a glimpse into what it is like for these children and why it is so important for all children who have experienced, and, sadly, will experience, abuse and exploitation to be recognised. Many victims and survivors said they were traumatised by child sexual abuse. Olivar, a survivor, described the “traumatic long-term effect” of sexual abuse:
“I’ve thought about it for over 50 years”.
Another survivor, Laurie, said that
“hardly a day goes by where I do not think about the events from 58 years ago”.
Another survivor described feeling “misery” and “bewilderment” after being sexually abused as a child. Finally, a survivor shared:
“I was never able to be nurtured … I have to grieve for the childhood I never had”.
I support this key amendment in ensuring that these children and all children are recognised. This Bill must recognise all children as victims in their own right and we must get that definition and recognition put at the heart of the Bill. Children have distinct needs and require a child-centred approach and specialist support. Let us not go through the pain that we had last time with domestic abuse, let us get children into the Bill now.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, this is a good Bill for victims. It contains many provisions that I strongly support. I hope and believe that we can make it an even better Bill by working across the House, which is the mood tonight, as it was then.
I put my name to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I also support other amendments in this group, including those that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol, who is unable to be in her place today, has signed. Amendments in this group seek to clarify how the Bill properly addresses the needs of children.
Amendment 10 places on the face of the Bill a short but clear definition of “child criminal exploitation”. This would include any child under 18 who is
“encouraged, expected or required to take part in any activity that constitutes a criminal offence”.
This is not widening the definition of a victim, merely giving it clarity. I learned in my teens that if I was on the receiving end of some wrongdoing, I was a child. By contrast, if I was deemed the perpetrator, I suddenly became a youth.
We have also heard too often in your Lordships’ House of the adultification of children. It is an ugly word for an ugly phenomenon, where a child is treated as a grown-up when they are caught up in wrongdoing. Moreover, we know that in the absence of a strong countervailing pressure, this is disproportionately applied to black children. This has been a long-standing concern of many civil society organisations focused on countering the exploitation of children. I hope we can begin to respond to it today.
In my own diocese of Manchester, we are still reeling from the discovery of the extent of grooming gangs exploiting children for sexual crimes, most notably—but I doubt exclusively—in Rochdale. If the children caught up in these crimes had been seen by the authorities primarily as victims, and treated as such, I believe that the gangs would have been brought to justice far sooner.
Getting a clear definition of child criminal exploitation into the Bill will, I hope and pray, not only improve this legislation but set a precedent for how we treat child victims better, both in future legislation and in practice at every stage of the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister will either accept our words as on the Marshalled List or come back to us on Report with a suitable government amendment to that effect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 9 in this group. It concerns verbal abuse to children and, in terms of the challenges the Minister set us with the four As, it is concerned with raising awareness.
I share the view of other noble Lords that it is important to get children into the Bill, particularly in relation to this clause. My amendment seeks to make it clear that when it comes to the definition of “harm” in Clause 1(4)(a), it should include a definition that embraces children and includes verbal harm.
My amendment has been inspired by the work of an inspirational, newish charity called Words Matter, which I believe to be the first charity in the world focused solely on verbal harm to children. It aims to eradicate this damaging and underestimated form of abuse, and I pay tribute to its inspirational founder, Jessica Bondy.
We all understand verbal abuse. It can mean negative words, and language that causes harm to children. It can take the form of blaming, insulting, belittling, intimidating, demeaning, disrespecting, scolding, frightening, ridiculing, criticising, name-calling or threatening a child. It does not constitute only shouting. In fact, abuse can be quiet, insidious and subtle in tone, where volume and facial expression play a part. We have probably all personally experienced verbal abuse, certainly in the profession we are in. It can be extraordinarily damaging, particularly to young people.
We know that children’s brains are responsive to relationships as they grow up with words, tones and sounds around them. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has just talked about the long-lasting impact on people who were sexually abused many years ago, and destructive language can have some of the same impact. If one looks at what comprises child maltreatment—physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and neglect—verbal abuse is a key attribute of many of those aspects. It can also be individually damaging to a child’s development, perhaps as damaging as other currently recognised and forensically established subtypes of maltreatment.
We believe that emotional abuse, including verbal abuse, is on the rise, and is perhaps the most prevalent form of child maltreatment. A systematic review of childhood abuse undertaken by UCL and Wingate University in the US found that verbal abuse does profound damage to a child over their lifetime, affecting their self-esteem, confidence, future potential and ability to function at home, school and the workplace, really affecting life outcomes for them.
The study commissioned by Words Matter found that this kind of abuse is pervasive in society. That study, which it recently undertook, revealed that two in five children aged 11 to 17 experience adults regularly using hurtful and upsetting words to blame, insult or criticise them—that is, around 2 million children in this country.
The real problem here is a lack of awareness, because without awareness you cannot have strategies and policies to try to deal with it or engage in the educational programmes that are needed, particularly to help teachers, parents and other adults who are in a situation to try to change their behaviour. I do not pretend that an amendment tonight would magically deal with this issue, but in the spirit of the Minister’s wind-up on previous groups, I hope that by drawing attention to it he will be able to say something constructive about how we might tackle verbal abuse and protect children in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol, as has been said, regrets that she cannot be in the Chamber today but along with her, I support Amendments 7 and 11. The children of victims of modern slavery are currently underserved by support services, despite that lasting and intergenerational trauma which witnessing the crime of modern slavery can cause. We have already heard about the organisation Hestia. In 2021, it estimated that as many as 5,000 vulnerable children could be identified within the NRM as children of victims of modern slavery. I want to add that there is an urgent need to extend victims’ rights to this group, and I am glad to see these amendments.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 6 and 10, which are designed to ensure that children who have been criminally exploited are seen and treated as victims rather than perpetrators. As has already been discussed, I understand the Government’s desire to keep definitions broad and to resist requests for too much specific detail in the Bill, but there is a case to be made about child criminal exploitation.
First, there is a need for clarity. The Government’s own Serious Violence Strategy says:
“In order to support different agencies and sectors working together it is important we have common definitions of the issues we are tackling”.
Yet on the issue of criminal exploitation, there is no common definition. The definition used in that strategy is the same as that in Working Together to Safeguard Children but differs from the definition in Keeping Children Safe in Education. As a result, different parts of the system are working to different understandings of what constitutes criminal exploitation. They have found the current definitions to be not only different but overly complicated.
As one police officer said in the very helpful briefing from the Children’s Coalition, which has already been mentioned:
“What is applying in Newcastle is totally different to Surrey”
and current definitions
“are too open to interpretation and this breeds an inconsistent approach”,
so we need consistency. We also need a statutory definition for criminal law purposes for, as that police officer also explains:
“We definitely need the definition to do our job. It’s a 21st-century crime we are prosecuting with outdated legislation”.
The Government should be given credit for their focus on the growing threat of serious violence, which often gives rise to criminal exploitation but, if I am honest, it feels a bit odd that they would not see that this might be a useful step. It would not only help those victims having to live with a criminal conviction, making life even harder for them in the long run through no fault of their own; it would also send an important message to the real perpetrators in all of this—the people who take away these children’s lives, forcing them to live constantly on edge and in fear. It is a fear of the people exploiting them but also a fear of the authorities, if their situation is not properly recognised or understood.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I am interested in verbal harm because it is true that, as politicians, we get a lot of that. I have had verbal abuse from that Front Bench, in fact, but I am old enough that it has not affected my behaviour.
Amendments 5 and 6 are quite crucial here, as is Amendment 10 on child criminal exploitation. On top of all the important points made by noble Lords here about child victims, I want to ask the Minister about the Government’s role in re-victimising children and young people by deploying them as covert human intelligence sources or child spies. I have raised this issue a few times over the past few years. It is still a practice that absolutely horrifies me—that the Government would actually encourage the further criminalisation of children. In recent years, the Government have actually expanded the use of child spies, including authorising them to commit criminal offences. I do not expect the Minister to answer this this evening, but I would like a full answer, because this is an issue that fills me with horror.
The Government’s actions obviously meet the definition of child criminal exploitation in Amendment 10, as these children are being
“encouraged, expected or required to take part”
in criminal offences by the police. Can the Minister therefore outline what victim support and other help is provided to these child spies when they are being sent back into dangerous criminal situations? Will they be eligible as victims under the victims’ code—I assume they will—and can the Minister give up-to-date figures on how many child spies are currently being used by police forces? I have been consistently told that it is a very small number. In my view, any number is wrong, but if I could have that information, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was quite surprised to see the amendments, and also the way they have been motivated—by the need to get children in the Bill, as though there were a lack of sympathy with children as victims, particularly of sexual abuse. That is not something that I am aware of in society, which seems to me to be more than preoccupied with that issue, and rightly so.
If anything, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made clear, it depends which children you are talking about, because one of the shocking aspects of the Rochdale grooming scandal was that a particular group of children were seen to be the wrong kind of children—in the words of the perpetrators, “white trash”. If you read the many reports on this, as I have done, even the officialdom—the police, local authorities, social workers and all sorts of things—saw these children as perpetrators who could be ignored. In general, society is horrified, it seems to me, at child abuse, but it depends which children. I did not know that we needed to get the idea of children as victims on the face of this kind of Bill in order to be sympathetic to children as victims, so I am a bit confused about the necessity of that. However, I am open to being convinced.
As it happens, I completely agree with the horror of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, at child spies, and I share that point of view as well. But she does raise a problem that I have with Amendment 10, inasmuch as I think it is unclear what the definition of “child criminal exploitation” would be. Where it says that
“a child under the age of 18 is encouraged, expected or required to take part in any activity that constitutes a criminal offence”,
first, there would be an argument about those child spies. Other people would presumably say that that was not what was happening there.
But there is a danger, particularly when we use that wording: “encouraged, expected or required” is very loose in terms of problems we might well have with agency of young people. We have already heard about anti-social behaviour; often that is committed by under-18s. Knife crime is often committed by under-18s. There is a danger that, in our attempt at fighting genuine exploitation of children to force them into criminal activity, we end up in a situation whereby young people, who I am afraid can on occasion be responsible for crimes, are able to say that they did not do it because they were encouraged or put under pressure and so on. I am just worried about the wording there.
Finally in this group—and this is not something I like doing, because I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I absolutely disagree with his Amendment 9 on verbal harm. One thing that is quite interesting is this idea that we have to make young people—or everybody—aware of the dangers of verbal harm. The one group of people who are very aware of the dangers of verbal harm are young people and children because they are reared in a society that tells them that words are harmful. They are so embroiled in that notion that, as we know, they will say that they are victims because of words that have been said to them. We see this played out in schools, sixth forms and universities all the time, to the detriment of free speech.
People might think that is glib, but I am constantly involved in arguing the point with young people who say that words are as harmful as fists, knives and anything else and that they should not be exposed to individuals saying certain words because they are just as harmful as criminal activity. I do not want the Bill to give even more succour to this idea that words, which are often opinions that people do not like, are harmful. Even though words can make you feel uncomfortable, we must distinguish between words and actions, in my opinion, and not encourage young people to always think that they are victims of some crime if they hear words that they find unpleasant, even though I understand that some words are unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I was pleased to hear that verbal abuse is being highlighted and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for that.
Children who are criminally exploited suffer unimaginable abuse and harm, which have long-lasting impacts and can cause physical and mental harm and trauma which can impact their development. As we know, childhood lasts a lifetime so this will go on to affect society in the long term, directly and indirectly.
The Covid-19 pandemic increased the risk of children being exploited and this has been made even worse by the cost of living crisis. Despite this, all too often children who are victims of exploitation are blamed and criminalised for their own abuse. Black and minority ethnic children and children in care are more likely to be criminalised than other children, which can be a double jeopardy for them.
There is no statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, which means that those working with children lack a shared understanding and can miss key intervention points and fail to identify victims. For child victims, this means that they are falling through the cracks of statutory support and perpetrators of this vile abuse are going unpunished.
At Second Reading, the Minister set out that a definition of child criminal exploitation already exists in statutory guidance, which is a good step in recognising the issue. However, confusion remains among those on the front line, and it is clear that a statutory definition would be welcomed by them. The Government need to use the Bill to give child criminal exploitation a statutory definition in its own right.
In 2021, Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as its vice-president—made a freedom of information request to police forces across the UK. Some 30 police forces responded, but only one force was able to provide any data about child criminal exploitation. Interestingly, many forces asked Barnardo’s about how child criminal exploitation is defined, which shows just how misunderstood it is by those working in this area. A police officer who spoke to the Children’s Society said:
“What is applying in Newcastle is totally different to Surrey, and current definitions are too open to interpretation and this breeds an inconsistent approach”.
Other police officers working on the front line have said that they would definitely value a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, and that the definitions that already exist in statutory guidance are weaker and can be harder to prove.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which seek to ensure better focus on the position and needs of children and thereby provide a better framework of support for children who are victims or potential victims.
I assume that the word “person” in Clause 1 includes a child but nevertheless I think that should be emphasised in the Bill, as so many noble Lords have said. The priority to be given to children should rest on at least three obvious points. First, children are much more vulnerable than adults. Secondly, children are less able to speak for themselves; exploited and abused children notoriously lose self-esteem. Thirdly, clearly children have much longer than adults to put up with the consequences of abuse and of inadequate decisions made when the abuse comes to light.
The Government may say that it is not necessary to highlight particular types of criminal conduct, as attempted in Amendments 5 to 7, and that they are already covered by Clause 1. I am not entirely convinced of that, and if there is any doubt about it, I hope the Government will look again to ensure that the particular categories of abuse highlighted in those amendments are indeed covered.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which I have added my name digitally. We start on the thorny subject, to which I think we will return, of children. I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in Hackney.
I am delighted to have my noble friend Lord Meston with me, because he can say it far better than I can when we are trying to persuade the Government that children should be defined separately as victims. I will speak more about that in the sixth group of amendments.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, in saying that we need a definition of victim, which is not contained in Keeping Children Safe in Education—there seem to be variations on that—and we need to deal with the children of victims of modern slavery. I support all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we add our thanks to the Children’s Commissioner for her very helpful round table and briefing notes. We also thank Hestia. I thank other noble Lords for their amendments, which specify children in the definition of a victim. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin made strong arguments to include who victims of abuse and criminal exploitation are, as well as those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is a salutary reminder that children can be damaged by verbal harm. Intense and repeated verbal abuse is damaging. That is somewhat different from the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, which was about young people having arguments about matters of principle and offence; that is not what we are talking about.
Some years ago, I lived next door to a family who used the most extraordinary bad language to their toddler, time after time. The example I can just about repeat in your Lordships’ House was his name, which was “Paul, you little bleeder”. It went on, from worse to worse. As he grew up, we heard his own language mirroring that of his parents. One of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to propose this is that a child like that needs help and support from other agencies, as do his parents. It can be within a house, or it can be separate, but it is very different from the argument the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, and I hope she would accept that.
In a later group, probably next week, we will come to a group with much more detail about the protection required for child victims. All these amendments would ensure that definitions at the start of the Bill recognise that child victims have as many needs as adults. Agencies need to remind themselves that child victims may not always present in the same way as an adult and may not always need the same services as an adult. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the lessons of Rochdale show that too many agencies do not always see children as victims. There, I am afraid that the police and some other agencies saw them as perpetrators. That is absolutely unacceptable.
I apologise again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I am picking up on the arguments she made about the lack of sympathy from officialdom and police. She went on to argue that it is important that people recognise that these children are victims. But this is not about sympathy; it is about getting help and support for these children. Sympathy may be part of it, but these amendments are not put forward to get sympathy for children; it is to change their lives, and to recognise that they are victims and will need specific services thereafter.
I am mindful of Nicky Campbell and others who were abused at the schools he attended and how their experience of not getting support early in their lives has affected them for their entire lives. This is not just an issue about children; it is about how those children grow up and manage their own lives. As I said at the end of the previous group, one can save money in the longer run on services by ensuring that victims—in this case child victims—get support as early as possible.
Finally, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in Amendment 7 on the child victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Hestia’s briefing was very helpful in reminding us that everyone in a family unit, especially the children, is affected by modern slavery and human trafficking, the consequences of which have long-standing impacts. So it is becoming clear from all parts of the House again that we need a separate definition of child victims. Their experiences, needs and the services they seek are all different.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate on how we assist, support, improve, validate and value children who have suffered various kinds of abuse. The question—I respectfully suggest it is a somewhat technical question—is whether we need to amend this Bill, whether we should do it through further sections of the code, and how we should approach the problem.
The Government’s position at the moment is that a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct is already a victim under the Bill. So the large numbers of children, rightly referred to, who have apparently suffered domestic abuse in the past—children who have been through the recent domestic abuse inquiry and so forth—would, in the ordinary meaning of words, I think, have been subject to criminal conduct under Clause 1(1)(a). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, a child is undoubtedly a person, and the Government’s position is that this is very largely covered.
The phrase “child criminal exploitation” in itself implies someone who has been exploited by criminal conduct—which is already covered. So I hesitate to recommend to your Lordships that we need to further complicate the Bill itself, or the Act as it will eventually become, one hopes, by having further definitions. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Sanderson that there probably is some confusion at the moment in some of the guidance out there, and there is probably a great deal of inconsistency in how it is applied by different authorities in different parts of the country. As I said earlier, one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure a much more even and consistent approach across the country by all relevant agencies.
It is important to clarify two things—and I respectfully suggest we should do this in the code rather than the Bill. The first is that we need, perhaps, to clarify that the phrase “criminal conduct” in the Bill does not imply that there has been a prosecution, let alone a conviction. It is whether, on the facts, this is a person who has suffered from the relevant conduct. Secondly, I suggest to your Lordships—and I cannot officially commit the Government tonight because I do not have the authority to do so—that we need when revising the code to have a detailed section on children, and special reference to the particular problems that have been rightly raised tonight, so that everybody has full guidance on what they are supposed to do with child victims of various kinds. That is probably a more apt way of proceeding than trying to redefine what we are talking about in the Bill. With the greatest respect, I suggest that “child criminal exploitation” is a somewhat difficult concept to define.
I could add that the act of manipulating, deceiving, encouraging, coercing or controlling a child almost certainly amounts to a criminal offence in itself—it does under Part 1 of the Modern Slavery Act, and we have been talking about modern slavery. We also have the wide terms under the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which encouraging or assisting an offence is also an offence. So I respectfully suggest that almost all the examples one can think of are already covered by the definition of “victim” in other Acts. At the moment the Government are not persuaded that we should be tinkering further with this particular definition, but I see the force of the argument that we need to have special mention and explanation as regards children when we come to revise the code and the guidance that accompanies it, and the duties of the various agencies to provide their services.
I suggest that the same broad analysis covers the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in relation to verbal abuse. It is already in Clause (1)(4)(a) that “harm” includes physical, mental, emotional or economic harm. I think that most kinds of verbal abuse are covered—but, again, this is a matter that is more for the way one drafts the code than it is for the Bill itself. That would be, I think, the Government’s position at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said when referring to Clause 1(2)(a). Was he saying that a child who is the child of a victim of modern slavery will fall within
“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced”?
I am not sure what “directly experienced” extends to. Is his argument that the child of a victim of this particular crime would fall under Clause 1(2)(a)? I am sorry; the Minister talked about it but I did not quite hear.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think that is the Government’s position. In most cases the child will experience the effect of criminal conduct, that being the effect on the mother. That is a sufficiently direct nexus, as it were, to bring it within the scope of the clause.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. The gist of the Minister’s summing up is that he believes that all the examples given in this short debate are already covered in the Bill. I think he said that there may be a detailed section in the code covering children; I understand that that was not a firm commitment but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.
The Minister gave a number of examples of why the Government want a more explicit recognition, but I gave a specific example where I argued that the black-letter law on the recognition of children could—and does—affect the accessibility of victims’ services. When local authorities look at how to allocate services, there is potentially a hierarchy there. We think that children should be at the top of that hierarchy, equal to domestic abuse victims; that was the specific example that I gave to the Minister.
Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate on which I and others will reflect. I agreed with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. He clearly tabled it to raise awareness—one of the Minister’s four As—and he has effectively achieved that goal. I will be interested to see whether he wishes to take it further. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Gohir
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that all victims can request a review of a police or Crown Prosecution Service decision not to charge a suspect including when there are multiple perpetrators.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register, particularly as CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, which operates a national helpline. I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name; I also support the other amendments in this group, which I will address at the end.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that all victims have an equal right to have the police or CPS decision reviewed when suspects are not charged. Not all victims will exercise this right, but it must be available to all victims if their voices are truly to be heard in the criminal justice system. At present, some victims do not have the same right to review a decision. For example, when there is one suspect and they are not charged, there is a right to review the decision. When there are multiple suspects and none of them is charged, there is a right to review the decision. However, if there is more than one suspect and some of them are not charged while others are, the victim cannot ask for a review into why the other suspects were not charged. This creates a hierarchy of victims.
I will explain how I stumbled on this gap in the law. The Muslim Women’s Network helpline supported a south Asian Muslim teenager who had been groomed and sexually exploited. She was raped by a gang of men. With the support of the helpline and her family, she reported the crime to the police, which was very difficult for her as she came from a south Asian background. The culture of shame and honour could have been a huge barrier to reporting, but she did it. The police then arrested several men, but ended up charging only one of the suspects. This was a huge shock to the victim, her family and the helpline. She then decided to try to get the decision reviewed but was told that she could not, for the reasons I have stated. She lost trust and confidence in the process, which led to her eventually dropping the case against the one perpetrator, so she got no justice at all.
I do not believe that this is an isolated case. We already know that rape convictions are extremely low, even in simpler cases where there is just one suspect, so one can imagine the conviction rates in more complex cases where there are multiple perpetrators. It is very plausible that this current loophole is contributing to victims dropping cases. Although I am using rape cases as an example to highlight the gap for reviewing decisions, this can also apply to many other scenarios in which more than one perpetrator is involved in the crime, such as anti-social behaviour.
I thank the Minister for listening to my concerns. We have exchanged letters and he has committed to explore this issue further with the CPS and the police. However, I believe they will continue to follow the current legislation, which has been adopted from the EU. Unless this is changed, it is in their interests to continue with the status quo rather than to follow non-binding policies.
Bringing multiple perpetrators requires more work because there needs to be more evidence gathering. It can be easier for the police and the CPS to say, “Well, we are only charging one person and not the others”, knowing that the victim cannot appeal this decision. That will mean less work for the police.
Police forces have already been heavily criticised for the way that they treat and investigate sex abuse crimes. The loophole therefore works in favour of the police and against the victim. One explanation that has been provided for not reviewing decisions is that if some suspects are not charged, and this is then reviewed, it could delay prosecution, which, in turn, can result in witnesses and victims withdrawing from the case. However, this theory has not and cannot be tested, because victims cannot review the decisions. In fact, this very mechanism has resulted in the withdrawal of cases, such as the case study that I provided today.
Earlier, on the first group of amendments, the Minister talked about thresholds being crossed and victims having a right to certain processes. This speaks to one of the As, of accountability. Therefore, how will the victim know? That is why the victim’s right to review exists. Some victims have had their decision reviewed, the decision has then been overturned and suspects have been charged, which means perhaps that the police have not charged suspects despite thresholds being crossed.
I understand that the Minister is exploring other potential routes outside the Bill; for example, challenging decisions by going through some kind of complaints process where a senior manager can review cases, thereby allowing reviews in certain exceptional circumstances. While I appreciate that the Minister is actively considering other options, I believe that this measure would not work for the following reasons. It would be a subjective process which would vary widely across the regions. It would add another separate process and yet another barrier for the victims. The message then being sent to the victims would be, “Well, the decision would only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances, so don’t bother”. Also, we would then have to have a definition of what we mean by “exceptional circumstances”. Alternatively, we could just simplify the process with this amendment, so that all victims followed the same process. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider his options.
I end by stating my support for the other amendments in this group. I support them because from my experience of operating a national helpline I have found that victims need more support—to be referred and signposted to specialist services that meet their needs and to restorative justice services. There is also a particular information gap when it comes to minority-ethnic victims, because service users have informed the Muslim Women’s Network helpline—when they have eventually found us—that they were not informed about the service. They were not informed or made aware of the victims’ code, nor of the restorative justice service.
I therefore look forward to the comments and response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14. This amendment would ensure that all victims knew of and had access to restorative justice services. I am glad that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who unfortunately has a long-standing speaking engagement this evening and sends his apologies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I also add my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, whose effect is the same as mine, to ensure that restorative justice services are clearly in the Bill.
I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading in favour of restorative justice; instead, I will make two very brief points. First, research has shown that restorative justice is effective. It has been a benefit in two ways: one is the impact it has on the offender, reducing the likelihood that they will reoffend; the other is the impact on the victim. For example, restorative justice has been shown to bring satisfaction to victims in reducing stress and trauma. Interestingly, victims found that apologies were more important than restoration.
RJ has proven effectiveness; however, awareness of it and its availability are not as they should be. Research commissioned by the APPG on Restorative Justice showed that there is a postcode lottery and a number of factors resulting in RJ not being taken up in the way that it might be. For that reason, there needs to be a statutory duty on authorities in the criminal justice system to ensure that it is available for those who wish to make use of it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 15 in my name. I also offer my support to the other amendments, not least that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, which seems to be an uncontroversial proposal that simply corrects a lacuna in the Bill.
One of my abiding mantras is that there is no such thing in our society as a hard-to-reach group. What we have—and have all too often—are services that fail to make sufficient effort to ensure they reach all those they are intended to assist. It is not good enough for a service to exist; the people it is meant to support have to know it is there and be able to access it. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke powerfully earlier this evening. I gather that she spoke at a Women and Equalities Committee oral evidence session where she emphasised that many victims are unaware of the support services available to them. I will not go any further, because I think she may want to speak in a moment; I will not steal her thunder.
The intention of the amendment in my name is to make it clear that responsibility for ensuring that victims can access services does not lie with the potential service user. We need it in the Bill because too many victims are simply not aware of what they ought to be able to look for for help—or they cannot access that help in a format that meets their needs.
I gather that in the other place the Minister claimed that the duty on criminal justice agencies to use reasonable steps to make victims aware of the code would suffice. Yet signposting is much more than enabling someone to know that a service exists. It means putting them in a place from where they can access the service. Sometimes that cannot be done by a leaflet, however good, or a few words spoken to a traumatised victim in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. It requires enduring engagement by service providers until the message can be heard, and that may be some considerable time later.
The Women’s Aid Survivor’s Handbook provides a clear example of what practical support should be included. Such support can be a lifeline to victims of abuse who, for example, may be planning to leave their perpetrator. The ability to access thorough information on a full range of issues, with easy-to-follow guidance, is crucial. It is also imperative that black and minoritised women, deaf and disabled women and LGBT+ victims are able to access support that meets their very specific needs and is sensitive to their experiences of additional inequalities and intersecting forms of discrimination. Victims should also be made aware of the range of helplines and online support, including the Women’s Aid live chat helpline and other appropriate domestic abuse and violence against women and girls support. Simply saying that there is a code will not bridge the gap between the victim and the service they need. I hope the Minister will feel able to offer proposals to strengthen the signposting requirements in the Bill ahead of Report.
I finish by recollecting that exactly one week ago in your Lordships’ House we debated, for a good hour and a half, what makes for good signage and who is responsible for it. Specifically, we discussed changes to the requirements placed on warning signs for level crossings between private or heritage railways and farm tracks—it was more interesting than you might imagine. Surely if we can improve signage to help a farmer get his sheep across a railway track, we can properly sign victims to the services they need.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will not follow the right reverend Prelate down the byways of Manchester, or the sheep farmers and their signposts, but I support him and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in the thrust of the amendments that they have introduced. I am part of a catholic gathering which supports the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord. I do it because I think it is a sensible, practical thing to do, but also because I have seen it work.
Many years ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Prisons in the other place and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was the leader of the Opposition, I visited a huge number of prisons. I think I visited about 75 of the 145-odd prisons, secure training units and young offender institutions in England and Wales, and in a number of prisons, certainly adult prisons in London, in Wales and in other parts of England, I saw restorative justice in action.
It is a delicate process and one needs to be very careful that it is, as the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes clear, carried out where appropriate and that it is available where appropriate. Not every victim is ready to enter into a conversation with the person who committed a crime against them. I have been in the room when RJ took place between prisoners and the victims of murder, the victims of serious violence and the victims of domestic burglary. It takes a very strong person to go into a room and listen to the explanation, the apology, the regret of a prisoner who has killed your husband or your son or your daughter. You need to be very strong and very brave. Equally—I suppose to some extent it is easier because there is, if you like, an advantage to the prisoner to be seen to be behaving in a humane way—I think it is fair to say that for many of the prisoners, some of whom were not very articulate, who had not been educated and who had many social, economic and other disadvantages, it was quite brave of them to come to terms with the horrific things that they had done. So I think “appropriate” is the most important word in the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
Also, tailoring the scheme, or the particular episode of restorative justice, to the needs of that particular victim is so important. It is not just a blanket answer: putting two people in a room with a presider, if you like, to make sure that it goes well. You need to think about it extremely carefully and treat the individuals concerned extremely carefully; it cannot be forced and it cannot be rushed.
But I believe that restorative justice is a hugely important factor in the reduction of crime and recidivism. It brings together people who have been perpetrators and those who have been victims in what can only be a traumatic experience—namely, the experience of the crime but also the experience of meeting the person who committed the crime against you or a loved one.
I am delighted that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has tabled his amendment, as I am that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled theirs. This is a subject which has been discussed many times but has never been properly resolved. It has to some extent been seen as a luxury add-on to the criminal justice system; it is not—it is vital and fundamental in the appropriate cases. I say this as someone who has looked at the practical effects of it not only as a shadow Minister but also as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been well-invested in this aspect of the criminal justice system.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her Amendment 13. I thought I knew quite a lot about the criminal justice system, but I had absolutely no idea that the oddity she highlighted this evening existed. It needs correcting.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is perhaps particularly appropriate that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as a way of highlighting the fact that the amendments in this group addressing restorative justice, a number of which are in my name but have already been introduced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, are not party-political. This is a conviction, understanding and belief that goes right across the political spectrum and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, has arisen from practical experience. Speaking to other noble Lords in the Corridor who have seen my amendments, I have had many people who said, “I wasn’t really convinced and then I saw restorative justice in action, and now I am totally a convert to this idea”. The Government are getting a clear message from right across your Lordships’ Committee that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, what was said in the other place—the idea that “Oh, we can put something in the code”—really is not going to do it; we need this in the Bill as a step forward.
I went through this at Second Reading, so I will not repeat it all, but if we look at what the Government are offering now, in their wording is a suggestion that restorative justice is nice when we can find the resources, so you might be lucky enough that there might be the resources available in your area or you might not. That is simply not good enough.
Briefly, I agree very much with all the amendments in this group and echo the comments about Amendment 13. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has found something that the Government can surely pick up, because it so obviously needs to be sorted out.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I want to say a few words about restorative justice but, before I do, I give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, on what she has just said. I am happy to help and assist in whatever way I can.
I acknowledge that this does not apply to all victims, but for some victims, restorative justice can be a transformative tool that can empower victims to move forward. Over the years, I have met many victims who have given me their true thoughts on restorative justice. In my last term as Victims’ Commissioner, I published two reports on restorative justice and was satisfied from my findings that the majority of victims that I spoke to who had participated in it had found it to be a positive experience. However, the ONS crime survey for England and Wales in 2019-20 found that just 5.5% of victims were given the opportunity to meet the offender. Between 2010 and 2020, this percentage has not increased above 8.7%, while 26% said that they would have accepted an offer to meet the offender if it had been made.
Funding for RJ is no longer ring-fenced by the MoJ. Police and crime commissioners make the decisions on how much they spend on RJ from their victims budgets. This has led to a wide variation across England and Wales in the provision of services, as we have heard. In 2023, the Why me? charity published a report showing that the lowest reported spending by a PCC on such services was £6,250, while the highest was £397,412. The type of crime where RJ is available varies, as do the conditions of service provision.
Data collection on the provision of RJ is poor, preventing effective monitoring of what is happening on the ground if national criminal justice agencies are unsure as to what they are required to do. For example, the HMPPS guidance issued last year states:
“When a victim … requests information about restorative justice services, the VLO must provide it within ten working days”.
This is not in line with the victims’ code of practice, which includes the right to receive information about RJ and how to access RJ services. It does not depend on whether the victim has requested it. In short, access to restorative justice has become a postcode lottery.
I hope, therefore, that these amendments and the debates that we have heard across the Chamber will prompt the Minister to give this House reassurance that such concerns about the provision of RJ are, and must be, seriously addressed. Lots of money has been spent, and it would be so sad not to carry on when victims would like to have that option.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I also support the importance of providing for restorative justice. I had a look at the current code of practice to see what it has to say. I was a bit surprised that a paragraph referring to RJ, which is obviously deliberately separated from the right to access support services generally, starts:
“If you report a crime to the police, you have the Right to be referred to a service that supports victims, including Restorative Justice services”.
I do not know whether this is a real point or a non-point, since the offender has to be involved by definition and, by definition, the offender would have been reported to the police, but it seems to me to be inconsistent with Clause 1(5) and the whole ethos of the Bill. I was not clear either whether paragraph 4.5 in the code is dependent on being entitled to receive enhanced rights—ER—for victims who are considered vulnerable or intimidated, the victims of most serious crime or persistently targeted.
The debate is, to an extent, that crime has been defined at different levels: it has been for serious crime, but I argue that it is not only the most serious crimes for which RJ is appropriate. I was glad that the noble and right reverend Lord mentioned reducing reoffending because, looking at the whole picture, that is a very serious and important aspect. My name is to his amendment, and the noble Baroness’s amendments appeared without giving me time to do that.
In this group, I have Amendment 17, to provide for a single point of contact—a “victim care hub” was the term used by the London victims’ commissioner, who was particularly keen that we should address this, as you would expect from her own experience.
On the usual issue of timely and effective communication, there are other amendments dealing with another aspect of this, which is that justice agencies are struggling to deliver victim care with awareness and in compliance with the victims’ code, which the London victims’ commissioner said was at seriously low levels.
In the 2019 review into the code, the Victims’ Commissioner for London recommended a victim hub model. We have had reference this evening to the Lighthouse in Camden, and she also refers to the lighthouse model in Avon and Somerset—a single point of contact to help a victim throughout the process. Such a model would secure more effective compliance with the code, which was discussed by many noble Lords at Second Reading.
In June 2022, the office of the Victims’ Commissioner launched a victims’ survey. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is nodding. This dealt with experiences as a victim of crime, ran for eight weeks and gathered 489 responses from self-selecting individuals. All this bears out what we have been referring to: a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lack of confidence in the system. I understand that less than a third of respondents were aware of the victims’ code. In London, a user satisfaction survey for one quarter in 2022-23 showed only 25% of victims being made aware of the code.
What would a hub do? Such a service would provide a single point of contact, key updates on case progression, information and advice; answer questions; refer on to specialist support—signposting by another name, although perhaps referring is more than just signposting—and ensure and monitor that entitlements under the code are being delivered. This would not replace existing support services but would be a navigator; perhaps that is close to signposting. It would also provide information on what to expect and clarity, and simplify the whole thing.
I am conscious of the time, so I will not go through all the case studies in the briefing, other than to make a few quick references. The commissioner refers to good practice in Quebec, where I understand there is a similar model: the support worker—I do not know if that is the right term—is embedded in police stations and courts, which gives them access to computer systems and, hence, to victim records. I found the case studies quite shocking. I should not have, because from what noble Lords have said, we should all be expecting to hear shocking stories, but that is why we have the Bill. To me, to have a victim care hub seems blindingly obvious.