House of Commons
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 months, 3 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, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
There is nothing more important than ensuring that everyone in our country, regardless of need, gets the very best education possible. That is why our special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan will ensure that all children get the support they need to reach their potential. We have opened 108 special free schools, including 15 since September, and launched a £70 million change programme to test and refine our systemic reforms, benefiting every region in England. Earlier this month I announced an extension to our short breaks programme. We have a plan and we are delivering on it.
Liz Twist
Today, many parents of children with special educational needs, including those in my constituency, are at their wits’ end. Either they are fighting to get an education, health and care plan for their child or they are struggling to access the right support when they get one. That is a waste of public money, a waste of parental energy and too often a waste of their child’s precious potential. Does the Secretary of State agree with my constituents, who feel that the system is broken?
Gillian Keegan
I would agree that there has been an absolute increase in special educational needs in the past five, six or seven years, largely because we know more, but also because covid has added some pressure on the system. We have expanded the system and want to ensure that all children with special educational needs, even more than before, get the help they need. We have an improvement plan in place, which was published in March 2023 and focuses on early identification and improved support all the way through the journey. We are training many more people and putting more support in place for the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Ashley Dalton
In smaller and rural communities such as mine in West Lancashire, populations and services are often very sparsely distributed and SEND students often have to either travel upwards of an hour to reach any provision, or go without. What is the Government’s plan to address that issue?
Gillian Keegan
We have been trying to increase the number of places within both mainstream and special educational needs and alternative provision settings. As I say, we have 108 more special educational needs schools already built and 76 more approved. We have worked with many local authorities, including in rural areas, to make sure they get the provision they need.
Rachel Hopkins
Every child with special educational needs or disabilities should receive the high-quality support they deserve, but schools and councils do not have the necessary resources to meet increasing demand and rising costs. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the funding and powers available to councils to improve SEND provision?
Gillian Keegan
That is one reason the high-needs budget is up by over 60% in the past four years, and will reach £10.5 billion in 2024-25. We are also supporting local authorities with financial deficits through the safety valve and delivering better- value programmes. In most constituencies, including in the hon. Lady’s area, the funding has gone up by 25% to 35%.
Debbie Abrahams
I also have several cases in my constituency, where children and young people can wait months, if not years, not just for assessment but for a plan to address their needs. Sense has reported that less than half of local authorities have multi-sensory impairment teachers, and the National Autistic Society reports that three in four parents say that their children’s schools do not fully cover their needs. What are the Government doing about that?
Gillian Keegan
Our plan to introduce national consistency and standards will be published in 2025. We will deliver it through local partnerships and inclusion, digitise records, and make it much more transparent so that parents can see what is happening. In terms of mainstream support, we will improve early language support, we are working with integrated care boards to improve support for neurodiversity in schools, and 100,000 teachers have received autism training. There is additional special educational needs co-ordinator training as well as vital early language support.
Dan Carden
My office operates a regular advice surgery for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, in conjunction with the University of Liverpool law clinic, to which I pay tribute. There are simply not enough places in mainstream schools or special schools. Children with SEND from the most deprived areas are less likely to be identified compared with similar children from more affluent areas. What are the Government doing to ensure that children in constituencies such as mine are identified early and can get the help they require?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Early identification is absolutely key in providing support and ensuring that it impacts the child as early as possible. I am very happy to understand more about places. Local authorities have made lots of bids, and that is why many more special educational needs schools have been, or are being, built—I announced 15 recently. Although I do not know whether his local area bid into them, we have many schemes to ensure that local authorities have financing to improve the number of places in mainstream schools and special educational needs schools.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
What work is being done to support local authorities in addressing the placing of children with special educational needs and disabilities out of their own counties and localities to receive the essential support they need? In Essex, the problem is ongoing and affects all our Essex colleagues. I pay tribute to our county council, which is doing incredible work—it is well rated—but frankly it needs help, assistance and support from central Government.
Gillian Keegan
There are a number of things there. We have put £2.6 billion into increasing the number of places—Members across the House will have heard of additional school places in their areas—and we have a £70 million change programme to ensure, through work with local authorities, that the improvement plan that we published in March 2023 goes from being a piece of paper to being implemented on the ground and felt by all our constituencies and all families with children with special educational needs.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the provision of training in SEND during initial teacher training to ensure that more teachers are aware of the support that children might need, and on the recruitment of specialists, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists?
Gillian Keegan
We are implementing a gold thread of high-quality teacher training reforms to ensure that teachers have the skills they need. The Department has been exploring opportunities to build expertise, through a review of the initial teacher training core content framework and the early career framework, to identify how we can equip new teachers to be more confident in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND. There will be more investment in educational psychologists, of which there will be another 400, and more investment in early years SENCOs, of which there will be another 7,000.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Similarly to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I welcome the introduction of a new SENCO national professional qualification—I declare an interest, as my wife is a SENCO—but to create a truly inclusive school environment, all teachers need the knowledge, skills and practical training to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. What steps is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking to ensure that initial teacher training gives them that support and training?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and also for all the work he has done in this area. We worked together when he was Minister for children and families and I was working in the Department of Health and Social Care, and it is something that we both care deeply about.
As I said in answer to the earlier question, there is a golden thread of high-quality teacher training reforms. We will be looking at a revised framework and working with providers so that they can ensure that the contracts deliver the very best support for teachers. What will be vital, and something that Members will feel, is the additional 7,000 SENCOs that will be trained in the coming years.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Worcestershire County Council has some welcome plans to set up a new autism free school in Malvern. Recently, I visited Our Place—an independent provider—in West Worcestershire, which provides specialist education, mainly for children with autism. Is it the Secretary of State’s understanding that such independent provision would be affected by taxation should the Opposition bring in a tax on independent schools across this country?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: there are 2,408 independent schools across our country, many of which provide special educational needs support and excellent education in particular specialties. If those schools were subject to increased taxation, that would make provision more difficult. We will have to assess what that would mean.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
A number of colleagues have mentioned initial teacher training. Perhaps they and the Secretary of State should look no further than tomorrow, when my ten-minute rule Bill comes before Parliament—a Bill that aims to increase and ensure there is autism training for all teachers. Will the Secretary of State back it?
Gillian Keegan
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work in this area. Initial teacher training courses must equip trainees to meet all the teachers’ standards, including standard 5: that teachers must
“have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils”,
including pupils with autism. Through the delivery of our improvement plan, we will develop new practitioner standards to support frontline professionals, including a standard on autism. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s working with us.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Our visa changes strike the right balance, ensuring we have a fair and robust migration policy but maintaining the UK’s place as a top destination for the best and brightest from around the world. The hon. and learned Lady will be pleased to know that we continue to attract the best scientists from across the world: we have over 46,000 postgraduate research students from overseas, 41% of the total, producing groundbreaking and collaborative research.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am afraid the evidence does not entirely bear out what he is saying, because UCAS figures reveal a notable fall in accepted applications from international students. Both Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh Napier universities in my constituency of Edinburgh South West are highly sought after destinations for international PhD students. Both carry out vital scientific research, with strong links to commercial and industrial needs—not just in Scotland, but across the United Kingdom and, indeed, across Europe and the world—but the Government’s visa rules are making those universities far less attractive destinations for international students. Is the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), the former science Minister, not right when he says that the UK
“will never be a science superpower behind a visa paywall”?
Robert Halfon
I know that the hon. and learned Lady is a stickler for data. Our target was for over 600,000 international students every year, and we are well over that target. As I say, our visa changes strike the right balance, being fair to the taxpayer while ensuring that we have good international students coming to our country.
Chris Stephens
The minimum salary requirement for a skilled worker visa is set to increase by 48%, from £26,200 to £38,700, jeopardising the prospects of early-career researchers and academics coming to the UK. Can the Minister answer the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) that he did not answer: how will the UK be a science superpower behind that visa paywall?
Robert Halfon
I think I have set that out. We have 36% of university researchers coming from outside the UK, and over 46,000 postgraduate students from overseas—41% of the total. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the real cost of the SNP’s tuition fee policy is that Scottish universities are unable to provide places for local students, who are 13% less likely to take a place at a university in Scotland than English students are to take a place in England.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister be investigating the discovery, exposed by The Sunday Times yesterday, of Russell Group universities taking students with much lower academic qualifications for undergraduate degrees, and when he does so, will he check that the same is not happening in the postgraduate field, given the much higher fees that can be charged for overseas students?
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He will know that, while I am a strong supporter of international students, I am absolutely clear that I want a level playing field for all domestic students as well. I met vice-chancellors only yesterday afternoon, as soon I had seen the report in The Sunday Times, and I have asked the Department for Education to carry out an urgent investigation into bad practice by agents where it occurs, as I was very disturbed by what I saw. We want absolute fairness of entry for domestic students as much as for international students.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I listened to the Minister’s response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but in December I was also assured by the Minister that he was committed to the target of 600,000 international students. However, recent research from IDP has found 45% of its August and September applicants to study in the UK would consider changing their study destination if post-study work visa lengths are shortened. What is his assessment of the impact that any changes to the postgraduate work visa could have on the international education strategy and the sustainability of the sector?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman, the Opposition spokesman, knows that visa matters are for the Home Office. The Migration Advisory Committee is looking at the postgraduate international student visa route and will come to its conclusions. However, as I keep saying to him, our target was for over 600,000 international students a year, and we have well surpassed that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Tackling persistent absence is my top priority, as indeed it was last year. I pay tribute to our incredible teachers and heads who have gone above and beyond to get children back to school. We are more than doubling the number of attendance hubs to support 2,000 schools, we are investing £15 million to expand one-to-one mentoring to help 10,000 children and we will be requiring all schools to share data to support earlier intervention. Our plan is starting to work, with 380,000 fewer children persistently absent or not attending last year, and numbers continue to fall.
Andrew Gwynne
But by 2026, 2,435 children in Manchester, 907 in Tameside and 937 in Stockport are set to miss half their time at school if current trends continue. Labour has a plan to fix this crisis, backed by Sir Kevan Collins, the Government’s own former education recovery commissioner. If this is the Secretary of State’s top priority, why is her plan not working?
Gillian Keegan
It is working. It is not going to stick on the trajectory, because we have already turned around the trajectory. Since the pandemic, it is already falling in England. There is no better example of the Labour party having no plan and just sniping from the sidelines than on the question of attendance. I suggest that Labour Members look at other countries around the world because this is a global phenomenon. We have daily data that is almost unique, which is why we are now reducing the figures. If we look at Wales—Labour-run Wales—we see that attendance in school is much worse, at nearly eight days lower per pupil.
Chi Onwurah
The Secretary of State says that keeping children in school is her top priority, but since 2016 persistent absence in Newcastle has more than doubled and severe absence is up 282%. She says it is a global phenomenon, but what matters is what happens in schools in Newcastle. Labour’s plan for schools is supported by Sir Kevan Collins. Why will she not support it? What is she going to do about this, because we need to see change now?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady may have mixed up a couple of things there, but the plan to get children back into school is to have daily attendance data, which we introduced and sent out to every local authority. Some local authorities do not perform as well—perhaps the hon. Lady’s is one of those—but we send out daily data so that they can identify exactly where the schools are. We are working with attendance hubs, which we are introducing across the country. For individual one-to-one attention we have attendance mentors. We have a national campaign and a cross-Government action alliance, all of which has meant that England has a 7.5% absence rate, compared with 11.5% in Wales, and it is much higher in most countries around the world. We have a plan, and we are delivering on it.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I worked as a teacher and as head of year with overall responsibility for school attendance. Labour Members seem to forget that there is also a role for parental responsibility in all of this. In my time, I encountered a large cohort of parents who found that it was still cheaper to pay the fines they were given and save the money by going on holiday during term time. Is it not time to ramp up the cost of fines for parents who choose needlessly to withdraw their children from their education, harming the child’s outcomes?
Gillian Keegan
Every moment matters in school, and we have improved and increased our school standards. The most important thing is that children are now there. Thanks to our data, we can now see patterns and those who are taking a week off outside term time, or those who perhaps have a pattern of behaviour of taking particular days off. We can go into the data—we are about the only country in the world that can do that, so we are uniquely positioned to tackle the problem. We can go down into the data and work at school level and local authority level, to ensure that we put into action everything we can to improve attendance.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Attendance matters, and we know that some schools and local authorities have higher attendance rates than others. That is why the Education Committee, the Children’s Commissioners and others all say that their top priority is to ensure that all schools and local authorities follow best practice guidelines. My private Member’s Bill, the School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill, will make that mandatory. I know that the Government support it, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to ensure that all colleagues across the House back the Bill, and no one objects to it on Second Reading this Friday, so that we can make best practice mandatory and get our kids back to school?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work in this area. She is right; the first thing to do is ensure that we understand best practice, and that it is rolled out everywhere. A lot of work is being done in that area. I very much appreciate the initiatives that she has introduced, and I urge colleagues across the House to support her endeavours.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The millions of children persistently absent from school is a national scandal, yet last week Government MPs joined together to vote against Labour’s long-term plan to deal with that issue, putting party above country and children. So far the Government have only announced sticking plaster policies. Will the Secretary of State come forward with a long-term plan to address that properly, or do schools and families have to wait for a Labour Government to finally give all children the education they deserve?
Gillian Keegan
Certainly not. Under a Labour Government, school standards would plummet back to where they were the last time Labour had education under their control—27th in the world for maths and 28th for English, if I remember correctly. Standards fall under Labour, and it has absolutely no plans to get children back into school. As I said, this Government have uniquely put in place daily data to enable us to get down and implement lots of different plans. We are also planning to legislate for children who are not in school, which I think was about the only thing Labour actually put in its plan. We are committed to doing that, and we warmly welcome the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), the Children Not in School (Registers, Support and Orders) Bill, and look forward to working with her when it progresses to Second Reading on 15 March. I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I recognise the challenge from falling rolls when there is demographic change. That is why we are changing how the growth and falling rolls funding is allocated to local authorities—it is now based on decreases as well as increases in pupil numbers. We are also giving greater flexibility to allocate funding to meet the revenue costs of reducing surplus places.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for that reply. Declining school rolls in London is a big issue that I have raised in the House on a number of occasions. We are seeing families with young children being driven out of London because of the affordability of housing and the cost of living crisis, and a new report out today by London Councils shows that the situation is getting even worse. In Lambeth we are seeing a 17.5% drop in demand for reception places over the next five years. Archbishop Tenison’s School, opposite the Oval cricket ground in my constituency, closed last year. We need urgent action from the Government. The falling rolls funding is helping, but that is just for the short term. Will the Minister look at how we can protect our vital education assets? Will the Government finally address the cost of living crisis?
Damian Hinds
It is true that a period of change is coming as the bulge in primary school numbers starts to move into secondary schools, and it is important to plan ahead for that. We want to work with local authorities, and I know that the hon. Member’s local authority, Lambeth, is being proactive in looking at amalgamations where necessary. We also have pupil place planning advisers in each region working with local authorities and academy trusts, and school resource management advisers working directly with schools. There will also be some repurposing of some space in schools—I am not speaking specifically about her constituency—with opportunities for more early years provision in some cases, and more special educational needs provision. We will have to be agile and ensure that there is still sufficient space for parental choice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows—we share a local authority—when it comes to calculating demand for secondary school places, West Sussex gets a D-minus. One of my districts is oversubscribed and last year more than 50 children—almost all from one school—were taken out of district to a school that none of them had applied for and some of them had not heard of. Next year, it could be even worse. Despite help from my noble Friend Baroness Barran and the regional schools commissioner, West Sussex has still done absolutely nothing to address the shortage of secondary school places. Will the Minister intervene?
Damian Hinds
As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), it is true that there is change as numbers move from primary into secondary, and it is important to try to plan ahead. On the specifics of West Sussex, I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Attendance did decline through covid. It is now improving, but there is a lot more to do. We are expanding attendance hubs to support nearly 2,000 schools and we have launched the “moments matter” campaign to remind parents of the importance of every single day in school.
Jill Mortimer
In Hartlepool, we have seen a rising number of parents and guardians opting for home-school education. As of November, that number had increased to 186, more than tripling in four years. In addition, we have a huge number of children who simply do not turn up at school. Will my right hon. Friend please share the steps that he is taking alongside Hartlepool Borough Council to ensure that those children are receiving a fair and decent education?
Damian Hinds
I will. Local authorities have duties towards those children to ensure that all are receiving a suitable education and act if not. The consultation we held on revised guidance to help fulfil that responsibility recently closed, and we will publish the response in due course. We remain committed to legislation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said, to create statutory registers of children not in school in order to help local authorities identify those eligible children.
Stephen Hammond
I know from speaking to schools in Wimbledon that access to mental health support can get pupils back into school or keep them in school. What plans does the Department have to roll out more access to that mental health support so that we can see that trend increase?
Damian Hinds
Of course, there are multiple layers to mental health support. The mental health support teams programme, which we are rolling out gradually across the country, continues to expand. At the end of March 2023, 35% of pupils in school or further education were covered by that, including 47% at secondary. When the figures for this year come out, I expect them to be higher. Unlike the Opposition, we are putting mental health support not only into secondary schools but into primary schools, where it can make a big difference.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The reality for mental health support teams in schools is that funding is not guaranteed beyond 2025, and the coverage is patchy. Earlier this month I heard about a teenager in a secondary school in my constituency who has not attended for four months because of mental ill health. The school is convinced that if there were dedicated, qualified mental health practitioners in secondary and primary schools, attendance would improve. Will the Minister back my ten-minute rule Bill to commit to exactly that duty, to be paid for by trebling the tax on social media companies, which so often are at the root of those problems?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member identifies important problems. There are important links between mental ill health prevalence and non-attendance. We will see benefits from the offer to all state schools and colleges of a grant to train a senior mental health lead, as well as the wider mental health support teams that I mentioned.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Early intervention is key. We need to look at what more can be done at primary school level because, although not entirely, often the signs are already there by the time children get to secondary school. Could the Minister say more on that? The transition from primary to secondary is also key, and we need to look at that.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. It is important to consider the role of mental health in primary as well as secondary school. We put mental health education on the curriculum through relationships, sex and health education, and we are investing in the mental health support teams that I mentioned, as well as the training grants. Of course, some schools do the transition from primary to secondary very well. It can be an unsettling time for children, but also an exciting one, and it is important that we maximise those benefits. There is a lot of good practice out there.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
In England, school attendance is impacted by off-rolling—a practice that does not exist in Scotland. Now, we hear in a report that schools are actively removing GCSE students, not for any behavioural issues but because they are struggling academically and the school wants to protect its place in the league tables. What steps is the Minister taking to address what the Centre for Social Justice has called
“a system which effectively rewards schools for exiting academically underperforming students”?
Damian Hinds
Let me be abundantly clear: off-rolling—removing a pupil from a school without using a permanent exclusion—is unacceptable and unlawful. That is in the Ofsted framework, and it is strengthened in the revised framework that came out in 2019 to look at that. That can be seen in Ofsted’s report. It is also looked at by the Teacher Regulation Agency. We must be abundantly clear that being involved in off-rolling is not consistent with the conduct we expect of a teacher. In serious cases, it could result in action.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Places for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities have increased in Gloucestershire since 2015. We estimate that there are 1,700 places, and the local authority opened two additional settings in 2022-23.
Mr Robertson
At the moment, 120 pupils have been assessed as needing special school places, but those places are not available. Over the next couple of years it looks like at least 200 more special school places will be needed in Gloucestershire. Can the Minister look at the situation urgently to see what he can do to help?
David Johnston
We are working closely with local authorities on this issue. We have allocated more than £1.5 billion of high needs capital allocations in the last two years for local authorities to create additional places. Gloucestershire County Council has announced a 200-place moderate and additional learning difficulties school for four to 16-year-olds, to be delivered through our free school presumption route in early 2026.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
There are only three specialist schools provided by the state in Shropshire. Two of them are—
Mr Speaker
Order. The supplementary question should relate to the question on the Order Paper.
Helen Morgan
Just as in Gloucestershire, we are short of specialist schools—two of our three are rated as inadequate and need improving. The most vulnerable children are unable to go to school because need is not being met. Will the Minister look at what can be done in Shropshire to provide places for the most seriously affected children?
David Johnston
In addition to working with Gloucestershire, we work with Shropshire on its capacity. We have already announced 41 new special free schools with a further 38 in the pipeline.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I agree that, given all that the UK has in common, it is vital that we talk about policy issues frequently, including on devolved matters. The UK Education Ministers Council last met in June last year, when it was hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Liverpool. I understand it is for the Scottish Government to issue the invitation for the next one—we await their missive with anticipation.
Patricia Gibson
Expanding free school meals has a direct impact on children’s health, promoting cognitive development and improving test scores and concentration. The Scottish Government are rolling out universal free school meals for primary school children. What additional financial efforts will the Minister make to address educational inequality, such as supporting and following the example of the Scottish Government to improve outcomes for all pupils?
Damian Hinds
We await the Scottish Government’s full programme, but I will say that, in recognition of the benefits of free school meals and targeting them where they can have most effect, one in every three pupils in England are now eligible for free school meals, compared with one in six when Labour was in Government.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
To be clear, the UK Government will not even extend free school meals to children in households receiving universal credit. Speaking in Parliament two weeks ago, the Children’s Commissioner for England urged the UK Government to expand free school meals, saying that children with an empty belly cannot learn. When will this Government follow Scotland’s lead in addressing child poverty by rolling out free school meals to all primary school children?
Damian Hinds
We have extended eligibility for free school meals on three occasions, mainly with universal infant free school meals, the extension of further education students and, most recently, by extending the protections for people in transition on universal credit. I say gently to the hon. Lady that we think it is important to target free school meals, but that it is just as important for children in secondary school as in primary.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
This Government are rolling out the largest expansion of childcare in England’s history, doubling the amount we spend now. This will enable more children to benefit from higher-quality early years education and childcare more of the time, building strong foundations for every child and enabling more parents to work.
Mr Sheerman
Why has it taken 14 years for the Government to get around to having a plan? They got rid of children’s centres and Sure Start centres, and they have not replaced them with anything until now. Now we see chaos: people cannot get the code; they do not know what money they are getting from local government; the National Day Nurseries Association says it is a mess. What is the Minister going to do to clear up this mess?
David Johnston
There was a lot in that question. On the Sure Start point, we are rolling out family hubs, which will be a lot broader than the Sure Start centres were and will cover children with special educational needs up to the age of 25. As for the codes issue, as the hon. Gentleman will already know, we have worked with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to provide a solution to that issue for all parents so that no parent will miss out as a result.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that this Government are doubling investment in early years and childcare. As the Secretary of State said earlier with regard to special educational needs, early identification of need is absolutely key. From that perspective, will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for a specialist assessment centre in Worcester, after the loss of the one in Fort Royal? It has gone out for commissioning, but unfortunately we have not had any bids to host the new one, and we need to get on with delivering one for next September.
David Johnston
I do not know the details of my hon. Friend’s specific case, but I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
With just over two months to go until the start of the expanded offer for two-year-olds, the Government’s plans for early years education and childcare are in complete chaos, with nurseries and childminders across the country still waiting to have their funding rates for April confirmed. How can the Minister expect providers to confirm places with parents when they do not even know what they will be paid? Does he agree with the chief executive of the Early Years Alliance that this is yet another example from this Government of announce first and do the thinking afterwards?
David Johnston
I think the hon. Lady knows that the reason providers do not have their rates at the moment is that local authorities have not informed them of their rates. We published the rates in November and it is up to local authorities to tell their providers. Where they do not have those rates, that is the reason. It is yet another example of where the Labour party hopes that if it snipes enough from the sidelines, no one will notice that it has no plan whatever for childcare.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
We are rolling out mental health support teams to schools and colleges, supporting young people to access early intervention for mental health. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools said, as of March 2023 there were 398 teams covering 47% of secondary school pupils. That will increase to around 600 teams by spring 2025.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
When I was a young person, we had a counsellor in our school. It helped many people, not for the long term but through short-term interventions that put people on the right track and meant that they did not need more expensive interventions down the line. Unfortunately, those counsellors have gone in many schools. Labour will reintroduce them. Will the Minister commit to reintroducing a counsellor in every school to ensure that we spend now to save later?
David Johnston
Counsellors have a role, but we believe that a combination of rolling out mental health support teams and giving every state school and college in the country a grant to train a senior mental health lead is a better approach to take.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The Government have built one of the most powerful apprenticeship systems in the world, reaching nearly 700 different occupations, from level 2 through to master’s degree level 7. It is great that there have been over 5.7 million starts since 2010. There are now over 170 employer-designed degree-level apprenticeships available, including for occupations such as medical doctors, space engineers, midwives, social workers—pretty much whatever. We are providing an additional £40 million in the next two financial years to support providers in expanding their offers to make sure more people can access them.
Mr French
The Conservatives have transformed apprenticeships since 2010, with local education providers, employers and Bexley Council all helping to make Bexley one of the top boroughs in London for apprenticeships. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that apprenticeships have a key role to play in our economy and in social mobility, and that while Labour wants to focus on teaching divisive ideas such as white privilege in schools, the Conservatives want to support people from all backgrounds to get on in life?
Gillian Keegan
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Bexley’s apprenticeship event on 5 February will be a fantastic opportunity for local people to learn about the apprenticeships on offer in his constituency. We have transformed our apprenticeship system. People around the world look at us and say, “How on earth have you done that?” I am very happy to work with anybody, but all that is at risk. The Labour party would halve the number of apprenticeships, taking us back to square one.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Sadly, the Government did not intervene to save Cumbria’s agricultural college. However, will they decide to invest in agricultural degree apprenticeships, working with the University of Cumbria and Cumbria’s further education colleges, to make sure we have a pipeline of new leaders who can feed us and care for our environment through farming?
Gillian Keegan
When I was apprenticeships and skills Minister, we worked together to ensure we had the right college offer in the area that was sustainable. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education will be very happy to work on that. We are looking to expand degree apprenticeships. We have provision in place to work with providers to offer many opportunities, including in agriculture.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Next week is National Apprenticeship Week, and I look forward to celebrating apprenticeships across the country. As the Secretary of State knows, small and medium-sized enterprises are crucial to delivering high-quality apprenticeships at every level throughout our economy, but the number of SME apprenticeships has plummeted by 49% since 2016, and research shows that the levy is failing to reverse the decline in employer training more widely. The Secretary of State pretends that everything is fine, but is not the real answer to back our businesses, giving them greater flexibility to enable them to deliver the training that we need to get our economy growing again?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. Obviously, one reason for the reduction in some of the SME numbers is the fact that we made improvements to ensure that every single apprenticeship was of high quality. I want to make sure that all young people who embark on an apprenticeship, as I did, put their trust in the system and get what they deserve. We have removed the limit on caps on SMEs, and we are working on reducing the number of steps to make it easier for them to access the system. We are also looking at what more we can do: we are focusing on a number of ways in which to ensure that apprenticeships work well for SMEs, which account for 70% of employment.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
We are committed to funding all schools fairly and equitably, wherever they are. The national funding formula replaces an unjust system whereby schools received different levels of funding for no reason.
Andrew Selous
It is welcome that funding for all schools has risen, but does the Minister accept that there is deprivation in market towns and villages where transport costs are higher, and that the difference between the sums for the highest funded local authorities and those for the lowest funded, such as Central Bedfordshire, is thousands of pounds per child? What can he do to close the gap more quickly?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of deprivation factors and, indeed, transport costs. We are increasing the amount under the formula that relates to deprivation, and there is also the sparsity factor. Of course, all schools are benefiting from increases in funding, which will total £59.6 billion in 2024-25.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
When it comes to the funding of schools, should not the Government just follow the money? Amber Infrastructure, which owns Newman College in Chadderton, has paid out £80 million of shareholder dividends during the time for which it has owned that PFI school. The heating system does not work, the roof is leaking—which is affecting 30 classrooms— and now two temporary classrooms must be built to accommodate the pupils. Will the Government intervene and point out to the provider that if the money is there to be taken in dividends, it is there to fix a roof as well?
Damian Hinds
I would be happy to follow up the matter of the private finance initiative contract at that college, and perhaps have some discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), next week is National Apprenticeship Week. When I did my apprenticeship I benefited from brilliant training and opportunities, thanks to General Motors, which got me where I am today, and I want to spread those opportunities to everyone, everywhere.
This Conservative Government have built a new high-quality apprenticeship system from the ground up. Nearly 70% of occupations are now accessible via apprenticeships, and we have delivered 5.7 million apprenticeship starts since 2010. A week from today, we will kick off National Apprenticeship Week. I ask all Members to go on a visit to meet apprentices and talk about the opportunities that are available throughout the country—a real example of levelling up. All my Ministers and I will be out, across the country, celebrating different industries and providers, and with hundreds of apprentices. This is why Labour’s policy to halve the number of apprenticeships is so dangerous: it would remove opportunities from people like me, taking us back to square one.
Emma Hardy
I look forward to Fact Check’s assessment of the Secretary of State’s comments. Given that 2,730 children in Hull are waiting more than 12 weeks for their first mental health appointment, is it pride or inattentiveness that prevents the Secretary of State from adopting Labour’s plan for a mental health professional in every school?
Gillian Keegan
If I may “fact check” the hon. Lady, I think that the plan is for a mental health professional in every secondary school. The plan that we have is to introduce mental health support teams in every primary and secondary school. As usual, our plans, on which we are delivering, are better thought through, cover more people, and solve the problem that they are intended to solve.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly for Kingsdown School. Our questionnaire programme is 100% complete, all schools have been told if it is suspected that they might have RAAC and 100% of those have been surveyed. I can confirm we will be removing RAAC from our schools for good, either through the school rebuilding programme or through grant funding, and we will inform schools shortly, once our assessments have concluded. I know that my hon. Friend has met Baroness Barran to discuss Kingsdown School and is meeting again this week.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Students at St Leonard’s School in Durham are working hard for their exams, but they are facing sustained and ongoing disruption, including challenges to doing practical coursework, off-site teaching and being bussed around the city, all because of RAAC. There is no firm date for the rebuilding to commence, and that is just not good enough. It is putting young people’s futures at risk. Will the Secretary of State now work with the regulator and the exam boards on mitigations for the small number of young people whose life chances are being put at risk by Government failure?
Gillian Keegan
As the hon. Lady knows, we have been working closely with St Leonard’s School, and actually with all schools that were impacted by RAAC. I would like to take this moment to thank the headteachers and all the teachers who have done an amazing job to keep 100% of children in face-to-face education. We have spoken to the award bodies. They have been working with schools and have offered some support in terms of assessments and making sure that they can look at what more needs to be done, but exams are there to assess—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are having this problem every time. Topicals are meant to be short and punchy. I have to get all these Members in, but all you are doing is stopping them getting in. If that is the ploy, it is not going to work.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Of course I agree that, on entry requirements, we should ensure that we are comparing like for like and being fair to our brilliant domestic students. I was appalled to see the reporting over the weekend, which clearly showed bad practice in the use of agents. That is not acceptable. As I have said, I met Universities UK and the vice-chancellors yesterday and we are going to sort this out. There is an investigation by the Department for Education.
Bridget Phillipson
“It’s not our fault” always seems to be this Government’s catchphrase, and now it applies to childcare too: it is not the Secretary of State’s fault but that of local authorities; it is not her responsibility to deliver on her Government’s own pledge. Even her own civil servants are saying that some parents just will not get their places. Does she agree with the Children’s Minister that no parents will lose out? Will she give that guarantee to the House today—yes or no?
Gillian Keegan
I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked about childcare, because it is yet another illustration of how this Conservative Government are delivering for working parents while the Labour party still does not have a plan. I know what it takes to deliver complex projects. I have delivered many over three decades working in industry all around the world. Given the hon. Lady’s limited experience outside politics, she should focus on not playing party politics and deliver for hard-working parents.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a highly competitive training scheme. Between 2017 and 2019 the Department filled all 160 of its funded training places per year, and since 2020 it has filled all 200 of the funded places each year. We have now committed to training a further 400 educational psychologists.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need highly qualified, excellent teachers in every school? Is she worried, as I am, that so many highly qualified, gifted teachers are leaving the profession after just a few years?
Gillian Keegan
Of course I agree, which is why I am delighted that we have 27,000 more teachers in our schools than we had in 2010. We have a retention and recruitment plan with many different facets to make sure that we retain our excellent teachers.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Robert Halfon
I would be delighted to come to Grimsby. I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming the apprenticeship diversity champion. She is a skills champion, and what she is doing on careers and mentoring in Grimsby is a model example of what should be done across the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
We are investing very heavily in breakfast clubs. This is another area in which we think that targeting support matters. That includes secondary schools, not just primary schools, as the Labour party suggests.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Is it not a disgrace that young children are told to cover up their badges so that people do not know which school they attend, and are told to remove outward signs that they are Jewish? Security is provided once they get to school, but what will my right hon. Friend do to make sure that children are educated on the evils of antisemitism, so that we spread this message across all schools, rather than just Jewish schools?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right. After Holocaust Memorial Day, we are acutely conscious of the continuing need to act against antisemitism. One of the things we are doing is launching a new fund for both schools and higher education, to try to address antisemitism effectively at its root.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Robert Halfon
I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I listen carefully to what he says. We are working to smooth out any issues with the Turing scheme. However, it is worth noting that we have increased the proportion of disadvantaged students taking part in it from 50% to 60%. I am proud that we are embedding social justice in the scheme.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Will students affected by RAAC, such as those at Thornleigh Salesian College in Bolton, receive special dispensation in their GCSEs and A-levels? I recently met the college’s exceptional headteacher, Mrs O’Callaghan, and I take this opportunity to wish her all the best on her well deserved retirement at the end of the year.
Damian Hinds
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating, commending and thanking Mrs O’Callaghan on her life’s work. I appreciate that the RAAC situation in schools has been very difficult, which is why we are trying to work with them on things like coursework assessment. They should be in touch with awarding bodies. We are also making sure that we reimburse all reasonable revenue costs.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
I pay tribute to the headteachers in Liverpool, West Derby. We think it is important to have an independent inspectorate, and we think it is important that assessments are clear. In the wake of the tragedy of Ruth Perry, it is right that we think about all the aspects, some of which have already changed. To be clear, we think it continues to be important that there be a clear external assessment for parents.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Families across Tipton and Wednesbury are still struggling to get an initial assessment for children with SEND. What work is my right hon. Friend doing to hold organisations such as child and adolescent mental health services to account, so that we ensure that these assessments are done quickly?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are working with all local authorities, through our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, to make sure that assessments happen a lot quicker, and that children get the support they need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Damian Hinds
We want to see schools not excluding children where that is at all possible. There is no right number for exclusions; they have to be determined in the light of the circumstances at the school, but we expect people to look at the matter as a whole. I will, of course, be happy to talk to the hon. Lady.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier answers about RAAC. Will she give priority for a complete rebuild to St Edward’s Catholic Academy in my constituency, following the adjudication that more than 80% of it is affected by RAAC? Can the plans start very soon, please?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I can give an assurance that we are going through all the details and assessing each instance on a case-by-case basis. I know that all hon. Members are keen to know what will happen, and they will have the answers very shortly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The changes in the visa rules for international students and their dependants are having a significant impact, not only on the number of students coming to universities such as the University of York, a Russell Group university, but on these universities’ finances. Universities will have to make significant cuts if this visa programme reaches fruition. Will the Minister meet vice-chancellors and the Home Office, together, to talk about the impact this is having?
Robert Halfon
We have regular conversations with vice-chancellors and the Home Office on this issue. However, as I say, our target has been more than 600,000 students and we have well surpassed that, and 36% of university researchers come from outside the UK. We have a proud record on international students and that will continue.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
St Peter’s Church of England Primary School in Budleigh Salterton is an excellent school, but it is being let down by temporary classrooms that are way past their best. Temporary classrooms should be just that: temporary, not a permanent solution. Further to my letter, which is winding its way through the Department, will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this matter further?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Children’s services are struggling, and in too many parts of England, outcomes for children are just not good enough. What conversations has the children’s Minister had with those in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about both resources and capacity for children’s services? What measures will he take where councils underperform, and thus let children down?
David Johnston
We have very regular conversations with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on that issue, as part of our “Stable homes, built on love” reforms to transform the children’s social care system, and we take strict action where local authorities are not meeting the requirements.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is, bizarrely, taking parents to court to challenge their legal right to secure special educational support for their children. With the council losing 90% of those cases and this costing £100,000 every three months, will the Secretary of State join me in asking the council to think again? Will she agree to meet me to discuss special educational needs provision for Bournemouth?
David Johnston
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are concerned by any local authority spending too much money taking parents to court. Children need to get the right support, in the right setting, at the right time, and I would be happy to have a discussion with him about that.
Post Office Ltd
(10 months, 3 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
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on the removal of Henry Staunton as Post Office Ltd chair and wider governance issues within the organisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Following a conversation with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade over the weekend, Henry Staunton agreed to step down as chairman of the Post Office. An interim chair will be appointed shortly, and a recruitment process for a new chair will be launched in due course, in accordance with the governance code for public appointments. I will update the House when we have further details.
The current chairmanship was not proving effective, and we had a difficult decision: change course, or wait and hope that it improves. Given the challenging context for the Post Office and the importance of the role of chair, the Business Secretary took decisive action. I understand that Members would like more details around the decision, especially considering that the Post Office is rightly under heightened scrutiny at this time. I can confirm that there were issues beyond the handling of the Horizon scandal, but as hon. Members would expect, I am not able to comment on the specifics of individual human resources cases.
As the Business Secretary has said, Post Office governance is a priority for the Government. The Post Office is a public corporation; as such, the Post Office board has responsibility for the strategic direction of the company. While there was a clear need for new leadership of the board, we continue to have confidence in the other board members, who are experienced executives with a range of business expertise across the legal, financial, insurance, asset management and pensions sectors; there are two elected postmaster non-executive directors, too.
The Post Office faces unprecedented challenges. It needs to work at pace to deliver compensation to the thousands of postmasters who fell victim to a faulty IT system, as well as to continue the essential work to implement the necessary operational and cultural changes needed in the business. As such, strong and effective leadership of Post Office Ltd is a necessity.
Marion Fellows
I thank the Minister for his response. It is concerning that the Secretary of State’s move towards clarity and better governance at Post Office Ltd begins with the Government being on a different page from Post Office Ltd on whether Staunton was fired or left by mutual consent. Will the Minister clarify that? Is it possible that Mr Staunton is being made a scapegoat to take the heat away from this Government, and those who came before, the Government being the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd?
Back in July, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business said in a debate on POL’s management culture:
“Through the shareholder’s representative on the board, the Government oversee the Post Office’s corporate governance, strategy, performance and stewardship of its financial and other resources.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 180WH.]
That is not the same as the chairperson. Are the Government satisfied that the UK Government Investments board representative has adequately fulfilled his oversight role? Indeed, has Tom Cooper, who stood down in May, been replaced? That is not clear from Post Office Ltd’s website.
It is clear that the governance model simply has not worked. The arm’s length approach used by successive Governments has allowed scandal after scandal to fester. The post office network is in disarray. Financial redress to postmasters is far too slow and, in some cases, wholly inadequate. The remuneration package for sub-postmasters means that many are working for below the minimum wage, and services are continuously being stripped away. Does the Minister have confidence that the removal of Mr Staunton will speed up financial redress for victims and bring about change in the management culture of Post Office Ltd?
Back in July, Mr Staunton appeared in front of the Business and Trade Committee over the bonusgate scandal. In a debate at the same time, I asked the Minister if he had confidence in the current management of Post Office Ltd. I received no meaningful answer, so has it taken a TV drama for the Government to take action? How is that acceptable?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her work; the all-party parliamentary group on post offices does a tremendous job. The phrase used in the statement was “mutual consent”, but it is fair to say that the Government exercised their right to remove the chairman; the hon. Lady can deduce from that what she will. This is not a case of allocating responsibility for the past problems of the Post Office; we are simply saying that we need new leadership going forward. There were specific circumstances around the chairman that meant that we felt that he was not the right person to lead the organisation of the board at this time.
The shareholder representative on UKGI, as the hon. Lady was right to say, is not the chair; it was Tom Cooper, but is now Lorna Gratton. Do I have confidence in her? Yes, I do. I meet her regularly and have a high degree of confidence in her.
Compensation is too slow—we accept that. A number of measures were introduced prior to the TV drama, as the hon. Lady puts it, including the fixed-sum award of £600,000 for overturned convictions. We have also introduced a fixed-sum award for the group litigation order to expedite compensation. That is something on which I am absolutely focused on a daily basis.
I accept what the hon. Lady says about the remuneration of sub-postmasters around the country. Part of that, of course, is about consumer habits—where we shop on the high street. We are keen to identify new sources of revenue, including through the banking framework, which is a potential lucrative opportunity, and parcel hubs.
On the issue of confidence in the individuals, let me say that, having been a board director myself for 30 years, you are only as good as your last game, so it is fair to say that, at this point in time, we did not feel that Henry Staunton was the right person to lead the board.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Given the Government’s role as the sole shareholder in the Post Office, and the associated liabilities and responsibilities that go with that, when will the Secretary of State for Business and Trade make public all the associated papers related to Horizon and this entire scandal, so that the victims as well as the country can see where the responsibility for all this lies? By doing so, the Government will be able to take the right kind of action and support the victims as they seek compensation.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the work that she has done on this. We set up the inquiry in 2021 to undertake that work. Those documents are public and subject to public scrutiny. She may have watched some of the inquiry sessions, which were very revealing about some of the conduct that happened at the Post Office. That inquiry is due to conclude by the end of this year and then report probably sometime next year. We will have a much clearer understanding then of who is responsible, and, as is often said at this Dispatch Box, that is the time to hold those individuals to account.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices in our country. It has robbed innocent people of their livelihoods, their liberty and, all too sadly, their lives. At least 60 postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation and at least four have taken their lives. Twenty years on, sub-postmasters and their families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all that they have been put through.
The scale of the scandal is so vast that getting the right leadership in place at the Post Office is of paramount importance. However, to decide to eject the chair during the weekend with no real opportunity to get the details of the decision on the public record is unusual, to say the least. People need to know that removing Henry Staunton was a substantive, evidence-based decision if we are to have confidence in that decision. Can the Minister assure us that this decision was, indeed, substantive and not just the result of a personal falling out between Mr Staunton and the Secretary of State?
The Minister has talked about setting a timeline “in due course” for replacing Mr Staunton. In the context of what has happened in the Horizon scandal and the big challenges facing the Post Office, strong leadership is vital at this point in the process. I hope that he will be able to share as quickly as possible further information about the timeline and when the post will be filled.
What confidence can the Minister provide that this change will lead to the wholesale culture change that is desperately needed to make sure that this never happens again? Mr Staunton was not in the Post Office during the Horizon scandal—he has only served in the position since 2022—and this scandal has never been about the actions of one single individual.
Finally, the priority for us all in this House is the fast-tracked exoneration of all remaining convictions and the delivery of rightful redress or compensation to all the affected sub-postmasters as quickly as possible. Will the Minister provide an update on when we will see more progress on those matters to make sure that we take urgent steps to fix the seismic damage of this scandal?
Kevin Hollinrake
It certainly was not something that we wanted to do on a weekend. There was a chance that it would come into the public domain by other means, which is why a conversation had to take place over the weekend. We did not think that it would be right for the individual to hear about the potential course of action by other means than the Secretary of State speaking to him. I think that was the right thing to do. I do not know why the hon. Lady would feel, or whether she any evidence, that there was some kind of falling out, as she put it; this was about very serious governance issues related to the person who headed the board of the organisation, which are obviously confidential human resources issues.
On the timeline to replace Mr Staunton, as I said, we will do so as quickly as possible. We are looking at recommendations as we speak, and we will report back to the House as soon as possible on an interim and a permanent replacement. This was not about holding somebody responsible for past problems in the Post Office; it was about the governance of the Post Office going forward. That is why a mutual agreement took place for Mr Staunton to step down.
We are working at pace to deliver the blanket overturning of convictions. We are keen to update the House as quickly as possible, and should do so in the coming days.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was deeply concerned by the inability of Mr Read, the chief executive officer of Post Office Ltd, to answer an array of very simple questions. In fact, he appeared not even to have done his basic homework when it came to looking back at the Horizon scandal. Although he was not the CEO at the time of the scandal, what confidence do the Government have in Mr Read as chief executive officer to turn it around, and has he yet made public the board minutes that show when the matter was brought to the board’s attention for the very first time? If any board member was complicit in hearing that information and not acting upon it, what steps will the Government take with lawyers to ensure that they are held accountable?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee. I was present for his line of questioning during that session. The chief executive committed to providing responses to the Committee; I am not sure whether they have been provided thus far. A number of questions needed to be addressed, and it is right that those answers be provided. As far as the Government are concerned, our primary means of achieving that is through the inquiry, which is hearing important evidence right now, and will conclude its work by the end of the year and report shortly afterwards.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Surely if ever there was a time to consider removing Mr Staunton from his post, it was after it emerged last year that bonuses were being paid to Post Office executives simply for doing what I think we would all expect them to: co-operating fully with the Horizon inquiry. I think that people will be forgiven for having the suspicion that, when it comes to Horizon, Ministers have been a bit like the Japanese moon lander, suddenly bursting to life as soon as a bit of light is shone on them, in this case by an ITV programme.
I have two questions. First, Fujitsu’s representatives told the Business and Trade Committee a fortnight ago that Fujitsu had a “moral obligation” to contribute to the financial redress for the victims. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions yet with Fujitsu about how and when that might happen, as well as about the size of the contribution that it might make? Secondly, with regard to the continued unexplained shortfalls in Horizon, will the Government commit to revealing how much in excess the Post Office claimed back from staff, resorting to forensic accountancy if required?
Kevin Hollinrake
The bonuses were returned voluntarily by anybody who received them for that sub-metric, and the chief executive returned his bonuses from across the entire inquiry.
On the point about the Government picking up the pace because of the ITV drama, I would say a couple of things. We were putting a number of measures in place already. We had put in place the Horizon compensation advisory board, which has Lord Arbuthnot as one of its key members. A fixed-sum award was introduced last autumn. We were looking at advice on overturning convictions. Things were happening at pace in this area prior to the dramatisation, but of course we are public servants and members of the public. Of course we want to expedite things, and the impetus behind them is at a raised level because of the public outcry.
Conversations are ongoing with Fujitsu. In my view, the best point to negotiate is when we have all the evidence at our disposal, which will not be until the inquiry concludes. We welcome the fact that the company has taken and accepted some moral responsibility to contribute towards the compensation and we will take it at its word, but negotiating at the right point is the right way to deal with that.
The question of any excess moneys that came back from postmasters effectively into Post Office accounts is an important one, which we are asking now, and we hope to get answers in the near future.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I spoke recently to a couple of my constituents whose parents were wronged by the Post Office Horizon scandal. Now they are being asked to provide invoices from more than 20 years ago to prove that they bought the Horizon system—records the Post Office itself admits it does not keep. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we focus on those who have been wronged, and that the benefit of the doubt must be with those postmasters who were completely wronged?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is absolutely right. It should not be the case that a postmaster has to evidence a document that does not exist. The benefit of the doubt should be with the postmaster. Of course it is fair to ask, “Do you have documentation to support any claim you are making?”, but if the evidence is not there, the benefit of the doubt should be with the postmaster.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Leaving the Post Office rudderless now, when people are literally dying before they get redress, is not a situation we can put up with. The key question for the Minister is this: where is the Bill to expedite redress for those who were wrongfully convicted? Will he commit this afternoon finally to making sure that we have pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill so that it is as strong as it can be, and will he commit to a hard deadline enshrined in law in the Bill to make sure the payments are made as rapidly as possible? Frankly, Mr Bates and the other sub-postmasters who have been wronged for so long should not be made to wait a moment longer.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not accept his premise that the Post Office is rudderless. The chief executive is still there and I spoke to him a few moments ago, prior to the urgent question. As I have said, we are looking to appoint an interim chair as soon as possible and a permanent replacement shortly after that, and meanwhile the daily work of the board will continue.
On our commitment to overturn convictions on a blanket basis, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s previous constructive collaboration and engagement with our Department, and I hope that continues. I am keen to engage with him on our approach. These are legal matters that need to be considered carefully and we had a number of meetings last week on this very issue, so I am keen to engage with him, but in a way that does not slow down the process of bringing the legislation forward. He will find us contacting him and knocking at his door in the coming days to talk about how we will go forward with that legislation.
I should point out that Mr Bates’s compensation is not related to the overturning of convictions, because he was never convicted. That is not what is getting in the way of Mr Bates’s compensation, although it is getting in the way for something like 900 other people, and we are keen to resolve that as quickly as possible.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the Post Office’s reported practice, under the former chairman, of making payments of just £5,000 under the Horizon shortfall scheme for distress and inconvenience to people it falsely accused of theft, when a similar claim made at an employment tribunal, in the most exceptional cases, is 10 times that amount?
Kevin Hollinrake
To be clear, those schemes are run independently of the Post Office. There are independent processes all the way through, and an independent panel assesses the loss. I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, but it is clear that any tariffs that might go with payments are not a ceiling—they tend to be a floor. People should of course be fully compensated for both their financial and their non-pecuniary loss; that is a principle we have adhered to all the way through the process. We are looking at the recommendations of the advisory board on how to make sure people who have been through those schemes have received fair payments. In the group litigation order scheme, there will effectively be a minimum £75,000 fixed-sum award. We are keen to ensure not only that we get the money out of the door, but that that compensation is fair and seen to be fair.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Post Office bullied, threatened and lied to sub-postmasters and, as we have heard, there is huge frustration that throughout the entire compensation process it has tried to minimise payments, or used extra-long and complex forms to avoid making payments to them. Is the Minister confident that the compensation programme is truly independent and that sub-postmasters will get the full and fair payments they deserve?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not accept that premise. I do not see any evidence of the compensation schemes trying to minimise payments. The independent panel for the Horizon shortfall scheme included Lord Garnier, for example, and seven or eight KCs—very reputable people seeking to do the right thing—so we must be careful in our rhetoric. Of course we want to ensure that people get their full and fair compensation. That is why we implemented the Horizon compensation advisory board, which includes Lord Arbuthnot, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Chris Hodges and Professor Moorhead. They are decent people who want to ensure that people get treated fairly, and full and fair compensation is what people will get.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, in the wake of the Horizon scandal, there is a need for massive change in the culture driving Post Office management, particularly in its relationship with sub-postmasters, who are, after all, running private businesses under contract with—not owned by—the Post Office. Will the Minister ensure that whoever is appointed chairman commits themselves thoroughly to that culture change, and, if necessary, will he change other board members to ensure that we get the change that we all want to see?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a good point. In the past, the relationship between Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters has not been where it should have been. It is important that that changes. There has been much work on this: 100 area managers have been appointed to help build that relationship, and some of the past conduct and culture of the Post Office has changed. However, we know that it needs to change further. That is the job of the board; we need the right leader of the board in order to do that—hence the action that we took over the weekend.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Poor leadership and governance of the Post Office led to the badly designed Horizon shortfall scheme, which other Members have referred to. I have to say to the Minister that there has been massive under-compensation of sub-postmasters, including my constituent Mr Pennington. For 10 years, he was forced to find shortfall amounts totalling a possible £100,000 because of the Horizon system. He and his wife had to use their own savings, sell shares and even jewellery, and remortgage their house twice.
The stress and worry of finding those shortfalls over 10 years was immense, and Mr Pennington had a mini-stroke shortly after selling the business in 2012 because he could not stand paying the shortfalls any more. Yet the Horizon shortfall scheme has paid out a paltry £1,500 for those 10 years of stress and worry, and has compensated only half the shortfalls. Even the tax top-up promised in November has not yet materialised. I have written to the Minister about that case, but what action can he promise now to ensure that my constituent is finally compensated for those years of distress to him and his wife?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady on that particular case. We are clear that people should get full and fair compensation for financial loss and other impacts, including reputational loss—[Interruption.] I am setting out the position as it is. Of course, we are all concerned to hear about people who do not feel that they have been properly compensated. That is why we have the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which Lord Arbuthnot sits and to which I have referred a number of times. We are keen to ensure that all those people get, and can see that they have got, fair compensation. We are looking at the recommendations for an appeal mechanism, for example. I am very happy to look at this particular case in that context. It is absolutely the case that people should be fully compensated for financial loss and other impacts on their lives.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. By taking this action, the Government have accepted by default that the arm’s length body model for the Post Office does not work, so will he look again at the structure of Post Office Ltd, and will he confirm on the record that the former chairman, having left by mutual consent, did not receive or accept any severance payment?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, I can confirm that there was no severance payment. I do not think it is fair to say that we do not think the arm’s length model works. Clearly, we have the right to terminate the chair’s position, which is what we have done.; that is part of the current governance process. Of course, individuals are important, and having the right individual leading the board is very important. We did not think that was the case prior to this weekend, which is why we took the action that we did. We are very keen to appoint the right person to help make the cultural changes within the Post Office that we all want to see.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The effects of the Horizon scandal and Post Office business practices are still hurting our communities. The post office in Nefyn closed partly because staff no longer trust the computer systems, which I bet is happening in countless communities. I have asked the Post Office to provide an outreach van in Nefyn if no business at all is willing to provide that service—as appears very likely, because I have asked businesses; last week, the Post Office said no. Will the Minister guarantee the people of Nefyn that this, the oldest and second largest town in Llyn, will again have post services in the town?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to take that point up with the right hon. Lady, and to meet her to discuss it. It is very important that our citizens—our consumers—have confidence in the Post Office. That has certainly been the experience in my patch: people have been outraged when there is a closure, so the general public definitely have some confidence in the service. The Horizon system is being replaced. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a customer losing out because of the Horizon system, but I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady to discuss her case in Nefyn.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Shepherd’s Bush Crown office closed in 2017, and Hammersmith Crown office closed in 2020 after 100 years. Four sub-offices in my constituency have been temporarily closed for up to 10 years. With queues at the remaining offices stretching around the block at times, and a lack of competition thanks to multiple bank closures, will the Minister investigate why Post Office Ltd lacks commercial sense as well as integrity?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to look into any cases that the hon. Gentleman refers to. There are clear set criteria: the Post Office has to maintain 11,500 branches nationwide, and 99% of the population has to be within three miles of a post office. The Post Office is maintaining its requirements under those criteria, but I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the issue. Of course, we are looking at how to ensure that the network of individual post offices is sustained over the long term with new revenue streams, including through the access to cash legislation that the Government have put in place and things like parcel hubs. We think there is a bright future for the Post Office, but I am very keen to work with the hon. Gentleman to make sure of that in his particular cases.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I recently raised serious concerns with the Minister that the UK Government are not putting enough effort into making sure that post offices have a sustainable future—something that was of concern before the ITV drama shone a light on this issue. It is a challenge, and I do not feel that I really got an answer, so I am coming back to the topic again: we really need to know that we have a clear, proper plan for ensuring that there is no further deterioration of the network and to help build it back up. People in places like Neilston in my constituency, whose post office closed two weeks ago, or Clarkston, whose post office closed on Saturday, need those services. Those closures are billed as temporary, but they are only temporary if someone has the confidence to take up the opportunity to be a postmaster—who would feel that way now? What is the Minister’s plan to address the issue and make sure we have post office services for all our communities?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the hon. Lady. We need sustainable post offices, and that is about revenue. There have been changes in consumer habits and business levels, which have caused difficulties for postmasters. As I said, the Government have legislated for access for cash, which is a new opportunity for post offices. The banking framework delivers more revenue into those post office branches; we are keen to see that enhanced and for the Post Office to be more ambitious about that relationship, with that money flowing straight into the profit and loss accounts of individual postmasters’ branches. There are many other opportunities, including parcel hubs and foreign exchange. I am happy to discuss the matter offline, if that would be helpful.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The reputational damage to the brand of the Post Office as a direct consequence of the Horizon scandal has been massive—as the Minister knows, my constituent Della Robinson was one of the 555 litigants who had their convictions quashed a couple of years ago. Looking to the future, what is the Minister’s vision for reinvigorating the Post Office as a great British brand?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Member, and I thank Della Robinson for her work. She was one of the trailblazers who were so important in getting to where we are today and to our getting compensation to the people affected. As I said in response to earlier questions, I believe the Post Office brand is not damaged; it is the centre of the Post Office—those who ran it from the centre—that is damaged. I think we should all get behind our post offices, and of course support them wherever we can. This is not about the brand itself. As I say, when I hear about any closures from colleagues or in my constituency, I know that the local populations are opposed to them, which identifies the high esteem in which people regard their post offices. I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member, if necessary.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It has been very concerning over the last few days to read that a senior UK Government civil servant colluded with the Post Office to shut down the independent investigation by forensic accountants back in 2014, and that he did so with the full knowledge of the coalition Government. Now that the Metropolitan police are finally investigating possible criminality on the part of the Post Office and high-up employees, does the Minister agree that they should also be looking at the possibility of misfeasance in public office?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is certainly of concern to the Government as well. The inquiry is there to ascertain exactly who did what, or who did not do anything when they could have done something. The Met police will conduct investigations and take forward prosecutions wherever they choose. That is not something we seek to influence, although as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, I would welcome somebody being charged or criminal charges being brought against somebody for what has happened in this horrendous scandal.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The family members of a terminally ill constituent came to my surgery in Corkerhill on Friday; that person was a shopkeeper in the highlands who, like so many, were caught up with unexplained shortfalls in Horizon totals, and although that did not lead to criminal action, they paid up to avoid trouble—often borrowing from other sources to do so. Can the Minister tell us whether work will be done to ensure that we know exactly how much in excess the Post Office claimed through all Horizon errors? Can he also tell me in general terms how he will ensure that those who are terminally ill get the justice and compensation they richly deserve?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s particular case. The most important thing we can do is to get compensation to those people as quickly as possible. We have the first scheme that was implemented, which sounds as though that is the right one for his constituent—the historical shortfall scheme. I assume they have made an application to that scheme, and they should be compensated accordingly. About 2,400 people applied on time; 100% have received offers and 84% have accepted those offers. That is a route to compensation. On the excess, we are very keen to find out exactly where that money went, and how it was dealt with when it did appear in some kind of suspense account. That is something we are working on, but we are certainly keen to make sure people are compensated. It is the most important thing we can do right now.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When considering the governance of Post Office Ltd, will the Minister bear in mind the demoralising impact of the Horizon scandal on current and potential sub-postmasters, as well as on the people who were victims of the scandal itself? In our communities, we are fighting to return post offices to Shap and to Hawkshead—as he knows, because he kindly met me to discuss them recently—and to maintain a post office in Staveley, but we are being hampered by apparent inertia and administrative hurdles, in Shap especially, which are the last things we need. We need encouragement, not red tape. Is there a plan to proactively support current and potential postmasters, so that we can maintain and expand our vital post office network in Cumbria’s communities and across the country?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, it was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member, and I am happy to meet him again to try to expedite matters if he is experiencing delays. Of course, checks and balances need to be gone through with any new postmaster application, but it is good to hear that people are coming forward, and I am very happy to work with him to make sure that that situation is resolved as quickly as possible.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Israel and Gaza.
Last week, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the region as part of sustained British efforts to end the fighting and build towards a lasting solution. This statement will also cover the International Court of Justice’s decision on provisional measures, and the appalling allegations against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. As we debate these events, I know the whole House shares my horror at the heart-wrenching impact of this conflict.
One hundred and fourteen days on from Hamas’s barbaric attacks, they still hold more than 130 hostages. Innocent Palestinians are suffering, with over 25,000 people having died, and hunger and disease spreading. The Government’s end goal is clear: Israelis should be able to live without fear of Hamas terrorism, and Gazans should be able to rebuild their lives.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led our engagement in the region and with partners to achieve that goal. Last week, he spoke to President Biden and met families of hostages, while my noble friend Lord Ahmad joined a Security Council debate in New York. The Foreign Secretary visited Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Qatar and Turkey, meeting leaders, Ministers, and other hostage families. The Foreign Secretary called for an immediate pause to get more aid in and to get hostages out, and for that pause to turn into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to fighting.
The British Government have identified five vital steps for that to happen: a political horizon that provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution; forming a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package; removing Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel; the release of all Israeli hostages; and key Hamas leaders agreeing to leave Gaza. All those things are intricately linked, and we cannot secure one without all the others. There are also many other elements to consider, such as Arab-Israeli normalisation, security guarantees, and financing the rebuilding of Gaza, but we need to generate momentum now towards a permanent peace. That is why pushing for a pause now is so important, and why we need a Contact Group meeting, bringing together the key players as soon as possible.
I will now turn to the desperate humanitarian situation. The Government are focused on practical solutions to get aid into Gaza. We have trebled our aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 7 October, committing £60 million this financial year. In Israel, the Foreign Secretary pressed for changes to allow unhindered humanitarian access, such as opening more crossing points for longer and permitting deliveries via Ashdod port. He announced work with Qatar to get more aid into Gaza, with our joint consignment containing 17 tonnes of family-sized tents being flown last Thursday. Earlier this month, Royal Fleet Auxiliary Lyme Bay delivered 87 tonnes of aid into Port Said. Crucially, we are supporting the United Nations World Food Programme to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza, which has already delivered over 1,000 tonnes of aid into Gaza. We know the desperate plight of civilians caught up in this and the suffering they are going through, and we will continue to do all we can with our partners to save lives.
I turn to the ICJ ruling and allegations against UNRWA. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we had considerable concerns about South Africa’s decision to bring this case. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza can be described as a genocide. Of course, we respect the role and independence of the ICJ, and the Court has now reached a decision on provisional measures. It called for increased aid into Gaza, and measures to ensure basic services, as we have been calling for. It has ordered Israel to preserve evidence relating to allegations of genocide, reporting to the Court on progress within one month. It has also ordered the immediate release of all hostages, and reminded all parties to the conflict that they are bound by international humanitarian law. Those are points that we have been pressing consistently, and we will continue to press them after the Court’s decision. For our part, Britain continues to engage closely with the Israeli Government on the conduct of their military campaign in Gaza. We have said that they must take greater care to avoid harming civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Finally, I turn to the very serious allegations about UNRWA first publicised last week, with further media reporting over the weekend. The agency is critical to delivering humanitarian assistance into Gaza and across the region. It plays a stabilising role at a time when we need focus on de-escalating tensions. The UK is a long-standing donor to UNRWA, as are our closest partners, notably the United States. Since 7 October, we have allocated a further £16 million to it as part of our response to the crisis. UNRWA’s 13,000 staff in Gaza continue their working at great personal risk in the most dangerous circumstances: 152 UNRWA staff members have lost their lives.
The UK is however appalled by allegations that any agency staff were involved in the 7 October atrocities. We welcome the swift action that UNRWA has taken to terminate contracts while it launches an immediate investigation. We and several partners are temporarily pausing future funding until we have reviewed these investigations. We continue to fund vital aid delivery through multiple other partners, including other UN agencies and international and British non-governmental organisations.
This week, the Government’s engagement continues. The Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad will again travel to the region. I am travelling to Qatar next week. We will continue to drive progress towards a lasting solution. As the Government have said, it is only when the prize of peace is more attractive than the potential benefit of continued conflict that there will be the chance of a better future. The time to start is now.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Last week, the International Court of Justice made an interim ruling under the genocide convention on the situation in Gaza. It was profoundly serious. The ICJ’s interim ruling does not give a verdict on the case, but it sets out urgent provisional measures.
Labour has been clear that Israel must comply with the orders in the ruling in full, and Hamas terrorists must release all the hostages immediately, but I note that the missing Foreign Secretary made no statement. The only response that appeared was from a nameless spokesperson the day after the judgment. It claimed that the Government respect the role and independence of the ICJ, but stated that they had
“considerable concerns about this case”.
Will the Minister give me a clear answer? Do the Government accept the Court’s authority or not? Do they believe that the ruling should be implemented in full? If not, which orders do they disagree with?
While the Government prevaricate, Labour is clear that international law must be upheld, the independence of international courts must be respected and all sides must be accountable for their actions. That is why we will press for all the orders to be implemented alongside an immediate humanitarian truce and a sustainable ceasefire. The dire situation in Gaza must not continue. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations to secure a truce that will lead to civilians being protected, the immediate release of all hostages and a humanitarian surge in Gaza?
I repeat that aid getting into Gaza must surge, not stop. The allegations that a number of UNRWA employees were involved in the appalling 7 October terror attacks appalled the whole House. Anyone involved should be held to account by the force of the law. It is right that UNRWA has responded quickly by terminating contracts of staff allegedly involved and launching an investigation. Meanwhile, though, the humanitarian emergency in Gaza cannot wait. Twenty-five thousand people are dead, including thousands of women and children, 85% of the population are displaced and millions face the risk of famine. Will the Minister confirm that existing UK aid will continue to flow into Gaza so that current operations can continue? Will he outline a clear and fast path for future funding to return? We cannot let innocent Palestinians lose lifesaving aid because of Hamas terrorists.
Meanwhile, there continues to be a dangerous escalation across the middle east. We totally deplore the attacks on US soldiers. We offer our deep sympathies for those who have lost their lives or have been injured in the attack, as well as to their families. We stand with our US allies at this time of grief. The attacks are totally unjustifiable and raise tensions at an already dangerous time in the region. Iran must cease these attacks and de-escalate immediately. Labour has long recognised the dangers posed by Iran and its proxies. We have supported sanctions against Iran and have said for more than a year that, in government, Labour would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, either through existing processes or a new mechanism to tackle hostile state actors. What will it take for the Government to finally act?
On behalf of our brave military families who sacrifice so much every day to keep us safe, will the Minister outline what his Government are doing to boost protection for the 2,500 troops stationed across the middle east? I welcome the Government’s efforts towards a permanent peace. The situation in the middle east cannot be more serious. I must note that the Development Minister—as capable as he is—is not the main decision maker in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. When will the Foreign Secretary finally come to this House to answer questions at this most dangerous of times?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments, and I will try to address them all. Let me start by thanking him for his comment about British troops who are deployed in the region, particularly our naval personnel who have been on the frontline in recent days and weeks. I agree that their safety is a paramount duty of the Government, and he may rest assured that we take that extremely seriously.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. He will have seen that over the past week the Foreign Secretary has taken a leading international role in the region to try to move many agendas forward. In my statement I set out what the Foreign Secretary was doing. He has made it clear that he will be ever present and able to answer questions from Members of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest upon that.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the rising tensions in the region and the importance of de-escalating. He asked me, once again, about the IRGC. His points are noted, but I cannot comment on that on the Floor of the House, as he will understand. He talked about the importance of getting aid back into Gaza. All our efforts are set on that. He talked about the role of UNWRA; I talked to Philippe Lazzarini, the head of UNWRA, about two hours ago, to check its critical assets in Gaza—whether warehouses, vehicles or stores—without which no aid can get in. We all understand that they are essential for aid delivery, but the right hon. Gentleman will equally reflect that, given the very serious nature of the allegations, it is essential that the Government pause to ensure that they cannot happen again.
Finally, on the ICJ, we welcome the Court’s call for the immediate release of hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza. We are clear that an immediate pause is necessary to get the aid in and the hostages out. On the wider issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised, we regularly call on Israel to uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome the update from the deputy Foreign Secretary about the Contact Group and progress being made. However, I am concerned that on 18 January in Al-Mawasi, a supposed safe zone in Gaza, the UK charity Medical Aid for Palestinians and the International Rescue Committee had their compound bombed by an airstrike from an F-16 jet. Thankfully, the four British doctors living there were only injured, although that itself is a cause for concern. A month before that, on 22 December, it was confirmed via UK defence channels that the IDF had logged the co-ordinates of the humanitarian base and de-conflicted it, marking it as a protected sensitive and humanitarian site. I am gravely concerned that the airstrike still took place. Will my right hon. Friend please share with the House what investigation is being conducted, what the IDF’s response has been and whether His Majesty’s Government have seen the targeting permissions for that airstrike?
I raised with UNRWA the concerns of many colleagues back in November about whether it was doing enough security checks on staff. Is the goal of pausing aid essentially to force it to get its house in order? Is that what we are trying to achieve?
The ICJ’s ruling was quite clear: Israel does have a right to self-defence, but it is not limitless. What are the Government doing to ensure that we are fully in line with the ruling and the six conditions placed on Israel by the ICJ?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her comments. On the latter point, as I have said, we continually remind the Israeli Government of their duties under international humanitarian law. The bombing of the compound is an extremely serious matter, which, as she rightly said, needed to be raised at the highest level. It was raised by the Foreign Secretary in his meetings in Israel last week and, as soon as was practical after the details got out, our ambassador in Tel Aviv raised it as well.
On UNRWA, my hon. Friend rightly refers to the fact that the assets it had, which I described in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, are vital for the delivery of aid. The inquiry would normally have been carried out by UNRWA, but it will instead be carried out by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, which will conduct an immediate inquiry and report to the Secretary-General. We will obviously look very carefully at what it says.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. On Friday, despite concerted efforts to dismiss, ridicule and undermine South Africa’s case, the International Court of Justice delivered a damning provisional ruling that ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza. The ruling has left the UK Government with nowhere to hide, as they now have a legal obligation to protect Palestinian civilians—an obligation that should, at the very least, mean an immediate arms embargo on Israel. However, we all know that the best way to protect civilian lives, stop the killings and secure the release of the hostages is an immediate ceasefire.
The ICJ ruling also demanded that effective humanitarian assistance be provided to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza. Instead, the UK Government immediately chose to cut funding for UNRWA —one of the few organisations that stand between the people of Gaza and mass starvation—on the basis of 12 of its 13,000 employees having been accused of taking part in the atrocities of 7 October. If those accusations are true, it is absolutely right that action is taken against them and that they be held to account. However, by deciding to cut funding to UNRWA, the UK Government have imposed their own collective punishment on an already beleaguered and desperate civilian population, knowing with absolute certainty that that decision will result in the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Can the Minister explain the thought process that led the Foreign Office to that decision? What cognisance did it take of the ICJ ruling, and why did it choose to ignore it? What assessment has the Department made of the numbers of Palestinian children who will die as a direct result of that decision? Finally, does he not see that, by continuing to arm the IDF, this Government place themselves on the wrong side of history, and that history will judge them accordingly?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman made four points, I think, which I would like to address. The first point was the importance of a ceasefire. He should be very clear that the Government want to see an immediate humanitarian pause so that we can get the hostages out and humanitarian support in, leading then to a sustainable ceasefire. I have explained our position. It relates to his fourth point, about how we ensure that this suffering ends and manage to get the necessary humanitarian supplies into Gaza.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the ICJ. As I set out in my statement, we respect the role and independence of the ICJ. I pointed out that the Court has called for increased aid into Gaza and measures to ensure basic services, ordered the immediate release of all hostages and reminded all parties to the conflict that they are bound by international humanitarian law. We agree with that. It is extremely important that those points are respected.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cutting of UNRWA funding. We are not cutting funding to UNRWA; we are pausing any future funding. We have made the funding available and there is no funding due for the rest of this financial year. Clearly, future funding will depend on the result of the inquiries now in process.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The ICJ has rightly dismissed South Africa’s obscene demand for Israel to stop defending its people and instructed Israel not to stop, but only to prevent genocide, which of course it is already doing. Meanwhile, Hamas have been ordered to release the hostages, which they have not done. South Africa, whose crime rate is totally out of control, has meanwhile banned David Teeger, the young captain of South Africa’s under-19 cricket team, because he is Jewish. Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the safety of Jews in South Africa in these circumstances, and will he consider changing Foreign Office advice on travel to South Africa?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and learned Friend points—absolutely rightly, I believe—to the hideous nature of the charge against Israel of genocide, and I agree with him on that. On the release of hostages, which everyone has been asking for, I have read the reports of the meetings that took place in France over the weekend. It is still not clear whether significant progress has been made, but we all very much hope that it has.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the interim measures set out by the ICJ but refused to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Does the Minister believe that Israel has a legal obligation to comply with the measures set out by the ICJ?
Mr Mitchell
The answer to that has been set out in the House on a number of occasions. Israel plans to act in accordance with international humanitarian law and has the ability to do so. That is what the British Government continually press upon the Israeli Government.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
We all share the abhorrence of what happened in October, and this House has stood behind Israel in its right to defend itself, but this conflict, which has lasted for far too many decades, will only be solved with a two-state solution and a proper humanitarian response, led by the Israeli Government. Does my right hon. Friend have confidence that that will happen? If not, what else can we do to put pressure on our friends the Israelis and say, “This is the only way forward for you”?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We and our allies and friends, and virtually everyone in the region, believe that the only answer is a two-state solution, with Palestinians living behind safe borders and Israelis living behind safe borders as well. That is the policy of the Government, this House and the Opposition. We are pursuing it vigorously, as Lord Cameron showed in his many meetings last week.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister said that the Government did not support the reference to the ICJ, but that they support the outcome that justifies that reference. Given those mixed messages, what confidence can we have that he is communicating to his Israeli counterpart that the legally binding orders of the Court must be complied with?
Mr Mitchell
I have already set out the Government’s response to what the Court said, but in response specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s question, he may rest assured that those points were made by the Foreign Secretary throughout his extensive trip to the region last week.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
A pause in fighting, humanitarian aid and a long-lasting peace: all are needed to stop people dying now and in the future. I thank my right hon. Friend for setting out the five-point plan towards that long-lasting peace. I find it so frustrating that people who may be pro-Israel say to me, “There is no point talking about a two-state solution, because the Palestinian people will never agree to it,” and people who may be a bit more pro-Palestine say, “There is no point talking about a two-state solution, because the Israeli Government will never agree to it.” Does he agree that everyone should stop second-guessing what others will not agree to, and start working on what they will agree to and how we get there?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and she will have noted that those are exactly the tactics that the British Government are employing. We are quite clear about the importance of the two-state solution, and we hope that when the political track is able to recommence—a moment that cannot come too soon—everyone will bend their sinews to deliver that result.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
No one is disputing the fact that Israel has the right to defend itself, but it must do so within the law, and that is what the ICJ has said. When the ICJ ordered provisional measures in the case against Myanmar, the UK Government welcomed the decision and asserted that Myanmar must do more “to protect the Rohingya.” In a statement, a Minister said:
“We encourage the government of Myanmar to comply with the provisional measures, which are legally-binding”.
Is this Minister prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box and say the same of Israel? Does he encourage the Government of Israel
“to comply with the provisional measures”,
and does he accept that they are legally binding?
Mr Mitchell
As we have made clear, we always emphasise the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law. At the start of her question, the hon. and learned Lady set out the two key points that were made by the ICJ, about the importance of international humanitarian law and the release of the hostages, and the Government strongly approve of them.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
When we talk of collective punishment, let us remember that it is Hamas who subjected the people of Gaza to collective punishment when they decided to steal aid and fuel meant for civilians, when they decided to embed their military capability in schools and hospitals in civilian areas, and when they made it clear that they intended to continue to attack Israel in the way in which they did on 7 October. Those are the people who have subjected Gazans to what is happening now.
As for UNRWA, according to today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, intelligence suggests that 1,200 UNRWA staff are actual operatives of Hamas or other Palestinian terror groups, 23% of UNRWA’s male employees have taken part in Hamas’s military or political framework, and 49% of all UNRWA employees have family members or other relatives who belong to Hamas or other Gaza-based terrorist groups. Is that what the money from the taxpayers of Brigg and Goole should be used for: funding groups who wish to murder not just all Jews in Israel, but all Jews in this country?
Mr Mitchell
That is why the Government have paused future payments. However, I should also make it clear that during my discussion this morning with Philippe Lazzarini, who runs UNRWA, I specifically welcomed the news that he will commission a totally independent review so that its conclusions will be unimpeachable. That means discussions with the US State Department, including US congressional interests, with the European Union and with the United Kingdom, and the engagement of respected individuals who might assist. It is that quality of investigation that is now required to satisfy not only my hon. Friend, but many others on both sides of the House who are extremely concerned about this.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain what impact the review, and the time it will take, will have on the aid that is provided to people? I recognise what he has said about what will happen in the future, but it is important for us to understand what the humanitarian impact of this change will be while the investigations happen. Given his great record of campaigning against genocide and for genocide prevention, can he also address the point about how the UK Government will speak to our Israeli counterparts to ensure that Israel follows the prevention order that is so desperately needed, as has been highlighted by the ICJ case?
Mr Mitchell
For many years, the hon. Lady and I have shared a deep concern about the question of aid getting through. I can tell her that while we are temporarily pausing any future funding of UNRWA while we review these appalling allegations, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza for the people who need it so desperately. We do, of course, work with other organisations: the British Red Cross, UNICEF and the World Food Programme, which has been essential in bringing vital supplies from Jordan into Gaza. However, as I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the infrastructure that UNRWA has inside Gaza will always be fundamental to getting humanitarian relief to the people who need it.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome the five-point plan, the call for an immediate pause in fighting and the contact group bringing together stakeholders. The allegations directed at UNRWA are indeed serious, and we should all welcome the investigation ordered by the UN chief António Guterres. I understand why countries including the UK have paused funding, but given that UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, does the Minister agree that holding back funds for too long could see the humanitarian situation degrade further and lead to more Gazans joining the ranks of Hamas?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, the former Chair of the Defence Committee, is right to focus on that issue. I also spoke this morning to Sigrid Kaag, the humanitarian reconstruction co-ordinator for Gaza, and she made it clear to me that while we have zero tolerance of these dreadful things that are alleged to have been done, we cannot operate at zero risks. The politics of logistics and distribution are a nightmare in Gaza, as my right hon. Friend knows. We will look carefully at these reports, and we will suspend any future funding until we have them, but we recognise that the UNRWA assets are essential to delivering in Gaza.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The ICJ ruling is incredibly serious for all sides. Can the Minister tell us today whether it is His Majesty’s Government’s analysis that Israel is operating within the measures that have been set out and, crucially, what consequences there will be if there is no observance of the ICJ’s ruling? The Minister has told us for nearly 100 days now that we have been pressing for proportionate action in Gaza, but we have not got proportionate action in Gaza, so the question for the Minister must be: what are we now going to do differently to change behaviour on the ground?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to do things differently. We have been pressing very hard for these changes to be made. When he was in the region, my noble Friend Lord Cameron tried to advance the various issues epitomised in the five-point plan, which we are trying to drive forward. The right hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the judgment on international humanitarian law. As I have said to the House before, we know that Israel plans to act in accordance with international humanitarian law and has the ability to do so. Clearly, these things are looked at all the time, but the judgments that we have made, which I have set out to the House in the past, remain current today.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Israel is much more than Prime Minister Netanyahu. What more are we in the US and the UK doing to encourage the moderate voices in Israel who argue for a definite democratic future for Gaza and the west bank? Above all, is there any more progress we can make to convince the Israeli Government that it is not in their interests to have any more settlements or expansions of existing settlements? It is the sense of helplessness among the Palestinian people that is fuelling this whole conflict, so what more pressure can we put on the Israeli Government?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend accurately says that there is a plurality of opinion in Israel. We strongly support, and say within Israel, what we think is the right way forward, which above all is a two-state solution. During the course of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s visits, he was able to engage with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority and assure them that there is a plan to push forward at the point where certain changes are made in the way that the Palestinian Authority is run, and that Britain will be there at their shoulder to assist when that moment comes.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The ICJ ruling is highly significant all around the world, despite the Government’s opposition to South Africa even taking its case there. A few days later, when news comes out of the issues facing UNRWA, the UK Government, the US Government and others announce that they are withdrawing funding from it. I understand that the British Government’s payments are not due until April. Presumably, the US Government have suspended payments immediately. The immediate effect on the most desperate people in the world—that is, the 1 million people around Rafah who are trying to get something to eat, water to drink and medicines to be cured with—is that they are not getting the support that they desperately need. Have this Government been in touch with the Israeli Government to demand that they adhere to the ICJ ruling? Will the Minister also tell us that, in light of the ICJ ruling, all British military aid to Israel has been suspended until such time as they abide by the ruling?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the reports of the Foreign Secretary’s meetings, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu, during his series of regional visits last week.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point, the Prime Minister spoke to President Biden on 22 January. They discussed the UK and America’s shared deep concern about the terrible suffering and loss of civilian life. I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the ICJ’s ruling, but the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we are very focused on the extraordinary degree of suffering that is taking place in the area around Rafah, where so many people are effectively kettled without either shelter or food.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What circumstances would change the Government’s policy towards Israel, which is currently determined to oppose a two-state solution?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend reflects one strand of opinion in Israel, but he does not reflect the fact that there are many others. There is, not only inside Israel but across the region, internationally and at the UN, a very clear understanding that a two-state solution is the right answer. People may disagree about how we get there, but most accept that that is the destination.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let the House be in no doubt that article 1 of the genocide convention makes it absolutely clear that the UK has a legal obligation, not just a moral duty, to act to prevent genocide. While the Government are rightly fulfilling those obligations, in part, in Burma, they have allowed arms sales to the Israeli military to continue, despite the concerns of the Foreign Office’s own legal advisers that the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza are unlawful. Now that the ICJ’s interim ruling agrees that it is legally plausible, under international law, that genocide is being committed in Gaza, possibly using arms sold by the UK, will the Government immediately suspend the sale of arms to the Israeli military?
Mr Mitchell
I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that his interpretation of what the ICJ is saying is not the Government’s interpretation, or indeed the interpretation of many Members of the House. I reiterate that throwing accusations of genocide across the Chamber, in respect of Israel’s activities in Gaza, is extraordinarily offensive and, in my view, totally wrong.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary, writing in The Mail on Sunday on 28 January, said how important it is to
“allow vital aid to get in to Gaza, where people are starving and disease is spreading.”
Indeed, the provision of aid has been a key cornerstone of the UK’s response to the current crisis in Gaza, as the Minister outlined, with £60 million of aid donated since 7 October. In the light of the recent decision to freeze funding to UNRWA, how will this aid be delivered? Following the review, what action is the UK expecting UNRWA to take to see the funding resumed?
Mr Mitchell
The action that UNRWA needs to take is pretty clear: it needs to make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again. I emphasise that we are not cutting humanitarian supplies to UNRWA at this time. We have paid up the money required for UNRWA to continue, and there is nothing planned until April—even before these terrible events, there was nothing planned until April—but we will review future funding in the light of the inquiry, which the Secretary-General will be receiving as swiftly as possible.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo and support the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). International law must be upheld and the ICJ’s ruling must be implemented in full.
UNRWA has done vital work since 1950, and it supports refugees on the west bank and in Jordan, as well as in Gaza. UNRWA educates half a million children. The Minister mentioned the stabilising effect of its work in a very conflict-driven region. Following the suspension of 12 UNRWA staff, out of 13,000, and the rightful condemnation of their actions, will the Minister clarify the assurance that UNRWA operations will continue while investigations take place, and that ordinary Gazans will still be able to access that vital aid?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Lady’s final point, UNRWA humanitarian operations, getting aid to people who need it, will not be fettered in any way by the British decision. She will be well aware that there are very significant logistical problems outside that, but the effect of the decision that we have made about suspending future payments does not affect the payments we have made already. I recognise the importance she attaches to getting more aid and humanitarian support into Gaza, and that is the absolute intention of the British Government.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister is right to reference the desperate plight of civilians in Gaza. One of my constituents, Dr Salim Ghayyada, is an NHS surgeon of 20 years and a UK citizen. He is terrified for his family, who are trapped in Gaza. Unlike other Governments, the UK Government are offering no help to UK citizens who have family stuck in Gaza. Will the Government consider a scheme for non-citizens, such as the Ukraine scheme, to help with this desperate situation—this plight for citizens in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
We have been working with partners to secure passage for all those who wish to leave, including British nationals and their families. We have helped to facilitate over 300 British nationals leaving Gaza. We are working with Egyptian and Israeli authorities to ensure that any remaining British nationals who want to leave but have not been able to do so previously can do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do apologise; I will now call two from the Government Benches. First, I call Dr Matthew Offord.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
In November, a report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education found that half of Gaza’s 500,000 school pupils attended UNRWA-operated education institutions and that the Palestinian Authority curriculum taught in those schools is replete with antisemitism and encourages violence. The Minister says that he is going to suspend future payments, but the damage has already been done by decades of UK funding.
Mr Mitchell
I can tell my hon. Friend that, when I was previously in government, I heard these allegations back in 2010, 2011, 2012. I asked to see and have translated these school books, and I have in the past year raised the same point again. I have not seen any evidence of what he is describing. If he would like to give the Government evidence, we will of course follow it up, but I must make it clear to him that both 10 years ago and in the past year no such evidence has been forthcoming.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Many of us have had concerns about the activities of UNRWA and the people who work for it. The excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) exposed the number of UNRWA employees who are directly linked to terrorist organisations, so what confidence can we now have that the aid we are providing actually gets to the people who need it, rather than being diverted by the terrorists that exist in Gaza? If all these people from UNRWA are actually involved with the terrorist organisations, perhaps they could actually do something about assisting with getting the hostages out of captivity.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to make it clear that getting the hostages out is absolutely essential. He refers to the 12 people who have been identified, out of a workforce of 13,000. I can tell him that the head of UNRWA told me this morning that of the 12, two are dead and one is mismatched, so we are talking about nine people. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes the right point about the fact that this is completely intolerable. Inquiries have been set up, within UNRWA and the more widely held one that I described in my opening remarks, and we will wait to see what comes out of those inquiries and make our plans accordingly.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
In his answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and in a number of other answers he has given, the Minister has said, “We have raised this with Israel”, as if that were enough. What does Israel say in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about a known humanitarian base being bombed? What will the Government do to insist that Israel abides by the ICJ’s ruling that it must investigate and
“punish the direct and public incitement to genocide”?
Will we just “raise” that?
Mr Mitchell
Because Britain is a close ally and friend of many in the region and of Israel in particular, we are able to have difficult conversations. It is perfectly clear that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done so with the President and Prime Minister of Israel, and with a large number of members of their Cabinet. Those discussions have sought to persuade them to accept the need for a vast increase in the humanitarian support getting into Gaza, and to move forward towards the political track. Those are the ambitions and views of the British Government. Through our close relationship, we are able to press all levels of Israeli society.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the move to pause UNRWA funding, but the scale of the problem is much more significant than if it had involved only a handful of people, given the reports that 10% of UNRWA’s 12,000 workers in Gaza are somehow linked to Hamas and other terror groups. A few weeks ago, it was revealed that a Telegram group used by 3,000 UNRWA teachers celebrated the 7 October massacre. Given those appalling earlier revelations, why did the Government not rethink our relationship with UNRWA before?
Mr Mitchell
As my hon. Friend makes clear, those allegations are abhorrent. We have always been aware that there are dangers in operating in the environment of Gaza. That is why this is one of the most inspected and scrubbed development and aid programmes that Britain has anywhere in the world. I hope he will be reassured by what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) about the independence of the inquiry that is taking place, and the fact that the inquiry team will add to their number respected, independent people who will, hopefully, be able to give a useful judgment, and engage in the EU, the UK, and on the hill in America to ensure that we move to a better position.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen the reaction to the ICJ judgment in Israel? There were reports at the weekend of a number of rallies at which Netanyahu Cabinet members said, “The ICJ makes judgments, but we make settlements.” There is now a call for settlements in Gaza, both in Khan Yunis and in Rafah. At the same time, Netanyahu is attacking the Qataris, even though, from most aspects, they have been playing a significant role in securing the release of hostages. He has also been refusing to engage in a discussion about the Egyptian peace programme. In reality, the UK Government have virtually no influence over Netanyahu; we should admit that. He will listen only to the Americans, so what discussions are we having with the Biden Administration to ensure that they maximise the pressure to bring about a ceasefire discussion and the release of the hostages and prisoners?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government condemn the building of such settlements. He will have heard what I and others have said about the complete condemnation of settler violence, and the demand that the Israeli Government hold to account those responsible for it, put them before the courts and punish them. I will be in Qatar at the end of next week. I pay tribute to the work Qatar has done, particularly in trying to assist with getting the hostages out. On authoritative voices in Israel, I point him to the meetings that the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, has had with Netanyahu. They have known each other for many years, and the Foreign Secretary was able to deliver some tough messages, which I believe will be heard.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Reports of UNRWA staff potentially being involved in the 7 October massacre—one of the worst pogroms against Jewish people since the holocaust—bring horror to many people, especially now that we are learning that up to 10% of UNRWA employees have some links with Hamas. I know that the Minister has said that there will be an independent review of UNRWA. Can he assure me that it will be independent, and that the UK Government will have input into it to make sure that the UN is not marking its own homework? If these allegations are true, what will we do about UNRWA? We cannot continue spending taxpayers’ money on funding antisemitic terror attacks.
Mr Mitchell
The review will not be a case of UNRWA marking its own homework. It has specifically accepted that it must be a different part of the United Nations, far away from UNRWA, that makes these judgments. We will look very carefully at what inquiries reveal. I am completely with my hon. Friend on ensuring that nothing like this can happen again. I hope that the independence that is being injected into these inquiries will give him some confidence that we are moving to a different place.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
As others have said, the ICJ’s interim ruling could not be more serious, and it sets out urgent provisional measures that must be taken. I am sorry, but the Minister has not yet been clear on this point, so I will ask him again: do the Government agree that Israel has a legal obligation to comply with those measures? What role will the Government play in ensuring that within one month of the ruling, Israel submits a report to the Court on the steps that it has taken to comply with the orders, as it is required to?
Mr Mitchell
I think I have answered the point that the hon. Lady makes about the ICJ. Let me reiterate once again that we regularly call on Israel to uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so in all circumstances.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The allegations against employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency were appalling, but UNRWA remains a vital source of food and support for the Palestinian people. I can already hear voices from the Conservative Back Benches that seem to be calling for us to throttle funding for UNRWA for the long term. Can my right hon. Friend advise us on what will happen between now and April, as regards his representations to the Chancellor on the Budget and contingency funding for this organisation after April?
Mr Mitchell
We will make our plans for funding known to the House in the usual way, but we cannot do so until we have seen the report and are clear that what has been revealed cannot happen again. Let me emphasise to my hon. Friends that the UNRWA infrastructure assets inside Gaza—the warehouses, the vehicles, the stores, and UNRWA’s ID system, which is used by the Israeli Government—will have to be used, regardless of who uses them.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
What steps are the Government taking, in line with their obligations under international law, to ensure the full and immediate implementation of provisional measures ordered by the ICJ regarding the protection of Palestinians from genocide, and the immediate provision of humanitarian aid and other vital services? Can the Minister confirm whether the UK will now end arms sales to Israel, due to the risk that they could be used unlawfully to kill women and children?
Mr Mitchell
We keep all arms exports under review. The hon. Lady will know that we have one of the tightest regimes in the world. Clearly, we will consider any impact from the Court’s ruling. In respect of the other points that she made, she will have heard what I said about the ICJ ruling, and indeed what I said about throwing around allegations of genocide across the House.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for updating the House, following a number of very significant and concerning developments in recent days. We should not forget that, in the midst of all this, dozens and dozens of families continue to live every day with the anguish of knowing that one of their loved ones is being held hostage in unknown conditions. They do not know their whereabouts, or about their wellbeing or the conditions in which they are being held. Should not the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas be the one thing that every Member of this House calls for, following the ICJ report?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He sets out the Government’s position on the release of hostages. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) and I had the deeply moving task of attending a meeting at which we heard at first hand about the awful plight of the hostages. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the British Government, working with partners, will do everything that they can to secure their release as swiftly as possible.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) raised the dreadful, appalling issue of the targeted Israeli airstrike on the MAP compound—the compound of a British charity—in Gaza. On behalf of the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, I would like to raise with the deputy Foreign Secretary the fact that almost 100 journalists have been killed in Gaza since 7 October. Their bravery has kept the world informed and exposed some of the appalling atrocities that we see daily. What does he plan to do to stop the deliberate targeting of journalists? I remind him that the ICJ ruling particularly says that we must, as part of its provisional measures, continue collecting evidence of breaches.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government, in particular through the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, have done their best to stand up for journalistic integrity, and the right of journalists to report on such circumstances; I strongly agree with what he said about that. On the bombing to which he referred, I draw his attention to what I said earlier: it has been raised by the British Government, and was raised as soon as practical by the ambassador in Tel Aviv.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has spoken at length about this country’s relationship with Israel, and the powerful networks of advocacy that could work towards the noble cause of securing a ceasefire, a safe Israel and a free Palestine. Let us see whether he will use them today. Will he be clear that the Government, in their next conversations with the Israeli Government, will condemn the far-right Israeli Ministers who attended the conference this weekend in Jerusalem about the resettlement of Gaza? Members of Likud, including the National Security Minister, said that Israelis need to find a legal way to voluntarily emigrate Palestinians. Will the Minister of State also confirm that the UK will support the reported brokered deal by Israel, the US, Egypt and Qatar on the immediate release of the remaining Hamas hostages? How will the Government use our voice?
Mr Mitchell
On the final point, of course we are working very closely with the Qataris and the Administration of the United States to effect the release of the hostages. Although I cannot give a running commentary to the House, the hon. Lady may rest assured that we are intimately engaged in that. She talked about our effect and reach within Israel. It is not just within Israel; it is in the whole region. The British diplomatic service has unparalleled reach, in terms of talking about the way ahead and the political track, and we are exercising it. On the rallies that took place over the weekend and the reports that she mentioned, the policies mentioned are not those of the British Government.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Given the mounting reports of evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel, and now serious recognition by the ICJ of the real risk of genocide, do the UK Government accept that the provision of weapons may lead to complicity in such a crime, and will they therefore immediately cease licensing arms and security equipment to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that Britain has one of the most effective and tough arms sale regulation authorities in the world. He may rest assured that its provisions do not change when it is dealing with Israel—or any other country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The International Court of Justice is the world’s top court and a leading body of the United Nations, and its orders are binding. It has called on Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the killing of, or causing of serious harm to, people in Gaza, yet hundreds more people in Gaza have been killed since Friday’s ruling. As a signatory to the ICJ, do the Government not have a legal as well as a moral duty to uphold, and not undermine, the ICJ’s rulings, and to do much more to stop Israel’s actions in Gaza? Should that not include suspending arms sales to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I have set out the position on arms sales and the regime that the British Government set up and support. I think I have also set out the Government’s position on the ICJ very clearly, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am increasingly worried about the trend in this Government towards the casual acceptance of international law and international courts when it suits. That really is not good enough.
The ICJ interim ruling stated that article II of the genocide convention must be upheld, including ensuring the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Given what the Minister has said about UNRWA, and the fact that it is the largest humanitarian agency in Gaza, if the UK and other donors decide not just to pause their support, but to cease it completely and permanently, how are the Government and other international donors going to ensure the same capacity of humanitarian relief—and if they do not, are they in contempt of the ICJ ruling?
Mr Mitchell
I am not a lawyer, so I am not able to answer any of the hon. Lady’s legal points—nor should I, across the House—but I can assure her that we are committed to making sure that international relief and humanitarian supplies get into Gaza. That is the burden of much of the discussion and comments that the British Government are engaged in. I discussed it with Jamie McGoldrick and Martin Griffiths, the head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over the weekend. We are doing everything we can to expand the ability to get aid into Gaza. On UNRWA, the hon. Lady will know that, while we have made it clear that we will not be making any further payments until the inquiries are completed to our satisfaction, nevertheless the funding we have already given to UNRWA is having an effect on the ground. We just want to make sure that it reaches the people for whom it was intended.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Earlier the Minister failed to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), so I will ask a similar question and give him another opportunity. Given the ICJ’s interim ruling that the risk of genocide in Gaza is plausible, will the Minister suspend UK arms sales to Israel to ensure that UK weapons are not used to kill innocent Palestinians?
Mr Mitchell
On the subject of both arms sales and the ICJ, I have set out for the hon. Gentleman the Government’s position. I am afraid that, just because he asks the same question again, it does not mean he is going to get a different answer.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Two months ago, I asked the Government whether they would consider providing specialist treatment for the wounded children of Gaza in UK hospitals, as is often done when there is a natural disaster or a cruel war abroad. The Minister responded at the time by saying that the choice was to increase in-country aid, and he referred to the increase of £16 million in his statement. Given the destruction of hospitals in Gaza and the dire state of medical facilities, will he reconsider that stance?
Mr Mitchell
We are considering whether we should join with the United Arab Emirates, which is lifting people out of Gaza, particularly children, and giving them support in the UAE. The hon. Gentleman will also know that we have deployed an emergency medical team who are looking at the situation there, and we would, if it was appropriate, deploy a field hospital—indeed, we would deploy it into Gaza, if that was practical and appropriate. On the critical subject of trying to ensure that we help all those who are hurt and wounded, particularly children, he may rest assured that we are looking at all aspects of that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We talk about statistics as though they are not human lives: 26,000 men, women and children killed, 1.9 million people displaced, and a human catastrophe engulfing the people of Gaza. The five-point plan is great. We know what needs to be done. The fighting has to stop, the aid has to get in, the hostages need to be released, and we need to rebuild both the civilian infrastructure and hope for the Palestinians. However, there is one roadblock to a Palestinian state, and that is Prime Minister Netanyahu and the allies around him in government. They do not want Judea and Samaria to be handed over to the Palestinians for their state; they want the resettlement of Gaza. During his visit to see the Prime Minister of Israel, did the Foreign Secretary tell Mr Netanyahu that his views on the creation of a state of Palestine and on a second Nakba are not just unacceptable and wrong but abhorrent?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman made the point about numbers as statistics, but those numbers speak for themselves—there will be no one in the House who does not reflect upon the catastrophe that has engulfed Gaza. He went on to set out a very eloquent road map for moving forward and for progress. He asks about the Foreign Secretary’s discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think that that is a matter for either Prime Minister Netanyahu or the Foreign Secretary to reveal, but I can assure him that the Foreign Secretary would have been his usual robust self in setting out the position of the British Government. In respect of Prime Minister Netanyahu being the blockage, as the hon. Gentleman put it, to the ceasefire and to progress, I would point out to him that Hamas have made it clear that they are not interested in a ceasefire; what they want is a repeat of the appalling events that took place on 7 October.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
According to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, in just two days since the International Court of Justice ruling, at least 373 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli bombings and airstrikes, including 345 civilians, and 643 others have been seriously injured. Israel is already in breach of the order. What action are the Government taking to prevent the killing of Palestinians in Gaza? Will they now stop arming Israel, call for an immediate ceasefire and stop allowing Israel to act with impunity? Will the Minister tell the House what legal advice the Government have received in relation to ensuring that the UK is not complicit in acts of genocide?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady sets out with great eloquence the jeopardy and difficulties facing the people of Gaza at this time. I hope that it is of reassurance and comfort to her that the Government also recognise how difficult the situation is and are doing everything we possibly can to help move on to a political track and end the great difficulties that she sets out.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The ICJ’s ruling is clear and specific, and respect for the international Court is of the utmost importance, yet in response the Minister seems to be saying simply that it is business as usual. May I press him again on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ are complied with in full? What does he believe should be done to ensure accountability?
Mr Mitchell
I believe it essential that there is an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, that Hamas must agree to the release of all hostages, that Hamas can no longer be in charge of Gaza, and that an agreement must be in place for the Palestinian authorities to return to Gaza to provide governance, services and security. That is the way in which we make progress, and that is the commitment and policy of the British Government.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister referred earlier to the extraordinary degree of suffering in Gaza. We need an immediate ceasefire to stop that humanitarian disaster and get the aid in now, but such has been the level of destruction in Gaza that the need for aid work will continue for many months and years. When the Minister spoke to him earlier, did Philippe Lazzarini indicate, first, how long his inquiry is likely to take, and secondly, when the pause in funding will start to impact on the agency’s humanitarian aid work?
Mr Mitchell
Philippe Lazzarini did not indicate a specific timeline, but I would be very surprised if it could not be completed within the next two months. It is essential that it is, because we and others need to make our plans to fund humanitarian relief, and in making those plans, we will need to decide what we are going to do about UNRWA.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is reported that the heads of the CIA, of Mossad and of Egyptian intelligence and the Qatari Prime Minister have agreed on a new hostage deal framework to put to Hamas. That deal would reportedly include the release of the remaining American and Israeli hostages in phases, starting with women and children, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Can the Minister inform the House whether the UK was involved at all in negotiating that framework, and whether the Government are using their diplomatic position to press for the release of all the hostages as soon as possible?
Mr Mitchell
The British Government are very strongly in support of the process that the hon. Lady has described, which took place in France over the weekend. I have heard the reports in the media about this matter, but at this point, I am not in a position to update the House authoritatively on its results.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will have seen the harrowing ITV News interview and subsequent video of an innocent Palestinian civilian brandishing a white flag in a so-called Gaza safe zone as he was shot dead in cold blood by the Israeli army. Does the Minister think that that constitutes a war crime, and what representations have the UK Government made to the Israeli Government about it?
Mr Mitchell
I have seen many videos of that sort, and my reaction is the same as the hon. Gentleman’s. In terms of what the British Government are doing, as I have set out throughout this statement, we are intent on helping to ensure that the situation is brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible and, in the meantime, that we get aid and humanitarian support into Gaza to help those who are suffering so grievously there.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The International Court of Justice ruling that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza should have been the moment that this Government suspended arms sales to Israel and finally called for an immediate end to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Instead, they are stopping their funding for the UN aid agency that millions of Palestinians rely on. The recent allegations must be investigated, but the Government’s decision collectively punishes the Palestinian people and will lead to more starvation. In light of the ICJ ruling, what legal advice has the Minister received that says that continuing to arm Israel while stopping funding for Gaza’s primary aid agency is consistent with the Government’s obligations under the genocide convention?
Mr Mitchell
First of all, we are not stopping funding UNRWA; we are not committing any future funds. Britain has been funding UNRWA and is funding it today, but in the circumstances, until the inquiries have been completed, we are not willing to pledge any additional funds to UNRWA at this time. In respect of the hon. Lady’s interpretation of the ICJ ruling, I must reiterate what I have said: that understanding is not the understanding of the British Government.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister’s statement is silent on the west bank. He will be aware of reports of increased settler violence, shepherds being forced from their land, the confiscation of livestock, the imposition of fuel blockades, and the arrest of Palestinian civilians who have been placed under administrative detention—that is, indefinite detention without charge. What assessments and representations is the Minister making regarding those serious reports that keep coming out of the west bank?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, the British Government have condemned without qualification settler violence and illegal acts that have taken place on the west bank, and have made it absolutely clear that when such acts take place, those who commit them must be held to account, put before the courts and punished. In respect of the overall situation on the west bank, Lord Cameron was there last week and had some extremely good meetings—not just with President Abbas, but with others in the Palestinian Authority—where he sketched out a way in which Britain can be by their side and helping them when a political track is possible, and said that they should make the necessary reforms first, before that political track becomes available, so that they are ready to go when it does.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
On Friday, the ICJ determined that there may be plausible grounds that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. With that in mind, and with the case ongoing, will the Minister confirm that we will take the only serious options available to separate ourselves from the risk of complicity, which is to demand an immediate ceasefire, immediately ban all sales of arms to Israel —including ending assistance in the transfer of any arms to Israel, such as via the Akrotiri base in Cyprus —and ensure that sufficient funding is provided so that humanitarian aid reaches those people in desperate need?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will understand that the issue is not with providing aid, but getting it in. There is plenty of aid ready to go into Gaza; it is getting it in that is most important. She will have heard what I have said about Britain’s arms regime. On the demand for a ceasefire, the British Government have set out very clearly that we want to see a humanitarian pause, the hostages freed and aid getting into Gaza, and then we want to see a sustained ceasefire. However, I draw her attention to my earlier comment that that is not something Hamas want to see. This is the policy the British Government will pursue—the pause, getting the hostages back and a sustainable ceasefire—with every sinew that we can bring to bear.
Teesworks Joint Venture
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the independent review into the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, which the Government are publishing today, having received the final report last week.
Before turning to the specifics of the report, it is important that I remind the House of the significance and sheer scale of this project. Teesworks, in north-east England, is the United Kingdom’s largest industrial zone. Remediating and regenerating the former Redcar steelworks is a highly complex brownfield regeneration opportunity, the alternative to which is a massive liability to taxpayers in clean-up costs and an annual multimillion pound bill just to maintain a highly contaminated site. Most importantly, as Michael Heseltine said in his 2016 landmark report on the Tees valley, the site is also part of “a much bigger picture”, and one that provides an opportunity for regeneration that is unrivalled not only in size and scale, but in potential opportunity, as we are seeing with the development of the freeport. That is why it is too important to the communities of the north-east for Teesworks to be used as a political football.
Over the course of the last year, using parliamentary privilege, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who is not in his place, has made a series of allegations about Teesworks. This culminated in April and May 2023, when the hon. Member spoke, and I quote for the record, of the existence of “industrial-level corruption” and “dubious dealings”. These accusations are about the most serious that can be made. If true, they would almost certainly be criminal.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is not in his place. He should recognise that my hon. Friend has been through some serious surgery and has a proxy vote for the foreseeable future. Will he acknowledge that that is the case, instead of having a snide go at my hon. Friend?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I had assumed that the Minister had informed the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that he was going to refer to him, so I had also assumed that the Minister will have known of the circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker
In that case, yes, the Minister might like to acknowledge that he recognises there is a reason why the Member is not in his place.
Lee Rowley
I am absolutely happy to acknowledge to all Members that the Member is not in his place for a reason. Equally, however, the Member made a series of statements previously and I am seeking to respond to those.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not really—[Interruption.] Excuse me, but I can handle this, thank you. That is not really what I was referring to. I was just referring to the fact that there is a reason why the Member is not in his place, not the other points the Minister is making. Minister, do carry on.
Lee Rowley
These accusations are about the most serious that can be made. If true, they would almost certainly be criminal, and their mere existence threatens confidence in this immensely important, complicated and challenging project. At the request of the Tees Valley Mayor, an extraordinary independent review was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to consider the allegations as well as the combined authority’s oversight role. Today we have the answers to the primary question about the extremely serious charges of corruption and illegality—they are not correct; they are untrue. For the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat that: no corruption, no illegality. There is no evidence to back up the worst of the allegations repeatedly thrown at the local parties managing the project, no referrals onwards to other bodies for further review, and no substance to the most serious of allegations.
In addition, and at the Secretary of State’s request, the panel has also made a series of constructive recommendations, including strengthening governance and increasing transparency. We welcome that oversight, as does the Mayor of the Tees Valley, who has confirmed that he intends, in principle, to accept all the recommendations relevant to him and his authority. For the two recommendations relevant to central Government, the Department will carefully consider how to support the continued success of mayoral development corporations across the country.
I know that colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and His Majesty’s Treasury will also consider the recommendation regarding landfill tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the Tees Valley Mayor, asking that he responds to the panel’s recommendations, with an initial response within six weeks. My right hon. Friend will of course wait to review those proposals before deciding on further action, but the central point bears repeating: nothing was found by the reviewers to support the very serious allegations made.
This report has been a detailed and thorough piece of work, and I place on the record my great thanks to the three-strong panel for their thorough and well informed work over recent months. I thank Angie Ridgwell, chief executive of Lancashire County Council; Richard Paver, previously first treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority; and Quentin Baker, director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council. Copies of the review, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s subsequent correspondence with the Mayor and the panel, will be placed in the Library of the House.
Finally, I wish to remind right hon. and hon. Members about the rich heritage of Tees Valley. It has a proud industrial history and this Government are committed to giving it the proudest possible future, putting it front and centre of our mission to level up the country, and supporting all our regions to prosper and flourish by making sure that local people have projects they can champion. The independent review has cleared the Tees Valley Mayor and the combined authority of lurid allegations of corruption and illegality, and it has recommended improvements that I am confident will be driven by local stakeholders. We are delighted to support a project that is bringing huge benefits to the people of Teesside and the rest of the UK, and for all those reasons I commend this statement to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of the statement, but we know that a draft of this report has been floating around the Department since November, so why has it only surfaced today? How is it that the media were reporting the outcome of the report this morning, when it was only released by the Department at 4.20 this afternoon? Although we have only been given just over an hour to consider the 75-page report before coming to the Dispatch Box, it is immediately clear why the Government waited until the last possible minute to release it, because it is damning.
The issue has always been one of value for money, and on that the report shows that taxpayers’ money was not being spent in the way the public should expect. Let me quote directly from the report:
“The governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money.”
On transparency it states:
“We found evidence of inaccuracies and omissions in reports which undermines decisions”,
and
“We did not see sufficient information provided to the Board to allow them to provide effective challenge and undertake the level of due diligence expected of a commercial Board.”
It also states:
“There is no oversight of Teesworks Ltd, despite requests from various combined authority members and Committees”.
Finally it states that
“there is not a robustness within the system. Inappropriate decisions and a lack of transparency which fail to guard against allegations of wrongdoing are occurring, and the principles of spending public money are not being consistently observed.”
Those are not minor, trifling concerns; they reveal a systemic and flawed decision-making process that hinders transparency and fails to show value for money. This scandal has exposed gaps in accountability, and serious questions remain about the lack of local democratic scrutiny throughout the process. It is now clearer than ever that that needs to be investigated by the National Audit Office.
It was an astonishing decision in the first place for the Government to ignore the calls for a fully independent investigation into the serious allegations that have arisen, not just from Labour Members but from the Tees Valley Mayor in question, three Select Committee Chairs and Members across the House. Even the NAO said that it was “willing and able” to carry out the probe. Instead, the Government hand-picked a panel to investigate only the most serious allegations.
I will ask the Minister three questions, in the hope that we can finally begin to uncover the answers necessary to draw this saga to a close. First, will he now refer the situation to the National Audit Office, not only to give the people of Teesside answers but to give the public confidence that it will never be repeated again? Secondly, will he assure the House that no one was prevented from providing evidence to the inquiry as a result of non-disclosure agreements? Finally, can he tell the House with confidence that the Teesworks project represents value for money?
Earlier this month, the Secretary of State, in evidence to the Business and Trade Committee, said that he wanted people
“to make a judgment on the basis of the facts.”
Well, these are the facts: a publicly owned asset has been turned into a cash machine for private investors, earning them at least £124 million so far. That eye-watering return required no investment and involved no risk on the part of private investors, and nobody else was given the opportunity to participate in the venture. The report does not change those facts—indeed, it confirms them—and no amount of spin from Government Members will change that, no amount of bluster will make this a good deal for the taxpayer, and nothing said today will change the view still held by many that something is seriously wrong in the Tees Valley.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his valiant attempt to try to move the discussion on. The basic facts are that Opposition Front-Bench Members asked for a review, and they got a review. They inferred that there were significant problems, and it has been proven comprehensively through an independent review that there was no corruption and there was no illegality.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the report only surfaced today. We received the final report last week. To support the transparency that hon. Members in the House seek, and the comprehensiveness they wish for, we have sought to get the report out as quickly as possible, and it is here today for people to comment on and to misrepresent if they so choose. It appears that some may choose to do so.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from the report. I am also happy to quote from the report. As I indicated in my statement, the serious allegations that were the genesis of the report have been proven to be incorrect. Where there are things that can be improved, that will happen, and the Mayor of Tees Valley has already indicated that he will do that. But it is important that we put this in context. The hon. Gentleman talked about governance, and at paragraph 22.3 the report says:
“The Board largely feel engaged and make unanimous decisions.”
At paragraph 11.3, it says:
“The Panel noted the largely positive assurances provided by internal audit.”
Paragraph 22.3 says that
“there is much that does follow due process”.
Most crucially, given that the whole challenge was about ensuring that the benefits of Teesworks come to the people of the north-east at the earliest possible opportunity, the report says clearly at paragraph 22.1 that
“much has been achieved in a relatively short space of time”.
That is thanks to the Mayor of the Tees Valley and the Conservatives in the north-east.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I am pleased that the report has been published today and thank the Minister for his statement. Teesworks is critical for my constituents and the whole of Teesside, and the report confirms that for every £1 of public money that has been invested, the taxpayer will receive £9.50 back, and that is on the basis that only 17% of the site has been developed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alleged “industrial-scale corruption” in the House. He did so for overtly political reasons, which sadly Opposition Front-Bench Members have repeated today. Labour wants Teesworks to fail.
Sir Simon Clarke
Labour puts politics before people, and the furious denials of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) do nothing to disguise the fact that he and his colleagues have connived in making malicious allegations that this afternoon have been fundamentally proven to be false. The independent review confirmed that no illegality occurred. Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough ought to apologise to the House, and to all those who were named in the report and falsely accused by him? Does he also agree that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough should resign for acting against the interests of the constituency that he serves and, indeed, against the interest of the whole Tees Valley?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend speaks loudly for Teesside and his constituency. I will take the steer of Madam Deputy Speaker and keep my remarks solely to the statements made previously. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough stated clearly, on 20 April in this place, that there had been
“truly shocking, industrial-scale corruption on Teesside.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 383.]
In the same business questions session, he repeated “industrial-scale corruption”. A few days later, in another business questions, he referred to “dubious dealings”. Those remarks have proven to be incorrect, and I hope that he withdraws them as soon as he is able to do so.
Alex Cunningham
I apologise for my outburst, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mayor Houchen’s partners, Musgrave and Corney, for pulling off the business coup of the 21st century? Without spending a penny, they secretly acquired 90% of the shares in Teesworks, which has had hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money invested in it. They have done multi-million-pound deals to lease it to others, including the combined authority, have made over £100 million in profit in just one year, and have secured control of the business development at Teesside airport when no one else got a look in.
That is all in the gift of Mayor Houchen, who, the report says very clearly, has failed on both governance and transparency—something I have said time and again. That is the accusation that I have made. Does the Minister accept that this is a terrible deal for the taxpayer and the people of Teesside? Will he now hand it over the NAO, as others have requested, so that all aspects of the business at Teesworks—not just those chosen by the Secretary of State—can be independently investigated?
Lee Rowley
Again the Labour party attempts to move the discussion elsewhere, and I will call it out every time. The report was set up because of extremely serious allegations of industrial-scale corruption, which have proven to be incorrect. The least that Labour Members could do when standing up to read their pre-prepared speeches is to acknowledge that they were wrong.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which will give my constituents the reassurance they need that Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen is doing things by the book and for the benefit of our region. The uncertainty and suspicion raised has been damaging to our region’s reputation and to investment prospects. The whole Tees Valley has benefited from Ben’s vision and leadership, which has led to jobs, investment and a renewed sense of Tees pride. Now that, thankfully, we have this report, does my hon. Friend agree that unfounded and scurrilous allegations should not be aired in this place? Does he further agree that Teesside is not well served by continually being talked down by the Labour party, and that those who have peddled damaging allegations should apologise?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend speaks up loudly for the north-east and his constituents. He is absolutely correct that this is a huge opportunity for the north-east, and about the transformative potential of Teesworks. He is also absolutely correct that it is the responsibility of all Members of the House to be cautious and careful in their language to ensure that those benefits are realised for the people who matter the most—the people of the north-east.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Over the weekend, when the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and I appeared on the excellent local media programme “Politics North”, it became obvious that Members on the Government Benches had an insight into the publication date and contents of the report, which Opposition Members did not. I am very glad that the report has been published, but to spin it as some kind of vindication of Mayor Ben Houchen is absolute nonsense. Given that is the spin that the Conservatives are going for, why will the Minister not demonstrate that Teesworks provides the value of money that he asserts by having an independent inquiry by the National Audit Office? The north-east gets little enough investment; we must make sure that every pound counts. Why can the National Audit Office not be allowed to demonstrate that?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I have the greatest respect for her, and she provides immensely important contributions in this place. But she will recognise, I hope, when we move away from the talking points, that there has already been a review, which was already independent and has already followed due processes—the same processes, by the way, that were followed for Labour-controlled Birmingham, when the council there lost £1 billion; the same processes that were followed with Labour-controlled Croydon, which lost hundreds of millions of pounds and had serious governance issues; and the same processes that were followed with Labour-controlled Slough, when it did something similar. If those processes were good enough and independent enough for Labour in those instances, when Labour was in charge of those authorities, why are they not good enough here? Is it simply because Labour is trying to make a party political point because an election is coming up?
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) clearly made comments that were not just wrong, but extraordinarily emotive and designed to do nothing other than undermine confidence in the tremendous investment work that has been done by the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen. Voices in this place can be hugely negative and can roll over to become hugely destructive when things are said in the way they were said by the hon. Member—or, indeed, when they are not said. I just do not get Labour’s position on business. NETPark in my constituency is fantastic; I have mentioned it more times than my predecessor did in the previous 12 years. Does the Minister think that Labour actually understands business, given that the Member responsible for this debate was on the shortlist to be the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—another example of speaking up for the north-east. He asked a hugely important question about the importance of business and private enterprise to our success and wealth creation in this country. It is vital that we support business in order to make the wealth that allows us to support the public services we all need. The transformative opportunities of things like Teesworks will ensure that the north-east has those public services and the taxpayer revenue needed to support them in the coming years and decades.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The report was published in November ’23—published in nearly February ’24. Can the Minister explain the delay? I must say, there are suspicions that the report has been diluted. Can the Minister say whether the report has been altered because of discussions or communications between the author and the Government? Will he ensure—for the sake of transparency—that all communications between the author and the Department are published?
Lee Rowley
If I have misheard the hon. Gentleman, I apologise in advance, but I am pretty sure that he just said that the report was published in November 2023. That was not the case. The report was received by the Department last week, and we have published it within a week of receipt.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I wish to inform you that in line with the convention of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I informed the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that I would be raising this matter, and we had quite an interesting exchange of text messages—but suffice it to say I wish him a speedy recovery.
I have to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman does have previous form on this issue. First, he ignored scientific evidence to try to prevent dredging in connection with the freeport development, and today we discover he has levelled vile, unfounded accusations of corruption and dishonesty at the Tees Valley Mayor. Does the Minister agree that jobs and economic development are more important to the people of Teesside—including those who live in Middlesbrough, incidentally—than scoring political points on the basis of incorrect and unfounded allegations? Does he share my disappointment that rather than apologising on behalf of their colleague, the Opposition Front Benchers are doubling down on some of these allegations, which have now been blown completely out of the water by the report?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the report in front of us says explicitly that the accusations levelled at this project are not true. It is beholden on Members in this place, when they get things wrong, to say that that is the case; and it is vital that we ensure that this project gets going, keeps going, accelerates even further and gets the benefits for Tees Valley as soon as possible.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The report says:
“We did not see sufficient information provided to Board to allow them to provide effective challenge and undertake the level of due diligence expected of a commercial Board”?
Does the Minister think that is acceptable? Can he expect the people of Teesside to have confidence that decisions being taken in this way are in their best interests or will deliver best value for money? Is it not time to get the National Audit Office to look at the matter?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady needs to ensure that when she quotes from that report, she does so with completeness. It is also the case that paragraph 4.8 of the report says:
“we have sufficient evidence and consistency of views to form our conclusions as set out in the report.”
The hon. Lady was in this place a few months ago saying that the report would not be sufficient and referring to the pretence of an “independent” inquiry, which she is now quoting from. Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the inquiry does not work and then, when conclusions come out that they do not like, seek to disregard them.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I pass on my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the good and hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and commend his bravery in raising this issue? Clearly, the Minister does not like use of the C-word, but he will be telling us next that the personal protective equipment contracts represented good value for money and that no dubious practice was involved in the awarding of those contracts—stretch the truth thin enough and people start to see through it.
I want to ask about value for money and scrap. Apparently, there are 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal on the site. Sales have so far raised £90 million, with £45 million going straight to private developers Musgrave and Corney, without any risk or investment themselves. How on earth does that represent good value for money? Will the Minister or the Secretary of State instruct the National Audit Office to begin a full value for money investigation into the goings-on at the Teesworks site?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman, again, is inferring continued corruption. This report said—
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman said “the C-word”. That is inferring corruption, which has been absolutely comprehensively disproven in this report. The hon. Gentleman then went on to talk about value for money and the financial position, which is important. It is vital we put on record that the liability of this site—a massive site, which had liabilities in the hundreds of millions of pounds, if not more, and was costing the best part of £20 million a year just to keep in its dirty state prior to any clean-up—was falling on the taxpayer in the main.
The only reason these changes and the joint venture have been brought forward is to transform the area for the good of the area in the long term. I note, once again, what happens when Labour Members do not like a report that they called for—when it does not have the conclusions that they asked for and does not get to the place they wanted it to. What do they do? They just call for another one.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that nothing illegal has happened, but sometimes in this world it is what is legal that really shocks us. Like me, the Minister probably remembers that when the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities came before the Business and Trade Committee, he said that this freeport was a flagship for the policy. Yet paragraph 1.7 of the report concludes:
“a number of decisions taken by the bodies involved do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds.”
The firm was allowed to buy 100 acres of land at £1 an acre; it was given rights to sell scrap metal of £50 million; it then went on to sell the lease it had for, I think, about £93 million; and it has booked £124 million of profit in the course of two years. Surely there are lessons to be drawn about how we absolutely maximise value for money in what is still a novel and important policy. It is for that reason that it would benefit all of us in this House if the NAO was allowed to get to the bottom of the question of how we ensure that profits like these are not just extracted from the taxpayer.
Lee Rowley
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly read some of the report. I just want to draw his attention to some other elements of it. Paragraph 12.7 states:
“The project is described as the largest regeneration project undertaken in the UK covering thousands of acres of land. The project is complex and the JV between the public and private sectors brings the inevitable cultural tensions between the desire to move at pace unencumbered by bureaucracy as opposed to the expectations of accountability and transparency”.
The report itself says that there was a debate to be weighed up on that, but it also states in paragraph 6.14, on the very point about the involvement of business and regeneration, that there was “no obvious viable commercial” proposition for regenerating part of the land, and that the joint venture
“was critical to being able to reach agreement with the Thai Banks”
to start it in the first place. It was necessary, it has been done, and it will be transformative for the people of Tees Valley.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister talks about this being a complex project, but I am not quite sure exactly how complex it is. As I see it, Teesworks reported a turnover of £143 million, on which it made a £50 million profit—a 35% return. The only similar return I have seen recently was Baroness Mone’s, for her personal protective equipment. Given the scale of what I think is a scandal and many view as a scandal, the public expect the NAO to undertake an independent report. I admire the Minister’s conviction, but will he not support an independent NAO report to corroborate and validate his own?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman appears to be questioning whether the site is complex. These are not my words, but the words of the review, which many of his colleagues have used, often out of context in the past half an hour, to throw accusations around the place. He stood up once before, on 7 June 2023, to indicate that he thought the project was “a scam”. He was not choosing his words carefully then and he is not choosing his words carefully now. He should consider whether he wants to withdraw any of them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am choosing my words carefully. For past similar projects we have had NAO investigations after the event. Many of us have been disappointed by our own decision-making process of not producing reports soon enough. The issue here is that there are potential allegations of excess profits, so would it not be better to have the NAO vet the project with regard to excess profits at this stage, rather than run the risk of trying to learn lessons after the event?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. I repeat that we have just had an independent inquiry—an independent inquiry which went through a process that the Labour party, when last in government, set up. If the Labour party is so desperate to have an independent inquiry into the Tees Valley after one has already been completed, I would love to hear from them where their calls are for independent inquiries into Birmingham, Croydon, Slough and Liverpool, all areas where mistakes have been made by Labour administrations but which they do not want to talk about.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The report into the Teesworks joint venture highlights gaps in the oversight and accountability of mayoral development corporations and such joint ventures. Given that the mechanisms of mayoral development corporations are being rolled out across England, will the Minister say what thoughts he and his Department have given to greater scrutiny and probity not just of the work of metro mayors, but in particular of the work of mayoral development corporations?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Mayors and mayoral development corporations have the potential to be transformative for their areas, and both Conservative and Labour mayors have clearly made significant progress on that over the past decade or so. As I said in my opening remarks, we will carefully consider the recommendation that has been brought forward for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but it is absolutely important to remember—I will say it once more for the avoidance of doubt—that the charge was corruption and illegality and that has been proven to be incorrect. The report states that it is incorrect, and it is important that that is on the record and repeated again and again and again.
Points of Order
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Parliamentary privilege is one of the most important and sensitive rights that we in this House exercise, and it is one that we need to do so with the utmost care. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) has, as we have heard during the course of this afternoon’s statement, made allegations of “industrial-scale corruption”. They are in Hansard on 20 April 2023. These are allegations that he took great care not to repeat outside this House, because he knew full well that that would expose him to legal action. What processes exist, now that the report has comprehensively established that the allegations were untrue, to require the hon. Member to return to this House and correct the record? I believe it fundamentally undermines the entire principle of parliamentary privilege if the words we use in this House, under that ancient right, can be used lightly, or indeed maliciously, for political ends.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Parliamentary privilege is exactly what it says on the can: it is a privilege that must be used wisely, not recklessly or for political means. Will Mr Speaker review the use of parliamentary privilege in this case, where there could be, I suspect, a degree of political motivation to make allegations which, as my right hon. Friend said, were not repeated outside the House? What further guidance might colleagues be given in light of this situation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentlemen for their points of order. First of all, I should say that the Chair is not responsible for what Members say in the Chamber, or whether they choose to correct it, unless a speech is against the rules of the House. We do not accuse others of malicious remarks. I think the best thing I can do is remind Members of what Mr Speaker said at the beginning of this Session, which I feel will answer the points they have raised. He said:
“The House asserts its privilege of freedom of speech…It is there to ensure that our constituents can be represented by us without fear or favour. It is an obligation upon us all to exercise that privilege with responsibility…The Speaker does not have the power to police the accuracy of Members’ contributions, including those of Ministers. It is therefore incumbent on Members to be accurate in what they say in this House, but if a Member is inaccurate by mistake, they should correct that mistake as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 2.]
That is what Mr Speaker said earlier in the Session about this very issue.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to ask you to confirm that Members are still entitled to speak out on matters that they believe are correct. Is it in order for Conservative Members to continue to raise issues about an individual Member when they know that they are not here and are not capable of attending because of illness?
Madam Deputy Speaker
To the first point, I think what I said clarifies the position. I think I made it clear at the beginning of the statement that I would hope that Members who refer to another hon. Member would apprise them of the fact that they are going to do so. I notice that Sir Robert Goodwill made a point of saying that. I assume that others have done so, too. Obviously, if an hon. Member cannot be here, it does not mean that they can never be referred to, as long as they have been given adequate notice. I hope that that is helpful.
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]
Monday 29th January 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 View all Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Jan 2024)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Government are proud to champion free trade at every opportunity. We recognise the power and potential of free and fair trade to ease the cost of living, lower prices and extend consumer choice, all of which drives growth across all four nations of our United Kingdom. As exemplified by the free trade agreements that we recently brought into force with Australia and New Zealand, it is UK businesses and UK consumers who benefit when burdensome red tape is cut, greater market access is secured, and trade flows more freely. The UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will help us to realise these benefits with 11 countries spanning the Americas and Asia.
As Members will know, this partnership covers a vast area of the globe—500 million people—which already accounts for well over £100 billion-worth in UK trade. Our accession will boost this flow of goods and services even further, leaving more than 99% of UK products eligible for zero tariffs. This matters, because we sell more to CPTPP countries than we do to France and Italy combined. As we join, the partnership will have a combined GDP of roughly £12 trillion in 2022 figures, equivalent to nearly 15% of the world’s total. It will also provide a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region, which is set to account for the majority of global economic growth by 2050.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our leaving the European Union has made it possible to secure these deeper economic and diplomatic ties with some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and that it is only because of the decisions made by this Government that we are now getting on with that job?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is correct. We would not have been able to sign this agreement had we not left the European Union, but we are now able to enjoy the benefits of this free trade agreement as well as the one that we have with the European Union.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Many of the figures that are sometimes cited about the future size and scope of the Indo-Pacific market include the size and growth of China. Has the Secretary of State reflected further on the evidence that she gave to the Select Committee last week, and can she tell the House whether, if China decides to try to join the CPTPP and meets the technical standards, the UK will block that or welcome it?
Kemi Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman knows what I said to the Committee. It is important to stress the principle that these are not decisions that the UK makes in isolation, but he will hear more about the arguments relating to accession later in my speech.
One of the major benefits of our accession is the fact that for the first time we will have a trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei—economies worth over £340 billion in GDP. What does that mean for British business? It means, for example, that tariffs on British-made cars exported to Malaysia will be cut from 30% to zero, and that our whisky exporters will see tariffs cut from 80% to zero, a move that has been widely welcomed by members of the Scotch Whisky Association.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken about the size of this deal, and she has mentioned the major players in our markets, the automotive and whisky industries, which are of course very big exporters. Will she say a little about the opportunities that may exist for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the work that is being done to open up those opportunities to them?
Kemi Badenoch
There will be a multiplicity of benefits for small businesses—for instance, the tariffs to which I have referred—but the agreement also contains a chapter that was specifically intended to help SMEs to take advantage of it.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentioned car exports to Malaysia. That, of course, will not make up for the millions of pounds that we now risk losing because of the suspension of the deal with Canada for the automotive industry. The Bill will do nothing to tackle that, because it is based on the accumulation of EU content that we need. Will the Secretary of State tell us what on earth she will do to fight for British car makers, given that we shall now have the worst of all worlds, and we are not even part of a “Canada-style deal” with Canada?
Kemi Badenoch
First, Canada is part of the CPTPP. Secondly, the rules of origin, to which the hon. Lady was referring, have still not been fully decided; that will come in March. We are working with our counterparts in Canada. I think the hon. Lady was confusing the discussions on rules of origin with discussions on cheese, which is an entirely different issue.
UK companies will enjoy greater market access in some of the nine countries with which we already have bilateral agreements. Let us take Mexico. Under our current bilateral agreement, chocolate producers must pay a tariff of about 25%, but on accession that will drop to zero. We also said at the outset of our negotiations that we would like our businesses to benefit from the key trade quotas that this agreement offers. I am pleased to tell the House that we have secured access to those quotas as part of our negotiations. That means, among other things, that we have secured better access for UK dairy producers selling to Canada, Japan and Mexico, and it probably explains why Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, has said that the agreement could provide
“good opportunities to get more fantastic British food on plates overseas.”
I am sure that all Members here today would warmly welcome such an outcome.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State and the Government for the stance that they have taken with our friends and allies in Canada, namely that the UK will not permit the import of hormone-treated beef. It is important that we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in that regard. Can the Secretary of State reaffirm to the House and the country that we will stand firm in continuing to prohibit the import of not only hormone-treated beef, but ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed poultry? It is vital that we uphold animal health and welfare standards, as well as helping to protect public health.
Kemi Badenoch
I am happy to confirm that that is the case. We are now in a position to make our own decisions on what we do with trade agreements. We have said that we will never compromise on animal welfare or environmental standards, and we continue to regulate. The difference between this deal and the kind of deal that we had previously with the EU is that we did not then have complete freedom to regulate.
Another notable benefit concerns rules of origin. Joining this partnership will mean that content from any CPTPP country can be counted as qualifying when goods are exported within the trading bloc, and that has the potential to benefit our innovative British-based manufacturers, including our car industry. In the automotive sector we have an exceptionally competitive global market, especially as we make the transition to electric vehicles. Critical minerals are needed for their production, and those are inevitably difficult to source in a global supply chain. It is therefore essential to the success of our industry that more countries recognise where a component is made and accept it as part of one supply chain.
For example, say one of our big automotive manufacturers in the west midlands ships a part to Mexico for additional assembly, and that part is then sent on to another CPTPP country, such as Japan, for final manufacturing. Post accession, the parts made in the west midlands will meet the agreement’s rules of origin. That is a real incentive for CPTPP countries to purchase more British-designed, British-made products, and it is part of the reason why our future accession to this partnership has been so warmly welcomed by the sector. Mike Hawes, chief executive officer of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, has said that the agreement makes “eminent sense” and has the potential to deliver opportunities for the automotive industry.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is good to hear from Mike Hawes and to learn what he thinks, but can the Secretary of State give the House some indication of what contribution the CPTPP will make to our GDP?
Kemi Badenoch
According to the models and estimates, it will be £2 billion a year, but it all depends on which countries choose to accede and how many businesses in the UK choose to take advantage of the agreement. A free trade agreement utilisation programme will therefore be critical to our gaining the greatest possible benefits from the CPTPP.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
There is a great deal of argument about where the opportunity for UK exporters is. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the prediction that the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will create a bigger trading bloc and a bigger economic unit than the European Union by 2050, and does she agree that the CPTPP offers the opportunity for countries such as the Kingdom of Thailand, which is not a member, to join in the future? Surely the CPTPP is not about what it is now, but what it will be in the future.
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This deal is thinking about the future. Of course we have a close trading relationship with the European Union, but the fact is that, as a share of global growth, Europe is shrinking and other parts of the world are growing. This is our opportunity to get in early and help shape the rules for this trading bloc.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Business Secretary is making a powerful case on why accession to the CPTPP will be transformative for our country in so many ways. She alluded to the importance of business with Malaysia. This is not just about trade; it is also about investment. The importance of Malaysian investment over here is symbolised by Brabazon on the edge of Bristol, and by Battersea power station. Does she agree that all those investments will be much more secure under the umbrella of the first ever trade and investment agreement with Malaysia?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree with that statement. I would just like to highlight the significant contribution that our trade envoys, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and for Gloucester (Richard Graham), are making to our debate on trade. They are getting out there, bringing business to the United Kingdom, selling all that is great about our country, and making a valuable contribution to trade policy in the UK, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for all the work they are doing, travelling around the world and banging the drum for British trade.
Liam Byrne
Before the Secretary of State moves off the subject of cars, I want to make an intervention about our trade with Canada, which involves more than £745 million-worth of exports. We currently benefit from tariff-free trade because of the extended accumulation of origin rules. That tariff break will end at the end of March, and because talks have broken down, we face a situation where our car exports are about to be hit by tariffs. Can she tell the House a bit more about how she plans to avoid a tariff war hitting UK car exports at the end of March?
Kemi Badenoch
This is a good opportunity for me to state explicitly that the talks have not broken down. We are having multiple discussions with Canada on cheese, in which we have not come to an agreement. However, the quota that we have under CPTPP with Canada is 16.5 kilotonnes, which is more than the 2 kilotonnes we are selling to Canada at the moment, so we are not particularly concerned about that, although it is disappointing. We have an ongoing rules of origin discussion, and we have an FTA discussion, which I have paused, for reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will know—
Kemi Badenoch
Well, he should know them, because I believe I referred to them in the Select Committee; I hope he was listening. The point I am making to the Chair of the Select Committee is that trade is dynamic. On some issues that we are negotiating and discussing with our partners, we have differences of opinion; and others are going swimmingly. This is not a reason for us to cast aspersions on our trade relationships with the countries in question.
Joining this partnership will deliver for our manufacturers, but crucially it will also deliver for our globally renowned services sector. The UK is already the world’s second largest exporter of services, behind only the US, and services exports are at record levels. CPTPP, with its modern and ambitious rules on services and digital trade, plays to the UK’s strengths, given that almost 80% of our economy is services-based. It will reduce market access barriers, such as data localisation requirements; British businesses will not have to set up costly servers or data centres in each member country, and that will save them significant time, money and other resources. This agreement will help flagship British businesses such as Standard Chartered and BT to gain smoother access to markets in Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia, strengthening our trade with those nations for years to come.
We also have a ratchet mechanism for the first time with Malaysia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam, meaning that if those countries relax rules for a particular service, restrictions cannot then be reintroduced in future. That is another clear example of how this agreement will unlock smoother, simpler trade. The director general of the Institute of Export and International Trade, Marco Forgione, has rightly said:
“This is all good news for UK businesses, giving them greater access to one of the fastest growing regions in the world”.
The issue is not just the benefits that joining this partnership will bring over the short term. This is a growing agreement, designed to expand and bring in more markets and more opportunities for UK businesses in the long run. As the first acceding country, we will be ideally placed to take advantage of that future growth.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome our accession to CPTPP, which I think will be of great national benefit, but understandably Members across the House will look to businesses in their constituency. The Secretary of State is well aware that many businesses in my constituency in the Humber region are focused on the energy sector, particularly renewable energy. Does she see any great advantages for them?
Kemi Badenoch
There are multiple advantages that will accrue to my hon. Friend’s constituency. I do not specifically have figures for the energy sector, but I do have good news relating to Yorkshire and the Humber: 465 businesses are already exporting to Malaysia from Yorkshire and the Humber, and CPTPP will help to boost that region’s economy by around £210 million in the long run. In 2022, Yorkshire and the Humber exported £1.3 billion-worth of goods to CPTPP. Within five years, tariffs of up to 30% will be eliminated on UK exports of machinery to Malaysia, cutting costs for businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber. We will reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers, which could mean many more companies—such as the jukebox manufacturer Sound Leisure, which already exports to five CPTPP countries—being able to enter more dynamic markets.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), raised questions about China, and I promised to address them. On China’s application to accede to the agreement, which I know many hon. Members are interested in, let me first say that there are six economies with applications to join the group—China, Taiwan, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Ukraine—and more may apply. Members have not yet made any decisions on which economies will accede in future.
Every applicant must fulfil three essential criteria, called the Auckland principles, to join the group. First, they must be able to meet the high standards of the agreement. Secondly, they must have a track record of compliance with existing trade commitments. Thirdly, and crucially, they must command a consensus of the whole group. These are strong criteria, and they make it clear that working as a bloc is vital. The purpose of this partnership is to be a growing trade bloc, and we share that ambition. We want this agreement to grow, but our accession has set a clear precedent for those that follow. The robust process that the UK has been through has only reinforced the high standards that the partnership seeks to promote, and it has proved that the bar is not easy to meet.
Mr Jayawardena
Does that not prove that by being positive and seeking to engage with partners around the world, we can shape this trade area in line with our geostrategic and trade interests?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, it absolutely does. That is one of the ways that we are able to increase UK influence across the world, not just in Europe or near neighbouring countries. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about free and fair trade and about high standards, but there is nothing on labour rights in this CPTPP deal. Is that because she does not care about labour rights? Does she not think it matters whether UK businesses and workers have to compete with those producing products and services in circumstances where there are no trade union rights and no health and safety rights, for example? Is it because she does not care about labour rights, or because she was unable to negotiate anything?
Kemi Badenoch
I think the hon. Lady might be confusing the contents of the Bill with the text of the agreement. The text of the agreement is on gov.uk, and she will find a chapter there that covers labour rights.
I turn briefly to the Bill. It is technical in nature, but in enabling us to comply with the provisions of the deal, it is crucial to unlocking the benefits I have described. First, the Bill will ensure that the UK’s domestic procurement regime is compliant with the partnership’s rules, and it will give effect to the UK’s market access commitments to CPTPP suppliers. This small change will deliver big benefits for British businesses, allowing them to compete for contracts in Canada, Japan and Peru that go beyond our existing agreements. It will also mark the UK’s first ever trade agreement with Malaysia and Brunei that contains Government procurement provisions, and will create entirely new access opportunities for UK businesses. The Bill will also allow conformity assessment bodies established in parties’ territories to apply for approval in the UK. This will mirror the treatment that UK conformity assessment bodies will receive from CPTPP parties, which would reduce costs for UK businesses.
The Bill will amend domestic law so that, in relation to agrifoods only, an application to register a geographical indicator can be opposed on the ground that it is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or application for a trademark. The Bill will also introduce the ability to cancel a registered agrifood GI on the ground that, at the time the GI was applied for, it was likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or application for a trademark, or because it is a generic term.
Finally, the Bill brings our approach to copyright in line with the CPTPP by amending the basis on which foreign performers, such as musicians, can qualify for rights in the UK.
In sum, the implementation of the Bill is essential for the UK to meet its obligations upon accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The agreement offers significant benefits to UK businesses and consumers, by lowering tariffs, driving up trade and giving us access to the markets that will be front and centre of the global economy for the next quarter century. It is right that we seize the many opportunities that the partnership will bring, which is why I commend this Bill to the House.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
We support accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We have concerns about the Bill and will be seeking additional safeguards, but we will not seek to divide the House this evening.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, have said, the Bill is overshadowed by the apparent collapse of bilateral FTA negotiations with Canada, one of CPTPP’s most important members. There has been no statement to the House, and I read the transcript of the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Business and Trade Committee and saw no reference to the collapse of those negotiations. As I understand it, there has not even been a written statement to the House. This is one further sign of the Government’s cavalier approach to trade.
Stella Creasy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because this really matters. With £750 million-worth of British car exports at stake, the Canadian Trade Minister, Mary Ng, has said on the record that she is “disappointed” the talks have fallen apart. The Ministers shouting “fake news” need to be clear and honest with the British workers whose jobs are at stake. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need some honesty from the Government? If they think the talks have not fallen apart, can they tell us when they will start again?
Gareth Thomas
I welcome my hon. Friend’s call for clarity from the Secretary of State, because the collapse of these talks leaves our exporters to Canada worse off than when we were in Europe. There has been no deal with the US, no deal by Diwali with India, no courage to do a veterinary agreement with the EU, and now this failure by Ministers.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the Canada agreement, but can he explain why, on 8 February 2017, he voted against the UK doing a deal with Canada in the first place?
Gareth Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman has some gall asking that question, bearing in mind that, during parliamentary consideration of the Trade Act 2021, he promised to negotiate a better agreement with the EU. Now we find ourselves having worse terms of trade with Canada than we had when we were in the EU.
It is striking, too, that one issue that bedevilled those discussions on the EU-Canada deal is now supported by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State specifically sought to avoid investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the bilateral deal with Canada that has now collapsed. We raised those concerns at the time.
This Bill and our accession to CPTPP will not make up for the tens of millions of pounds of extra costs that manufacturers and the car industry will face when exporting to Canada due to the loss of EU cumulation rights and the higher tariffs that will result from April. This Bill will also not be much help for dairy businesses that export to Canada. Cheese exporters are now facing tariffs of 245%, because Ministers were too late to try to stop the loss of a vital quota for tariff rate reductions. Ministers had to be woken up to this issue by questions from the Opposition.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I was a guest on the Business and Trade Committee last week, and I specifically raised the issue of cheese. If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, he would have heard that our tariff rate quota does not exceed the amount we previously exported. Cheese producers, particularly those in Wensleydale, can therefore sleep well at night.
Gareth Thomas
I do not know what happens in Wensleydale, but I have seen the comments and worries of other cheese exporters. During that Select Committee hearing, the right hon. Gentleman shared the concern of many Opposition Members about ISDS provisions.
The Secretary of State said that negotiations on the loss of EU cumulation rights for our exports of cars and other manufactured goods have not come to an end, but it is difficult to see how her pulling the plug on bilateral discussions with Canada on a new FTA will help to secure those cumulation rights. A trade deal should work for all parts of the country, including farmers, but evidence to the Select Committee made it clear that accession to CPTPP will mean further losses to the agriculture sector and the semi-processed agricultural food sector.
Ministers have been sending signals for some time that they are willing to ignore farmers. The deal with Europe put up huge barriers to trade for British farmers. On the deal with Australia, one of Britain’s own negotiating team said that we
“gave away far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Now, we have further losses through CPTPP.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely selective about the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee last week. When the Trade and Agriculture Commission—the statutory body that reviews the trade deals we sign—came before us, it said that membership of CPTPP will have no overall impact on UK farming. Would the hon. Gentleman like to correct the record?
Gareth Thomas
As the hon. Gentleman knows, other evidence was given to the Select Committee that underlined the likely loss to farmers and the agriculture sector in general. I will be happy to send him the note from that Select Committee.
There are questions about the intellectual property section of the Bill. There are wider concerns that Britain has been forced to be a rule-taker on the use of secret courts, that there are poor environmental and labour rights provisions and, crucially, that Ministers have no plan to help British business capitalise on this deal. Given the Government’s woeful performance on economic growth, the recent huge increases in barriers to trade and the cuts in support for exporters, we are pleased about any measures that help our exporters even a fraction.
The Secretary of State did not own up to it but, for the foreseeable future, this trade deal will have, at best, a minor impact on our terms of trade. There are trade benefits to membership, notably in the rules of origin provisions and in trade with Malaysia and Brunei, and there is longer-term potential if CPTPP becomes a deeper or more extensive trade bloc. In geopolitical terms, the closer ties with allies in the Indo-Pacific that CPTPP ushers in are welcome in these increasingly uncertain times.
Unfortunately, rational debate about these opportunities and trade-offs has been hampered by some of the more extravagant and exaggerated claims made by Conservative Members for the benefits of CPTPP membership. It was set to offer “unparalleled opportunities” for the UK. It was going to be a “glittering post-Brexit prize”. The Secretary of State has even done her own bit for such boosterism, with her Department claiming last year that all that is needed is for the US and half the rest of the world to join, and then there would be an extra £21 billion for the UK. I enjoyed “Wonka”, but I did not expect to find that level of fantasy preparing for this debate.
According to the Government’s own figures, this trade treaty was only ever going to deliver a 0.08% increase in economic growth over 10 years. It is nice to have, particularly given the mess that the Government are making of the economy, but now even the limited trade benefits they promised us have been cut in half.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman references my Department’s trade figures. These are modelling forecasts based on old figures that did not count the dynamic effects of trade agreements. They are completely out of date. They were done well before the agreement had even been negotiated, so they should not be used as a basis for deciding how this agreement will do.
Gareth Thomas
One set of figures the Secretary of State’s Department definitely did not put together were those that the Office for Budget Responsibility produced. It now expects only a 0.04% increase in our economic growth, after a decade, from joining CPTPP. As we already have free trade agreements in place with nine of the other 11 CPTPP members, formally joining CPTPP feels rather thin compensation for Ministers’ many other failures on trade.
Liam Byrne
In the light of the news that the figures that have been tabled by the Department are not accurate—I can barely believe it—would my hon. Friend, like me, have expected there to be a new impact assessment alongside the Bill, with the latest departmental assessments set out clearly therein?
Gareth Thomas
It would have been an excellent idea if the Secretary of State had published those. Perhaps she might be willing to publish them at the same time as giving us a statement about what exactly is going on in the negotiations with Canada. We will have to use the review of CPTPP in 2026 to try to increase more markedly the benefits of membership for British jobs, British consumers and growth.
Richard Graham
Interestingly, the shadow Minister is trying to have his cake and eat it. He is saying that the Government have made extravagant claims for the importance of CPTPP, while recognising that it will have a useful, modest role. As for the statistics that the Department might produce, does he agree that it would be difficult for the Department to project accurately what might happen over the next 10 years, because a cluster of nations, at least three of them within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, might well apply to join, but we cannot speculate on that in advance? Surely he would agree that the potential of this opportunity represents a decent-sized prize for the UK.
Gareth Thomas
All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have recognised that there are benefits to accession, which is why we are not seeking to divide the House tonight, and that I will come on to the issue of potential new countries joining CPTPP in a bit.
The temptation for Ministers to exaggerate the significance of what this Bill ushers in—
Mr Jayawardena
Given that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there are opportunities from this deal and that, thanks to the success of our continuity agreement programme, we have trade deals with many countries there already, does he not accept that the diagonal cumulation that is part of CPTPP is a huge boost to British businesses, in terms of supply chains?
Gareth Thomas
As I think the right hon. Gentleman may have heard—perhaps he was not listening—I did acknowledge that one of the benefits that will come from CPTPP accession is better rules of origin. However, I gently say to him that we should not exaggerate the benefits of those, because the benefits are not likely to be that huge. They are important to have, of course, given the economic mess he and other former Ministers helped to create, but those benefits are, none the less, modest.
As I said, the temptation for Ministers to exaggerate the significance of what this Bill ushers in is understandable, given that over the past 10 years Britain has had the worst export record of any member of the G7 apart from Japan. That partly explains why the British people have lower living standards now than they did when Labour left office. It is one reason why the British people have become, on average, £10,000 worse off since 2010 and it is key to why the UK is forecast to have the lowest growth in the G7 this year.
Ministers have published no trade strategy and provided no clarity about how the Bill fits in with wider trade ambitions. They have axed support for businesses to get to trade shows and cut funding for business groups to lead trade missions. There is little obvious planning to help businesses use the limited extra opportunities opened up through this Bill and other trade deals. Sensible policies to improve trade with Europe and cut red tape have been vetoed. Sadly, it is therefore not surprising that the independent OBR now expects our trade to grow by just 0.1% this year and in the next two years—that is a shameful record.
Matt Western
When, in a former life, I served on the Select Committee on International Trade, one thing we talked about was giving Parliament greater ability to scrutinise trade deals before they were validated. Does my hon. Friend think that we, in this place, should have more opportunity to scrutinise these deals? As he is describing it, what is being presented today is negligible in its contribution to UK growth, as has been explained.
Gareth Thomas
I share my hon. Friend’s opinion. He aired it during consideration of the Trade Bill a couple of years ago and I hope he might be willing to air it in this Bill’s Committee.
There is little sign either of a plan to ensure that this Bill helps CPTPP accession boost trade in the nations and regions of the UK. The Resolution Foundation published analysis last week showing that, despite all the promises of levelling up, more than 50% of services exports are concentrated in just one region of the UK. Ministers have never been interested in tackling those huge imbalances. Labour Members all remember the broken promises on trade: the “oven ready” Brexit deal; levelling up through trade; and 80% of the world being covered by new trade agreements. One by one, each of those promises that the Conservative party made to the British people have been broken.
No one outside Conservative circles will be surprised that this Bill is not going to lead to a huge boost to economic growth any time soon. The negotiations to join CPTPP were led by the same people who gave Australian farmers everything they wanted, by the same Ministers who boasted about a trade deal with Japan that will help their exporters four times more than ours and which has been championed by the very same Ministers who negotiated a trade treaty with Europe that has hiked up trade barriers, increased the cost of food and generated huge bureaucracy for business.
On the arrangements for scrutiny of this Bill, one would have hoped that Ministers would have learned lessons from previous trade Bills this House has considered, and that scrutiny arrangements before and after negotiations might have improved. We have, at least, not had the spectacle of Trade Ministers at war for a little while or of their failing to turn up to a Select Committee to answer basic questions about trade agreements. I appreciate that Lord Frost is not quite so popular any longer, but when even he can lament, when debating this very Bill in the other place, that scrutiny of trade agreements was better when we were in the European Union, there is clearly some way to go.
That is all the more the case because Ministers appear to be using this Bill to solve an apparent problem with intellectual property treaty rules, which may or may not be linked to CPTPP—the Minister in the Lords did not seem too clear on that; a mere two weeks ago, and only after pressure in the other place, Ministers rushed out a consultation document on this provision of the Bill, which is contained in clause 5 and potentially gives American and other overseas businesses huge sums that would otherwise have helped emerging British artistic talent. That consultation will not be finished until 11 March, and there is absolutely no clue as to when Ministers might have finished considering the responses and deigned to let us all have their thoughts on the way forward.
During bilateral trade negotiations, the Government were widely accused of giving in to the demands of Australian negotiators far too easily, creating dangerous precedents for those wanting to get access to our agricultural markets through other trade deals. It appears that Ministers are in danger of doing something similar with the copyright provisions in this Bill: giving away, when there appears to be no reason to do so, extra rights to receive payments to foreign performers—for example, those in America, which is cited in the consultation document and is not currently a member of CPTPP. That would reduce the earnings of our artists and our businesses here, which could hold back the development of the next generation of British musicians and artists.
Industry figures argue that there is nothing in CPTPP to justify the need to give foreign rights holders and performers payments where they do not currently receive them. If Ministers think those industry voices are wrong, I look forward to the Minister for Trade Policy spelling out, when he winds up, what specifically in CPTPP requires the change. Nothing in the trade deals with Australia or Japan, despite both of them being CPTPP members, required such a legal change then, so why do we need this now? It looks like Ministers are trying to sneak through changes to rules that are, at best, only loosely related to CPTPP by using this legislation instead of a separate and proper process and debate about why such changes are needed.
In winding up the debate, will the Minister explain to the House why changes to the way in which foreign record labels and recording artists qualify for payment rights—changes which, let us be clear, could cost British artists more than £100 million over the next decade, according to the Government’s own figures—are necessary now?
In Committee, we will also want to explore why Ministers have not sought exemptions to the ISDS provisions in the CPTPP as our allies in Australia and New Zealand have done, and as Canada did with the US during the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement negotiations. It is all the more surprising as Ministers were specifically trying to avoid ISDS provisions in the now collapsed UK-Canada FTA negotiations.
There has been a significant increase in legal disputes using ISDS provisions, and a series of cases have had a chilling impact on a range of progressive public policies on environmental issues, labour standards and public services We are yet to hear a convincing explanation from Ministers as to why ISDS is still needed—a point that the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) referenced in relation to the Select Committee meeting next week.
Sir Robert Goodwill
I may have misheard but did the hon. Gentleman just say that the Australia deal was a bad deal for farmers and that it is increasing the cost of food? Australian wine is now certainly cheaper on our shelves, and our biggest food or drink export is Scotch whisky, which always benefits from free trade deals.
Gareth Thomas
I remember the comments made by the National Farmers Union about the Australia deal, so the right hon. Gentleman may want to look back at those before he rushes to make such an intervention again.
In Committee, we will also explore the further threat to Britain’s steel industry from the possibility of cheap imports of iron and steel from Vietnam, which may actually be produced in China. There has been growing debate about China’s interest in acceding to the CPTPP and its record on human rights. As my noble Friend Lord Collins pointed out, there are no meaningful, enforceable human rights provisions in the treaty. Nothing in law at the moment requires Ministers to allow debate in the House if there is agreement among CPTPP members to support China’s—or any other country’s—accession to the CPTPP. Will Ministers set out how they will ensure transparency over their consideration of new country applications once we are members of the CPTPP?
There continue to be a series of concerns about how environmental issues, such as deforestation, climate change and pesticide use are dealt with through the CPTPP. The Government’s record does not encourage confidence that those issues were close to the forefront of Ministers’ minds during negotiations.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he agree that there is a huge amount of public concern about the way that the Government have been managing environmental issues in their trade negotiations—both in the Australia deal and this one?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is right and we hope to pursue those issues in Committee. He would be very welcome to join us in so doing. There are benefits to joining the CPTPP and we support doing so, but there are real concerns as to whether Ministers have got us the best deal possible, which we will revisit in Committee.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I would say that it is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), but he is so pessimistic and full of doom and gloom that he makes me think that he is the Goldilocks of international trade. We are always in the same place when we debate these issues with Labour Members, because we cannot sign trade agreements quick enough for them or perhaps we take too long. In fact, we sign trade agreements when they are good for our businesses, our producers and consumers—that is exactly where we must be.
The hon. Gentleman talks about membership of the CPTPP and says that there are no parameters to stop new members, but in her opening remarks the Secretary of State made the point about the Auckland principles and the fact that there has to be a consensual approach to new membership. The Opposition criticise our record on international trade and the agreements we have signed, discounting the fact that we have: an agreement with Australia and New Zealand; three memorandums of understanding with American states; 75 roll-over deals; discussions under way with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Israel and India; and now accession to the CPTPP, if we pass the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to change our legislative programme to ensure that ratification can take place; that is why we are here and what we are debating.
I am delighted to be a member of the Business and Trade Committee. I welcome that the CPTPP is our accession to the fastest growing region in the world, and that it will give huge geopolitical value to the UK and what we do with our friends and allies around the world. If anyone wants something to send them to sleep, they can read my report, “Looking East”, for the Centre for Policy Studies. We are joining the leading comprehensive free trade agreement, with every forecast pointing to the value that this body will play not just in the next 10 years, but in the next five; we have to recognise those benefits.
As has been said, in nearly every case, forecasts undervalue free trade agreements, not least because of the modelling but also because, as free trade agreements are signed and accessions completed, businesses start to take advantage of the agreements and grow as a result.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Does he agree that when a previous Committee—of which we were both members—looked at free trade deals, it found that the very fact of doing a trade deal creates an interest that is not otherwise there? It means that everybody talks about the trade opportunity that presents itself.
Anthony Mangnall
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. That is exactly the reason that we have trade envoys—in his case, he goes to Thailand to enhance the relationship between Thai and UK businesses. It is also for that exact reason that the first line of the gov.uk webpage on CPTPP says: “We will help businesses take advantage of CPTPP. Please keep logging on so you can see how we can help you to take advantage.” Far from stepping back and not helping businesses, we are on the front foot in ensuring that we can support them.
I want to make a couple of points about what I have learned, first on the International Trade Committee and now on the Business and Trade Committee. It is always important for the House to have a say, and to have a debate on the full terms of our free trade agreements. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, we have 21 sitting days to be able to debate the CPTPP. The Secretary of State appeared before the Business and Trade Committee last week. I hope that we can have a debate, because it is important for all Members of the House to be able to look at the many benefits that the CPTPP will bring them, and their constituents, producers and consumers, and for those benefits to be highlighted on the Floor of the House. CRaG also provides for a voteable motion, which has not been used since its introduction; and it would be useful to have vocal support for our trade agreements, not least to show our friends and allies, with whom we do these deals, that we are behind them.
Within the Bill, I note the changes to the procurement legislative framework. I commend the fact that it is already building on the excellent work in the Procurement Act 2023, which specifically helps small businesses to take advantage of the agreements we have signed; again, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West, could have made reference to that legislation or to the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023—the list goes on and I could go on to, if he would like me to. Of course, there is also the value placed on intellectual property—setting a minimum standard of protections across patents, geographical indictors, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks and designs, including enforcement mechanisms. Above all, there is a focus not only on how to remove tariffs, but on how to remove non-tariff and technical barriers to trade. The creation of conformity assessment procedures also ensures that we can help businesses from every walk of life to take advantage of the CPTPP—this fastest growing region.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend has made a number of absolutely correct statements about the benefits of the agreement. To bring it alive in the specific context of our first ever trade and investment agreement, with Malaysia: because we will be working closely with their ministries, we will see opportunities for joint marketing in ways that we have not often seen around the world. It is worth remembering that our investments over there, which are considerable, generate dividends back to this country. That is as important as attracting inward investment here, which, of course, give them dividends back there. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities in the Bill are there for everyone to recognise; that it is helpful that the Labour party finally agrees that free trade agreements, and this particular agreement, are a positive step forward for the country; and that we should all recognise the opportunities that come after the agreement, and mobilise our chambers of commerce and our small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of them?
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to get my breath back and for the points that he made. I hope SNP Members are listening, because they could make it a hat-trick and support their first international free trade agreement while they are at it. Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must recognise both the export value and the import impact. We must also recognise, as was shown clearly through the pandemic, that businesses that have international markets are more resilient to shocks and can take further advantages of the deals that we are putting in front of them. The more that we can get trade deals in front of small businesses, encouraging them to seek out new markets, the more we can safeguard them for a long-term future.
Mark Pawsey
I have heard my hon. Friend talk about goods, but I want to hear more about services. We see this purely through the prism of goods going backwards and forwards, but our great strength is services. Where are the service opportunities in this deal?
Anthony Mangnall
As ever, my colleague on the Business and Trade Committee has steered me back on to the right path. Of course there is enormous value within the legal and financial sectors—the service economy—in which 80% of our economy is based. We must make sure that we are taking full advantage of the deal. We need to get those businesses out there, to look at where we can change international regulation, and to see that there is more mutual co-operation. My hon. Friend is right and has been a strong advocate of those points over the past few months on the Select Committee.
Richard Graham
On service exports, my hon. Friend will know, as do many colleagues on the Conservative Benches, that education is one of our major service exports. We have five universities operating in Malaysia. We have a number of schools operating around south-east Asia and in all the other nations involved in the trans-Pacific partnership. All those will benefit from this agreement. Does he see that, as perhaps other nations in ASEAN pick up the opportunity of TPP, there will be further education opportunities?
Anthony Mangnall
Education is one of the jewels in our crown of export opportunities. When we look at what has been created by UK schools in the far east, along with universities that are now exploring those routes, we see that there is an enormous amount of ground to cover and opportunity for those businesses to take advantage of. We are looking to access a region that is worth about £12 trillion, and which is closing in on well over 50% of world trade. This vibrant economic region offers us not just the opportunity, but the ability to create new industries and to be at the forefront of advanced manufacturing—of pharmaceuticals, genomics, quantum and photonics. Whatever we might think, we can take advantage of these deals. Furthermore, the removal of tariffs and technical boundaries will only benefit those services, businesses and advanced manufacturing areas.
Dr Hudson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the benefits of this accession agreement. We have talked about goods, services, education, and science and technology, which are all part of Britain’s global soft power. We will be able to export some of our technology, education and values, not least in food production and farming and in how we regard animal health. A major benefit of our joining this partnership is to spread the good work that the UK does.
Anthony Mangnall
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point and I thank him for all the work that he does on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. He is right to raise the fact that we have such high standards, and that by joining organisations such as this, we will not only serve as an example to others, but show how it is possible to create productive and profitable markets.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and appreciate that he feels very strongly about this issue. Will he clarify this for those listening—that the animal welfare standards that we abided by as part of the European Union are not those we are going to see in Canada, Australia or New Zealand? Indeed, we are allowing those goods to be imported tariff-free as part of deals such as this, but we are about to put a whacking great tariff on consignments and import safety checks on food coming in from Europe. Does he recognise that we are sending different messages about the value of animal standards?
Anthony Mangnall
I refer the hon. Lady to my previous remarks on the TAC report on CPTPP. She has made a point about Australia, and it is fair to give an answer on that. None the less, the point is that we are still safeguarding ourselves against hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken. Yes, there are variable standards around the world; we have to recognise that not all trade deals are Christmas trees on which to hang baubles and everything else. We can lead by example. Our standards are the highest in the world, and there is nothing to say that they are not a key persuader for other countries to follow suit in showing how there can be successful markets on that front.
Mark Garnier
I would like to follow on from the point about beef and meat from Australia. We imported it for years and years when we were part of the European Union. This is not brand new; we have been doing it for a long, long time.
Anthony Mangnall
That is exactly why we put things such as the Trade and Agriculture Commission on to a statutory footing, so that it could report on these trade agreements. Its opinion is fully weighted with the Government response and comes in during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and allows us in this House to consider it. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) wants to debate this point in a general debate on CPTPP, I would look forward to doing it all over again. Of course, the whole purpose of the process is to give us the chance to take full consideration of the agricultural community’s view.
I have gone on for far too long, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much! [Hon. Members: “More!”] I believe that that is the first time that anyone in the House has ever told me to carry on, but I am very grateful for it none the less.
We have huge opportunities in the UK to strike new trade agreements to encourage our economy to boom. It is striking that, in his opening remarks, the shadow Minister on the Labour Front Bench did not recognise that, since 2010, the UK’s economy has outperformed that of Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany and France, to name but a few. This trade agreement signals not just an intent to sign more trade deals in the future, but an approach that we can take if we work together with businesses, financial services, legal services and all industry across this country to bring value to London and to all regions of the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing its ratification and to this Bill being passed unamended.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In saying that you had gone on for far too long, you managed to unite both sides of the House, Mr Mangnall, so congratulations.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
First, let me say that we on the SNP Benches are also not looking to divide the House. I thought that I might get the opportunity to pre-empt the jibe that is often made about how my party is against trade deals, but the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) got there first. I saw that those on the Labour Front Bench also took a sideswipe with their rather nonsensical jibe. I freely admit that we have yet to find a deal signed by this Government that we are happy to support. Fundamentally—I say this again—we are in favour of good trade deals and we are not in favour of poor trade deals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Totnes is very, very excitable. For the purposes of Hansard, he is asking me to name one, but the sad fact is that I cannot name one that has been signed by this Government. Trying to help those on the Treasury Bench and Back Benchers understand the difference feels a bit like Father Ted trying to explain to Father Dougal the difference between cows that are small and cows that are far away.
In common with the shadow Minister, we are not saying that there cannot be some advantages of the CPTPP deal, but what we could not be clearer about is that, taken in their totality, all the trade deals signed to date—or even those that could have been signed had negotiations not failed to get off the starting block, or those that have hit the buffers in recent days—are a very poor substitute for the trade deals that we have left behind. In the manner in which it chose to leave the European Union, the UK managed not only to create trade borders with 27 other countries, but, unfathomably, to create one with itself, when it created a trade border down the middle of the Irish sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In the CPTPP, we have essentially swapped the four freedoms in Europe of goods, capital, services and people, in a market of half a billion people with a GDP of over £15 trillion, which was right on our doorstep and which already took over 40% of our exports, with a much lesser deal, with a combined economy of almost half the size, on the opposite side of the world, which currently takes only 8% of our exports. A great deal of growth would need to happen in that market—somewhat implausibly I have to say—even to come close to matching what has been left behind.
The economic benefits of joining the CPTPP are pretty small. I know the Government do not like these figures being repeated—which seems as good a reason as any to go on and repeat them—but the UK Government’s own impact assessment indicated the long-run increase in GDP would be £2 billion, or 0.06% of GDP. The OBR even had it as 0.04% in the long run. As John Maynard Keynes said:
“In the long run we are all dead.”
In a written answer to me dated 11 September last year, the then Minister of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), said that the impact assessment, where the £2 billion figure had come from, had
“been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee”.
I went and had a look at what the Regulatory Policy Committee had to say in order to get an idea of what “the long run” might actually mean. The Committee’s document said:
“When compared to projected levels of GDP or trade in 2040 without the agreement, the FTA’s main impacts (based on central estimates and in 2021 prices) are that…UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to increase by £2.0 billion.”
What the Minister said in his reply will therefore be correct, just not for a further 16 years or so. In the meantime, we have a real, immediate drop of 4% in GDP resulting from Brexit, leaving our economy permanently driving with the handbrake on.
I understand that the Government intend to adhere to the Sewel convention on this occasion and will seek the legislative consent of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies for the Bill. The Government should do that for every piece of legislation that comes through this place, not just performatively whenever they are confident of getting a positive response. While the benefits of free trade are obvious, there is also an obvious benefit to having tariffs in place. Tariffs serve a purpose; they are not just about protectionism, as some would have it.
I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say that we would never compromise on animal welfare standards, but one sector where that is in real danger of happening is the egg production sector. I see the Minister for Trade Policy wrinkling his brow. He and I have had an exchange on this before. The sector is worth over £1 billion to the UK economy. Tariffs exist currently to protect the industry from imports from mass-producing jurisdictions such as India and Mexico, which have lower standards than we insist on for our domestic producers, and that our consumers rightly demand.
The Minister responded, again not inaccurately, that the UK does not import many eggs. Well, eggs are quite fragile. It is difficult enough sometimes to transport them from the shops back to our kitchens intact, let alone right around the world—but of course the egg products that we are talking about are liquefied or even powdered egg products, which once put into a shipping container can be transported around the world at comparatively very low cost. It would not require a huge amount of displacement in the market to get a foothold if those products were allowed in under the terms of the CPTPP. Let us be under no illusions: for all that it is a £1 billion domestic industry, once egg producers are gone, they are gone and they are not coming back, so there is a real risk of harm and of our standards being undermined whatever level we choose to set them at domestically, because the tariff that was there to maintain a block on imports that did not meet those standards will effectively have been taken away.
Stella Creasy
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) quite understands what is about to happen with the border target operating model that fits alongside the legislation. A health check certificate and a consignment charge will be required for eggs and egg products imported from Europe, with no equivalent health check or standard required for eggs imported from CPTPP countries, thus creating an imbalance and making the scenario that the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is talking about more likely, because of the way in which eggs are produced in this country in collaboration with Europe.
Richard Thomson
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. One of the ironies here is that because our borders will no longer be protected by food import checks at Rotterdam, there has basically been a free-for-all in terms of the standard of products that can come in. I welcome the fact that there will be checks in order to protect our biosphere, but that comes at a financial cost that will hit consumers hard at a time when food inflation remains high and we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis. That is just one example of the red tape that we were told would be cut by Brexit not being cut sideways; it has been cut lengthways, creating far more of the stuff.
Richard Graham
Moving away from eggs, which I do not think will be the major export from Malaysia or other far-eastern members of the trans-Pacific partnership, let us look at the opportunities for Scotland. In the last year or so there have been bumper sales of Scottish whisky. Whisky sales in Singapore are up by some £90 million, and in Malaysia they are up over £30 million. The opportunities arising from being able to export tariff-free to Malaysia will mean a substantial increase in our single most important food and beverage export. Does the hon. Member agree that we should not underestimate the opportunities for Scotland in all this?
Richard Thomson
My point about eggs—I will stay on this subject for a bit—related to India and Mexico, which are major producers. Of course Scottish MPs are interested in good trade outcomes for Scotland, but we look to trade more than just whisky. While any increase in our share of the international spirits market is welcome, it would have done us much more good if the Government with control over domestic duties had not whacked an 11.1% increase in duty on that product last year. I say as gently as I can to the hon. Member that it is not just tariffs that are significant; many jurisdictions take their cue for the taxes levied on a product from the duty set in this country. I contend that we set a very bad example—I hope that he might agree—when whisky is taxed so highly in comparison with other alcohol products in the UK domestic market. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I did not quite catch that. I invite the hon. Member to intervene on me, if he wishes to make a point.
Richard Graham
I was just making the point that taxation raised here is spent on important issues in the United Kingdom. That of course includes, under the Barnett formula, significant subsidies by the English of Scotland.
Richard Thomson
What a load of absolute codswallop. It may have escaped the hon. Member’s notice that every part of the UK is in deficit. I do not think that a single part of the UK, perhaps not even London or the south-east, raises more in taxation than it receives in public expenditure, so can he please park the patronising trope about England subsidising everywhere else? Scotland creates one of the highest levels of gross value added of any part of the UK outside the vortex of London and the south-east, which suck in every aspect of capital and talent.
Mark Garnier
In the spirit of trying to bring the debate back to the fantastic opportunities for Scotland, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brunei, I was delighted to go to Aberdeen to meet a number of Scottish companies in the incredibly important business of decommissioning and renewal in the oil and gas industry. Brunei has signed a deal worth, I think, £350 million with Scottish business. That is not subject to any controversy.
May I also say that the hon. Member’s contribution to this place is incredibly useful? It is a very good symbol of why members of the SNP and Scottish Members of Parliament are so valuable to the Union, and to debates such as this in the British Parliament. Long may you be welcome here in Britain.
Richard Thomson
We seemed to be being pulled back to the topic, but now I am being tempted to go off down another rabbit hole. While I thank the hon. Member for his generous comments, I know exactly what side my bread is buttered on. I am a long-standing supporter of Scottish independence because I have a simple belief that the best people to run Scotland and make decisions about Scotland are those who have chosen to make their life there. With all due respect to this place and its traditions, I think that we could do a far better job from the Parliament in Edinburgh.
I will get back to the purpose of the debate, as entertaining as that no doubt was for all concerned. The SNP retains concerns about the ability to apply investor-state dispute settlements under the CPTPP. A deal for Canada has, for now at least, hit the buffers, but it was concerning that there was no indication from the Government of any side letters about investor-state dispute settlements similar to those applied in respect of the FTAs with Australia and New Zealand. There is real concern that investor-state dispute settlements could have an impact on standards and decisions taken here.
We firmly believe that trade deals done right can channel and create potential to support decent jobs and raise standards, not just domestically but globally. It is therefore worrying that the ethos of the CPTPP means effectively abandoning the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on the producer to show that a product is safe. Instead, the burden will be on the regulator to prove that something is a danger before action can be taken. That can only act as a downward pressure on standards. The committee on regulatory coherence will no doubt also become a focus for this issue, whether we are talking about antibiotics in agriculture, the impact of decisions on deforestation, or something as iconic as palm oil; we have already agreed a 12% tariff on imports from Malaysia, irrespective of the impact that that would have.
We have further concerns about the impact on workers’ rights and domestic conditions. There is the risk of being undermined by lower costs elsewhere, resulting from lower standards on labour rights and obligations, or lower regulatory standards more broadly. We are concerned about the impact that that could have on our public services, and our ability to set domestic laws and regulations could come under challenge, either from the economic forces that are unleashed or through the ISDS mechanism.
All things considered, the Government have made a blustery and boosterish contribution, while being very blasé about and dismissive of the concerns raised. As I said earlier, the SNP will not seek to divide the House on the Bill this evening, but we certainly look forward to exploring all those issues further in Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I suppose I should start by declaring an interest, because nearly 10 years ago I wrote a book called “Turning to Face the East: How Britain can prosper in the Asian century”, which was an encouragement for exactly this kind of initiative. I am a supporter of CPTPP and I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is no longer in her place, for joining us at the Business and Trade Committee last week, along with others, to provide evidence on the treaty. The Committee hopes, if its members are amenable, to publish a report on CPTPP over the next couple of weeks, and certainly before Committee stage of this Bill, to try to maximise opportunities to build cross-party consensus on something very important to all our futures.
I want briefly to say a word about size, a word about standards, and a word about settlement of investor disputes, but it behoves us all in this House to recognise the point we start from: trade and export growth is not where it needs to be, or where Members on both sides of the House want it to be. We know the old joke: not all fairytales start with “Once upon a time”; some of them begin with “When I am elected”. Looking back at the Conservative manifesto for the last election, we might be tempted to label it a bit of a fairy story, because it said very clearly that the goal was to set out free trade agreements covering about 80% of British trade, and we are nowhere near that. We are in fact much closer to 60%.
The Secretary of State put most of the onus for that on a change of Administration in America, but the truth is that apart from the cut-and-paste, roll-over trade deals that we have had since leaving the European Union, we have only signed three new free trade deals. I am glad to hear that what would have been the fourth new one, which we hoped to sign with Canada, is not dead, but it certainly appeared to be running into trouble last week. I am sad that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about that news today. That would have been appropriate. However, I am grateful that she has made some reassuring noises about it in this debate.
When the Select Committee put the point about the lack of FTAs to the Secretary of State last week, she said that she had “pivoted away” from FTAs. That is not necessarily a good thing, because she went on to say that she, like many economists, thought that FTAs do promote trade. The bottom line is that our export performance is way off target. The Government have set an export target of about £1 trillion by 2030, which interestingly has not been adjusted up for inflation as arguably it should have been, but the Institute of Directors last year said that we need export growth to be getting on for about 3.5%. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), said, we are nowhere near achieving that performance. We have an export growth forecast of roughly 0.1%, 0.2%, or 0.3%.
The Secretary of State very kindly agreed not to have a public argument with the Office for Budget Responsibility last week, and I think we were all grateful for that, but she said there were different models—not alternative facts, but alternative models—in her Department. I have written to her today to ask for the publication of those models so that the Select Committee can scrutinise them before the Bill goes into Committee. Scale is important because our trade performance is off track. Generally speaking, economies that trade more, grow faster, and we want our economy to grow faster, because we all share an interest in raising the living standards of our constituents. That is why my the first point, about the scale of CPTPP in the future, is so important.
The Secretary of State has stacked up a lot of her argument on our needing to go in future to where the growth is. She said that if we cannot do trade deals where the growth is today—for example, with our partners in America—we should go to where the growth will be tomorrow. That is a reasonable argument, and Asia-Pacific countries accounted for over 70% of global GDP growth in the decade up to 2023. However, China accounted for about one third of global GDP growth. That is why I pushed the Secretary of State again, as I did last week, to at least show us how we will have a conversation about how this country will make a rational decision with partners on whether to agree to ratify China, if it met the technical standards. We have similar questions to resolve on Taiwan, but in his public pronouncements, President Xi has made it very clear that he is ambitious for China to meet the technical standards. The question is therefore whether, if China met the technical standards, we would stand in the way of ratification, or whether other important geopolitical considerations would inspire us to block it.
Looking beyond China to the CPTPP’s future more generally, given that we have set such store by this treaty, what is our vision for its future? Where is the road map? The Department published a document a year or two ago on the strategic benefits, but the Secretary of State resiled from all the numbers in that report last week. I do not think that is a good way to make public policy, but let me put it this way: our debate about trade policy and strategy ahead of the election would be much stronger if we had good figures on the table about the options and choices confronting our country. We will certainly do our bit in the Business and Trade Committee to supply those figures, but it would be fantastic if the Secretary of State could commit to doing something similar.
The question that follows on from size is about standards. There were controversial topics that we took evidence on last week, and we will capture what we learned in the report that we publish. There were questions about environmental and climate impacts; there are general provisions about those in the treaty, but they are not enforceable and there is not much mention of net zero. If we think about the treaty as something that is fairly marginal for trade today—it represents about a 0.09% GDP uplift over nine years—but is geopolitically important, we need to think about how it becomes a load-bearing structure for more of our ambitions in the world, such as the race to net zero. Maybe when the Minister is winding up he could say a bit more about how we can freight this treaty with some of our other national interests.
The point about food production standards has already come up. No changes to UK standards are entailed in the treaty, but there were concerns about sanitary and phytosanitary rules, based on the precautionary principle. The evidence we heard said that they could be challenged. It is a legally murky area and, on balance, the challenges seem unlikely to succeed, but that is none the less something to explore in the Bill Committee. It could well be that that Committee wants to ensure that further safeguards are written into the Bill over the course of its passage.
There will be an increase in imports of agrifood goods produced to lower standards than UK standards. That is true when it comes to pesticides, genetically modified organisms and animal welfare, but not to antimicrobials. On pesticides, the Trade and Agriculture Commission found some basis for weaker standards; on GMOs it found some basis for concern. On environmental laws and policies, palm oil imports are obviously controversial, particularly when it comes to deforestation in Malaysia, but the TAC found that the concerns were, if not non-present—there are concerns to be had—then perhaps slightly overstated.
The final point is about investor-state dispute settlements. Again, the treaty extends the application of ISDS to Canada, Japan and Brunei. One way in which that has become such a big issue is that organisations such as the Canadian teachers’ pension funds are some of the biggest investors in the world, with significant investments in the UK water industry. There have been 1,300 or 1,500 of those cases around the world. The evidence we heard suggested that the UK was likely to be able to successfully defend such cases. One consideration about which we should hear a little more is whether the presence of those clauses in the Bill creates a chilling effect on the way in which we regulate our markets here. If we wanted to regulate the water industry differently in future, would we not bring forward those regulations because of fear about what would happen and how we might be challenged?
The gains from the treaty, as drafted, are modest. They generally come from the fact that we have a new FTA, as part of the treaty, with Malaysia and Brunei. That is good for whisky, for cars and for chocolate, such as that made in Bournville. A single set of rules of origin and a single cumulation zone are good things. Access to some of the agrifood quotas, such as Canadian dairy, is a good thing. Some of the progress made in the digital chapter, about which the Secretary of State did not talk much, could be quite useful and can be built on more generally.
We have to conclude that the trade benefits as of now are no substitute for ironing out the difficulties that bedevil trade between the UK and our close neighbour, the EU. Across the House, we should collectively ensure that we are doing what we can to advance the prospect of a UK-US trade deal. These are modest trade benefits but an important geostrategic step forward.
It is good to have this Second Reading debate, which I welcome. Like the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), I very much hope that the Government will make time for us to have a debate under the CRaG principles about whether the treaty as a whole goes forward. We would welcome the opportunity to have an amendable motion on that, as the other place did recently on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has published an excellent report today about how we can better consider treaties. In this new world, Parliament as a whole must get a lot better at studying these kinds of trade agreements and ensuring that they dovetail with other aspects of our economic and national security. I look forward to the debate in the Bill Committee, which I hope will benefit from the report that our Select Committee will supply.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I rise to broadly welcome the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. The Liberal Democrats support efforts that create opportunities for British firms around the world, not just in the here and now, but in years to come. However, the reality is that the immediate benefits of the CPTPP will be a drop in the ocean. Given that the UK has, or is about to have, trade agreements with all but two countries that are currently part of the CPTPP, it is perhaps not surprising that analysis suggests that the immediate benefits will be limited and that the Government’s own projections show that the economic impact will be minimal.
I will address three particular areas. The first relates to the fears of our farming community, which have been mentioned. The National Farmers Union is concerned about the lack of core standards for food imports. As colleagues in the other place have noted, when it comes to the CPTPP, those concerns are not so much about the protection of UK standards but about the standards in other countries, which could undermine and undercut UK businesses through imports. In particular, UK farmers producing eggs, pork and beef are potentially vulnerable to imports produced using practices that are banned in the UK. I can therefore understand the concern of the farming community, which is proud of the UK’s high animal welfare standards in food production and worries about being undercut by lower-standard imports from elsewhere. I also understand why consumers will be worried about food produced to lower standards reaching their local supermarket. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are keen to avoid a race to the bottom, and to ensure that our animal welfare standards are not diminished as part of any trade agreement.
The second issue relates to our creative industries, which are worried about proposed changes to copyright law. The UK has one of the best intellectual property regimes in the world. It is therefore understandable that the businesses and creators that depend on strong IP rights, and that play a vital role in our economy, want assurances from the Government that the UK’s accession to the CPTPP will not have an adverse impact on them. Like others, the Alliance for Intellectual Property has raised a number of concerns, noting the lack of reciprocity in the Bill in relation to copyright law, particularly on performers’ rights. If I have understood correctly, the Bill would extend payment rights, or equitable remuneration, to foreign artists who perform in the UK, without ensuring reciprocal arrangements for UK artists who perform in those countries. That seems perverse. It would be good to know what impact assessment, if any, has been done on that area. I would welcome clarification from the Minister in his closing remarks.
The third area relates to the accession of other countries. The benefits of the CPTPP may in fact come as other countries with which we do not currently enjoy trade agreements join. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention concerns, which we have already heard, about the potential accession of China. My noble Friend Lord Purvis outlined in the other place the reason a debate about China is so important. He said that it is
“not just the scale of the UK’s trade with China but how resilient we are in relation to it.”
Our trade in goods with China is currently at a £40 billion deficit. That is the largest deficit with a single country in our nation’s history. As Lord Purvis pointed out:
“The shipping of goods from China, which we depend on for our consumers, comes through the very area where we have deployed military assets”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 337-38.]
in recent weeks. It is in our geopolitical and strategic trading interests that Parliament devotes time to debating our relationship with China. I hope that the Government will make the most of the UK’s place in the CPTPP to protect the interests of our allies in the region, and human rights, from China’s actions.
I will finish by reiterating a plea that I have made previously, and which other hon. Members have made in the debate, about the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny of all free trade agreements. We are debating the Bill because primary legislation is required for the UK to be compliant with the CPTPP when it enters into force. In the past, the Government have committed to giving Parliament greater scrutiny of free trade agreements but then reneged on it. They broke their commitment to giving Parliament a vote on the Australia trade deal, for example, which had terrible consequences for British farmers. The fact that we are having this debate today is welcome, but I leave Ministers with the message that it should not be the exception to the rule.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will raise three issues: the scrutiny process, ISDS and my ongoing concerns about the impact of the measures.
I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am the sole Committee member present in the Chamber because the others are on a delegation to Berlin at the moment—I am sure that they are working hard at this time of night, and not having a dinner. As has been mentioned, we published our report today; it is a comprehensive report, agreed by all parties. We have been looking at the overall parliamentary scrutiny process for treaties and free trade agreements and, to be frank, we have unanimously found that the current process is unfit for purpose.
At the moment, Parliament—I do not disparage the Government for this; it has happened consistently in the past—is treated as an afterthought in trade policy. We have not been able to find any meaningful mechanism by which Parliament can influence the negotiating objectives at the beginning of the overall process or oversee negotiations as they proceed, and we are never guaranteed a vote on the final agreement at the end of the process—a point that has been made on a number of occasions by Members across the House.
That contrasts with what happens in other legislatures, particularly the US Congress, where legislators play an incredibly proactive role. I do not think the Government should see the parliamentary process as an imposition with regard to future treaties, but as a method of improving the trade negotiations by allowing Members of Parliament to have an early and ongoing voice in those discussions. It is interesting that other Members—including the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—made exactly the same point during a debate in this House on the Australia free trade agreement, way back in November 2022. The right hon. Gentleman set out how during talks with Japan, the Japanese negotiators used parliamentary motions that their Government could not breach to protect their country’s interests.
People will see from the report that we have put forward a fairly comprehensive process by which the House can efficiently and effectively engage itself in such negotiations, with a sifting committee and a scrutiny committee. The House would always have the right to a vote at the end of the day, but more importantly, it would have an influence at the beginning of the negotiations when the overall objectives are set. The proposed process is part of an overall attempt to create greater transparency and, indeed, greater interest within the House in trade negotiations. I hope that the Government will take the Select Committee report away and come back with a positive response, because it contains some very constructive recommendations.
I now turn to the much discussed investor-state dispute settlement procedure. In debates in recent years, Members from across the House have expressed concern about the investor-state dispute mechanism, and those concerns have moved into the mainstream—not just in this country, but in other countries that are moving away from that system. As we have heard, Australia and New Zealand have committed to exclude the ISDS procedure from future trade agreements on the basis that in many instances, that procedure is not in the public interest. I cite the energy charter treaty. That has been the biggest vehicle for ISDS claims, and it is collapsing, with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and others withdrawing. President Biden has now come out and criticised the ISDS procedures, and has basically excluded them from any future US trade agreements.
As the Minister knows, I have raised this matter in the House a number of times. I am sometimes perplexed: we are told that the Government are committed to the ISDS process, but on the other hand, they have acceded to both Australia and New Zealand exempting themselves from that process with regard to the UK. The last time I raised this issue, the Minister responded by saying—exactly as the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), noted—that the UK has never been successfully challenged under ISDS. That is true, but there is an element of hubris in that position.
Liam Byrne
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is absolutely right to flag this issue. The UK Government have not hitherto been successfully challenged under ISDS, but for the first time, countries with very significant foreign direct investment into the UK are involved in this treaty. The figure for Canada alone is $56 billion. When it came to Japan—the other big investor—ISDS was excluded from the UK-Japan bilateral investment treaty. We need an awful lot more reassurance from the Government on this point, given the scale of investment from countries such as Canada in our country in general, but in sectors such as the water industry in particular.
John McDonnell
I do not know how excellent my speech is—I will just ramble on as usual, I think.
The argument that was put to me by the Minister responding today, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), was that if we cannot trust Canada in these deals, who can we trust? That is precisely the point, though: Canada will now have a parallel system, and Canadian firms will be able to take legal action in their own country. As a result of that statement by the Minister, I went away and had a look at the figures for Canadian firms under this process, and those firms stand out as being particularly litigious. They have brought over 65 ISDS cases in recent years. I therefore think that there is a chilling effect, exactly as the Chair of the Select Committee said, which at the end of the day can have implications for the UK’s right to regulate. If a number of cases are waged against the UK, that may undermine our ability to act more freely when it comes to regulation of the water sector, and also policy development, particularly on issues around water and future public ownership.
Again, I have previously raised this matter with the Secretary of State. What I cannot completely understand is that at the same time that the UK Government are defending the ISDS process with regard to the CPTPP, in the negotiating process for the bilateral free trade agreement they set out a specific objective to exclude the provisions of the ISDS system. That is a contradiction, and the Government’s thinking on that matter has not yet been explained to me. As the Minister will also know, there is a remarkably broad range of concern about the ISDS: in October 2023, a letter was submitted to the Government—supported by 30 non-governmental organisations and trade unions and over 50 academics and legal professionals from both the UK and Canada—calling for the immediate negotiation of a side letter between the UK and Canada to disapply the ISDS provisions between the two countries. That is exactly what happened with regard to New Zealand and Australia, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have not gone down that path for this particular negotiation.
I also want to express some concerns that have been raised about environmental issues and about labour standards. The CPTPP includes a number of countries where abuses of labour rights are widespread. To give a few examples, independent trade unions are banned in Brunei and Vietnam, while forced labour has been widely documented in Malaysia in various pieces of research, and a number of CPTPP member states have not ratified some of the core International Labour Organisation conventions.
The protections for labour rights within the CPTPP are particularly weak: a member state can only challenge another member state over a failure to uphold labour rights if it can be demonstrated that such a failure affected trade, which is notoriously difficult to prove in such cases. The ineffectual nature of that chapter is demonstrated by the fact that since the agreement’s conclusion in 2018, no Government have challenged another for abusing rights. The TUC has described the risk of CPTPP making it
“easier for unethical companies and investors to do business with countries where it’s easier to exploit workers”—
a risk that it considers to be significant. I do not think we have addressed that issue sufficiently.
There are also concerns regarding standards in partner countries. For example, as has already been said, pesticide standards could be undermined. Some 119 pesticides that are banned in the UK are allowed for use in one or more CPTPP member states. Although accession to the CPTPP does not necessitate any lowering of UK standards in this regard, when the peers debated this issue, there were really practical questions about the sufficiency of the UK’s border testing regime in keeping banned substances out. Again, it is an issue that needs further consideration in more detail as we go through the whole process.
The issue has been raised—and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee said that this may well have been exaggerated or overestimated in some of the debates—that the UK has acceded to Malaysia’s demand to lower tariffs on palm oil to zero. I have to say that the evidence I have seen and the representations I have received from the Trade Justice Movement and others is that this is highly likely to increase palm oil exports and, with that, the risk of deforestation, which will serve to undermine indigenous and local community land rights and threaten natural habitats for species such as orangutans. We have seen the various research and the range of evidence mounting on this particular issue. Again, it was debated in the Lords in the context of the potential protections afforded by the UK forest risk commodities legislation, under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, but it is unclear when these regulations will actually come into effect, and therefore many believe that the protections are not in place at this stage.
There is also a view that accession to the CPTPP will bring risks of the erosion of preferences, under which current preferential trade agreements afforded to exporters in one country will bring negative development impacts on others. One example cited by the Trade Justice Movement is that Afruibana, the association representing banana exporters across Africa, has set out concerns regarding the potential impacts of tariff liberalisation in South and central America for those they represent.
Finally, one of the reports sent to me was a health impact assessment produced by Public Health Wales. It identified a range of diverse potential impacts, including the worsening of global air pollution due to transport distances for goods, the loss of employment for some population groups and, of course, the risk of ISDS cases being brought against regulations that seek to support public health outcomes. It is an important impact assessment that needs further scrutiny and examination. It leaves me with the impression overall that there has been a lack of impact assessments, so I look forward to the Select Committee report, which will go into further depths on this.
I come to the conclusion that, with all the risks involved and with such doubt surrounding the CPTPP, it will achieve what we could not even describe as a marginal economic gain over the length of time it will be in place, and I fear to tread on treaties and agreements of this sort. I just think that, although there is not going to be a vote tonight, I might be tempted at a later date to vote against the Bill—so I had better let the Labour Whips know that.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The CPTPP poses a serious public health risk, makes us complicit in untold environmental harm and is
“another nail in the coffin”
for UK farmers, as one constituent put it to me last week. I am deeply concerned about the livelihoods of farmers, who will be exposed to increased competition from lower standard farm inputs, meaning that many domestic farmers may struggle to compete.
Anthony Mangnall
Further to the point I made earlier, does the hon. Lady not recognise that the report on the CPTPP by the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was set up all those years ago because people were worried about what was going to be in the Australia agreement—it is set up on a constitutional or statutory footing, is there to review all our trade agreements, and includes people such as Nick von Westenholz from the NFU and a number of other members from the agriculture community—did not find that it was damaging to farmers across this country? If that report is to be believed, would she not have done well to tell her constituent that this is not the case, rather than allowing that fear to run wild?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Member for those interesting points.
I am concerned about the negative impact that this Bill has on modern innovative and sustainable agribusiness. I am concerned about the worsening of the UK’s environmental impact, and the fading net zero commitments that this Government are shying away from. I am concerned about the human rights implications that my constituents, as consumers, may be made to stomach. I have many constituents working in the agrifood industry who feel they have been misled by this Tory Administration. One farmer told me last week that
“this Government says one thing with its many mouths and then does something completely different”.
We ask our farmers to maintain high welfare and environmental standards—and rightly so—but some signatories, such as Mexico, have almost none. Food security expert Professor Chris Elliott told me:
“It’s absolutely not a level playing field in any stretch of the imagination”.
We Liberal Democrats agree with the NFU and the World Wildlife Fund in demanding core production standards for agrifood imports, which would uphold the ban on hormone treatment for cattle and prevent the import of food containing any of the 119 pesticides banned in the UK—to give just two examples. Which? surveys show that 84% of the country agrees with us, and I urge the Government to adopt this measure.
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry, but I just feel that this matter should be hammered home. The opening summary of the Trade and Agriculture Commission report on the CPTPP states:
“Question 1: Does CPTPP require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to (a) animal or plant life or health, (b) animal welfare, and (c) environmental protection?”
The answer from the Trade and Agriculture Commission is:
“No. CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to (a) animal or plant life or health, (b) animal welfare, or (c) environmental protection.”
This is not going to damage them, so the hon. Member must go back to her constituents and reassure them, rather than allow this mistruth to run wild across the countryside.
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, but my view is about what the future will bring.
I have spoken in this place about the concerns I have regarding the mental health of farmers and farm workers, and the situation that farmers face is stark. In 2021, over a third of farmers surveyed by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution were “probably or possibly depressed”. Trade deals implemented since the Tory Brexit arrangement are causing significant financial stress and uncertainty to many agrifood businesses. Dairy, beef and poultry producers have approached me for help, fearing that they may not be in business by the summer. One farmer in Castle Cary told me last week that
“we farmers are the ones who stump up the cost”.
I am proud to have some of the country’s oldest cheddar producers in my constituency, such as Wyke Farms near Bruton, and many new artisan cheese producers, like Feltham’s Farm in Horsington, but even award-winning cheeseries are not safe from the toxic tendrils of this deal. The effects will be felt by businesses in the supply chain as well, such as Sycamore Process Engineering, a growing local business based in Sparkford, where 67 local people work; and if those businesses’ customers go bust, so will they. Losing agrifood businesses would irrecoverably alter our rural way of life.
The farmer in Castle Cary also spoke of the
“hidden cost of cheap food”,
and one of those costs is welfare, both human and animal. I echo the words of my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell about the threats to indigenous peoples in palm oil producing forests, which the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has mentioned. International Labour Organisation standards are not incumbent on signatories to this deal. We should have grave concerns about suspiciously under-priced food landing in our market, when the average Vietnamese harvest worker gets £5.50 per hour, according to the Economic Research Institute.
How can we know whether the people producing this food have been paid at all? The egg producers in Mexico, who will undercut my constituents by about a third, are subjecting their chickens to horrendous living conditions, and are themselves at the mercy of powerful cartels. They live in “slavery-like conditions”, according to El País this month, where cartels have
“taken over all links of the supply chain”,
and
“violence and extortion add to the ravages of climate change”.
Is this the sort of modern trade we want to support?
Sarah Dyke
I will not.
I want to end with a stark and urgent warning. Last month, the Food Standards Agency had to issue a health warning after a rise in salmonella cases from Polish eggs and poultry meat, with 200 cases reported in 2023. That risk only grows when we open the floodgates to eggs and poultry produced to lower standards. Professor Elliott warned me about antibiotics deployed en masse without veterinary approval, Government control, or knowledge of the antibiotics’ provenance. Such use and abuse of antibiotics is part of a frightening health picture. Professor Elliott cautioned that
“most countries do not have the infrastructure, regulations or oversight of drugs or pathogens—we could be opening up Pandora’s box.”
Batch-testing imports just will not work. Antibiotic resistance will spread from plate to platelet, and we would have a hard time swallowing that unpalatable morsel.
My constituents have record low trust in the Government. Removing water from the egg of an imprisoned chicken, drugged up on antibiotics that it did not need, and shipping that egg 5,000 miles to put into pancake mix and insipid sandwiches, is what my constituents have come to expect from this Tory Administration. Many of my constituents will not stomach toxic Tory trade deals, and we must urgently renegotiate them and have more mandatory parliamentary powers for future deals. We cannot afford the health cost to our population, the carbon cost to the planet, and the financial cost to our farmers. We have the chance to be world leaders in modern, world-beating, innovative, sustainable agriculture, and to proudly keep our high standards and improve our food security. Let us not lose that opportunity.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is an honour and privilege to close today’s enthralling debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. Tonight, as we consider Second Reading of this important Bill, it is essential to balance our support for it with a critical eye. Labour supports CPTPP accession, albeit with reservations, and this Government are known to promise “oven-ready” deals that often break more ground in rhetoric than in reality. The Labour party recognises the UK’s untapped trade potential, and is committed to harnessing it. However, we must acknowledge the Government’s over-estimation of the CPTPP benefits. Initially they suggested a 0.08% GDP boost over 10 years, but recent forecasts have downgraded that to a mere 0.04% in the long run. To ensure that trade is a force for good, we must subject such deals to rigorous scrutiny, and commit to progress on climate change, human rights, and labour conditions globally.
As hon. Members have stated, the devil is indeed in the detail. The failure to deliver on manifesto commitments, including agreements with India and the US, highlights the need for a realistic evaluation of CPTPP’s benefits. As illustrated by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), there is no denying the importance of closer ties with Indo-Pacific allies, especially in these uncertain times. However, although CPTPP offers trade advantages such as rules of origin provisions and potential for improved terms, grand Government claims of “unparalleled opportunities” and “glittering” post-Brexit prizes must be substantiated and grounded. It is my duty to ensure not just that the skeleton of the deal accedes, but that British business thrives as a result.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) highlighted the concerns of our creative industries, and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) explained concerns surrounding farming and China. Considering that we already have free trade agreements with nine CPTPP members, the immediate benefits of formally joining the CPTPP might seem limited. The Government’s projection of a mere 0.06% boost to the UK’s GDP from CPTPP calls for a measured evaluation of its actual economic impact. This deal puts us at the heart of a dynamic group of economies, but it is crucial that we do not stop pushing for more ambitious growth. We do not have that privilege after 14 long years of Conservative rule.
Our stagnated economy needs a much needed boost. Indeed, in the last 10 years, Britain has had the second worst export record in the G7. That is why change is necessary.
Having spoken to British exporters in my constituency and across our country, I know that the challenges they face post Brexit are substantial, and increased barriers, red tape and bureaucracy have been a significant hindrance. The Bill must be part of a larger strategy to revitalise our global trade presence, yet Labour sees untapped potential here.
For example, we recognise the immense contribution that small and medium-sized businesses make to our economy, with a £2.4 trillion contribution and employment for 16.7 million people. However, the Government’s approach to supporting those enterprises in expanding their export potential lacks clear strategic direction and coherence. Labour’s plan for small businesses aims to address those gaps, ensuring that SMEs have the necessary support and framework to flourish in international markets. The CPTPP symbolises international co-operation and unlocks untapped SME potential, with around 375,000 UK SMEs not currently engaged in international trade representing a £290 billion export opportunity. There is indeed untapped potential waiting to be harnessed. The Bill also highlights the regulatory burdens faced by businesses, and we must reduce the complex web of regulations. It further lowers tariffs to enhance market access and choice for businesses sourcing from CPTPP countries, potentially benefiting consumers. However, it is important to note that that may expose some UK businesses to increased competition from CPTPP exporters.
Let us look more closely at the impact than at the wording of this deal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) eloquently explained, the inclusion of investor state dispute settlement mechanisms in the CPTPP raises grave concerns about the influence of foreign investors. We must scrutinise those provisions to protect our sovereignty and democratic principles.
Our commitment to environmental stewardship is critical. The World Wildlife Fund has expressed concerns about the CPTPP’s impact on deforestation, particularly palm oil, which could conflict with our commitments in the Environment Act 2021. We must ensure that our trade policies align with robust environmental protection. It is essential that our trade deals do not undermine our efforts to combat the climate crisis. The Government’s optimistic portrayal of the CPTPP must be balanced against a history of over-promising and under-delivering in trade deals. Figures from the respected independent Office for Budget Responsibility suggest that the CPTPP might contribute only a marginal 0.04% to our GDP.
The Government hail the CPTPP as a transformative deal and a potential panacea for our post-Brexit trade woes, but let us be clear that while they paint a rosy picture of economic prosperity, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise, as was excellently elaborated on by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). We were promised sunlit uplands post Brexit, yet here we are squinting to see the benefits through a fog of uncertainty.
Anthony Mangnall
That is not empirical evidence. A forecast is not empirical fact—it is a forecast—and these are modelling exercises by their very nature. I challenge the hon. Member to give me proof from any trade agreement, with the value at the beginning versus what it was at the five-year mark and the 10-year mark. Nearly every trade agreement, whether signed by the European Union, the UK or the Americans, has always been undervalued because the emphasis is on businesses and communities taking advantage of it.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Just as the Government’s aspirations go by those figures, we must likewise respect the figures of the Office for Budget Responsibility, as it is a lot more rigorous in its exercise. We cannot discard its figures; indeed, we must dwell on them as the wider British industry and the economy look closely at those figures. They are the best figures we have, rather than anything that the Government or anybody else have put on the table.
It crucial to acknowledge the broader context of the UK’s export performance. In recent years, we have seen a concerning decline in our export capabilities, raising questions about how effectively the CPTPP can reverse the trend. The Bill must be part of a larger strategy to revitalise our global trade presence and not be just a stand-alone solution. The deal was negotiated by the party that has hiked trade barriers, crashed our economy, driven up food prices, engaged in damaging megaphone diplomacy, increased bureaucracy for our businesses trading internationally, and much worse besides. In contrast, Labour’s objective is to increase trade and international co-operation, and we will be closely watching the execution of this deal.
The Government have repeatedly failed on their promises on the international stage. We support international trade and global co-operation, but that must translate into tangible benefits for British jobs, consumers and our overall global economic prosperity. That trade also cannot come at the cost of our moral and ethical commitment to, for example, human rights, labour rights, food standards and the environment. Labour’s approach to the CPTPP will be one of cautious optimism, balanced by a realistic assessment of its potential impact on our national interests.
As we edge closer to a much awaited election that will help to put the British public out of their misery, the Labour party stands as the true party of business and trade, advocating for agreements that genuinely benefit the UK’s economy. We support the CPTPP but remain vigilant about ensuring that it aligns with our vision of a thriving, globally competitive Britain. We are committed to a future where Great Britain not only engages with the world but leads in a fair, equitable and profitable trade relationship with our partners around the world.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
It is a pleasure to reply to what has been a wide-ranging and often well-informed debate. The Bill’s passage will enable the UK to meet international obligations on accession to the CPTPP, thereby unlocking the next chapter in the country’s proud tradition of trading freely with the world. Acting as a gateway to growth, the agreement will place the UK at the centre of a vast free trade area currently comprising 11 sovereign countries. For UK consumers, reductions in tariffs could lead to cheaper imports, better choice and higher quality products, all while protections in critical areas are maintained. With more than 99% of current goods exports to CPTPP parties being eligible for zero tariffs, businesses in every corner of the UK stand to benefit.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I will lightly sidestep the party political debate. As the Minister knows, my interest is in Mexico—I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mexico for five years, and am now proudly the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico—which is the world’s 16th largest economy and will be the ninth largest by 2030. That offers great opportunities, not least for my region, the north-west, which trades more with Mexico than any other region. Plenty of labour rights are included in the CPTPP; the question is how they will be enforced. For instance, every party to the CPTPP holds obligations under the International Labour Organisation. The question is how we trade more as well as raise protections through the CPTPP.
Greg Hands
I thought for a moment that the hon. Member was going to verge off into football. I was going to congratulate him on his constituency team, Liverpool, beating Fulham last week. In any case, I thank him. He was recently appointed the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico, which is a really important position. In general, Mexico presents a great opportunity. Our rolled-over trade deal with Mexico dates from a long time ago—about 2002-03.
The hon. Member will know that the CPTPP includes a comprehensive chapter on labour, with binding provisions on fundamental labour rights, minimum wage, hours of work and health and safety. All parties to the CPTPP are members of the ILO, and they are not allowed to derogate from their domestic labour laws to give them an unfair trade advantage. That is how the labour chapter in the CPTPP works. I look forward to discussions with him, and to doing everything we can to work together to boost trade with Mexico.
Before I extoll the benefits of the agreement still further, I will say that it is a pleasure to be back at the Department, and to see the further progress being made tonight towards the UK being the 12th party to the CPTPP. This is a tremendously exciting moment for both the UK and global trade policy—one that the Department and I personally have been building towards for many years. Back in about 2017, one of the earliest decisions in the Department under the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), was to explore accession to the trans-Pacific partnership, as the CPTPP was then known.
Richard Graham
May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done, both on this arrangement in general, and more specifically in promoting our mutual trade and investment agreements with nations in Asia? It is the 67th year of Malaysian independence; this is the first trade and investment agreement that we have ever had with that very encouraging far-eastern nation, with which we can develop a great and stronger relationship. Does he agree?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, successive Secretaries of State have pursued that relationship, including the current Secretary of State, who is personally obviously very committed. I think that I have made two visits to Malaysia in my time as Trade Minister, and we are really excited about having a better trade relationship with Malaysia.
It seemed a logical move to join the CPTPP, as it included many of our global free trading cohort, including Japan, Australia and New Zealand, but it did not have the controversial aspects of free trade zones in Europe, such as free movement, financial contributions and dynamic alignment of rules. As the Secretary of State said, the agreement will grow. Joining the CPTPP will be great news for the UK as an independent trading nation, and for UK goods and services exporters. They include beverage producers in Scotland—I did not hear the SNP extolling that virtue—machinery manufacturers in Wales, and car manufacturers in Northern Ireland and the west midlands.
According to 2022 data, the UK is the world’s second largest services exporter—a point also raised by my hon. Friends on the Government Benches. Joining the CPTPP will help minimise unnecessary data flow barriers, empower UK services exporters and encourage inward financial investment—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). Overall, it will provide us with a new presence in the wider Indo-Pacific region—a region of paramount geopolitical and economic importance, and one that is expected to account for 54% of global economic growth by 2050.
I warmly welcome the constructive comments made and the support from sectors across the country. In her opening speech, the Secretary of State quoted the president of the National Farmers Union and the director-general of the Institute of Export and International Trade. I would like to add just one more quote, from the Federation of Small Businesses. We had an intervention earlier about SMEs; the FSB said that it is
“very pleased to see the UK officially join”.
In FSB research, 45% of small exporters said that access to this market will be important for future growth.
Today we have heard a number of important points raised, and I will try to answer as many as possible in the time available. I remind the House of the specific purpose of the Bill: to enable the implementation of aspects of the CPTPP when the UK accedes, specifically relating to chapters on intellectual property, Government procurement and technical barriers to trade.
First of all, we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who gave us his familiar explication of how we are not doing enough trade deals, even though he has voted against every single one of the deals that we have done. We heard about his attitude to Canada, and his faux outrage about the idea that there might be a weakening in the existing trade deal with Canada. We heard that from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). They also said that the Government are letting down people by not having an effective continuation of the Canada trade deal. We can differ on that, but the difference in the case of the hon. Member for Harrow West is that he voted against the Canada trade deal in the first place. He is now taking time to complain about the weakening of an agreement that he did not support from the very off.
On China, the hon. Member for Harrow West has been reminded about the Auckland principles, and that all countries acceding to the CPTPP must accede to the high standards of the agreement, have a history of conforming with trade agreements and command the consensus of the parties. The investor-state dispute settlement, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is in the agreement, but I remind the House that the UK has never lost a case. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington called it hubristic to mention that, but it is a fact, and the agreement never prevents the right to regulate. On performers’ rights, raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), the CPTPP is an existing agreement, and changes will have to be made.
John McDonnell
I have made this point on previous occasions, but I just want to understand the logic of the Government’s position of allowing the ISDS in this particular deal, but trying to avoid it in the free trade agreement with Canada.
Greg Hands
These are all matters for negotiation. What happens in one negotiation will not always be the same as what happens in another; it is impossible to compare them. I can say that we already have ISDS provisions with seven of the 11 CPTPP members.
Greg Hands
I will not, because I am trying to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier points. On performers’ rights, raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, we expect the practical impact to be small. The Intellectual Property Office is carrying out a consultation on how the provisions will be implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made a characteristically upbeat and excellent speech, pointing out that the region has £12 trillion in GDP, how the UK will be—and is—at the forefront of global trade, and how the deal will make no alteration to our standards.
From the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), we heard a familiar tale of woe. He failed to stick up for Scotland and to point out all the trade benefits for Scotland. He said that he has been against every single UK trade deal, and that is correct, but he failed to mention that he has also been against every single EU trade deal that has ever been negotiated. He wishes to rejoin the EU and be subject to those very trade deals that he spent years campaigning against. He was against the Canada deal, the South Africa deal, the Japan deal, the Singapore deal and the Korea deal.
The hon. Member failed to mention the particular benefits to Scotland. He was wrong when he said that the GDP increase is £2 billion—it is £2 billion per annum. Then, he went down an extraordinary road of talking about eggs. Ninety per cent. of our egg consumption comes from domestic production. All eggs are subject to sanitary and phytosanitary checks, and from Wednesday, EU eggs will be, too, under the border target operating model. We have imported hardly any eggs at all from CPTPP countries since 2015. I think he mentioned eggs from Mexico, but there has been not a single import of an egg from Mexico since 2005. This is the most extraordinary scaremongering. The Trade and Agriculture Commission said:
“we found it was unlikely that eggs from CPTPP parties…would be imported into the UK”.
The hon. Member is sacrificing the interests of those selling Scotch whisky and other high-quality Scottish produce by starting scare stories about the importation of eggs, which are not coming to this country. He mentioned workers’ rights; I have already said that there is a comprehensive labour chapter.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, made a constructive speech. He said that the deal was good for farmers, good for whisky and had a good digital chapter. He is right that we are doing more trade deals— we are going further with Switzerland, Turkey, South Korea and others. He is right on the scale of the CPTPP and growth. On pesticides, there is no change to our right to regulate or to our import standards. We set the maximum limits on pesticides—there is no change to that.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that we already have deals with nine of the 11 members. Well, it depends on what is in the deal. As I pointed out in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), the existing deal with Mexico is very old—it goes back more than 20 years. The CPTPP is a very modern deal. We can get a lot more done with a very modern deal than with a deal that is many decades old. She complained about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. There have been two oral statements, 16 written ministerial statements, and Ministers and officials have appeared before five Select Committees to give evidence on the CPTPP. That is a lot of parliamentary scrutiny over the years. On palm oil, the TAC said that it is unlikely that the CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land. We have had impact assessments galore, but I am happy to look at the public health assessment mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
Finally, we heard a speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), which was alarmist in its impact on farmers. The NFU supports the agreement. She described the “toxic tendrils” of the deal, and even blamed “insipid sandwiches” on this Tory Government. There are many things that I am not quite sure can be blamed on any Government, and the quality of sandwiches is going too far. She started verging into what sounded a little like conspiracy theories.
The Bill is the next step in the creation of the outward-looking and internationalist UK that we envisage for our country’s future. Through the UK’s accession to the CPTPP, the Government will place the UK at the centre of a modern, progressive and values-based partnership that spans the Americas and Asia, and which other economies are queueing up to join. It is the gateway to new business opportunities and greater consumer choice benefits that will be felt in every corner of the UK. While the legislation may be narrow, it is crucial to the UK’s ability to accede to the CPTPP. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 February 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Road Traffic Deaths: Police Investigations
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important topic of police investigations into road traffic deaths. I do so this evening in support of and in tribute to my constituents George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson, who have campaigned tirelessly on road safety over the past 25 years.
I first met the Galli-Atkinsons shortly after I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Rugby in 2010. The family had recently moved from London to Rugby. They came to tell me about the awards they had established in memory of their daughter Livia, who was killed in a road traffic collision in 1998. I remember our meeting very well. As we spoke, I was struck by their strong commitment to making our roads safer so that other families can be spared the tragedy they have had to bear.
Their daughter Livia was born at Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield on 30 October 1981. She was growing into a beautiful young woman—thoughtful, studious, hard-working, kind and with a clear understanding of right and wrong. Her hobbies included riding and ballet. She loved “Gone with the Wind” and had a dry sense of humour.
On 12 January 1998, when she was 16 years old, Livia left home at 6.55 pm to walk to her Monday evening ballet class, which was due to take place at 7.15 pm on Windmill Hill in Enfield. As she was walking along the pavement leading to the studio, a car mounted it and careered into her, having first injured another pedestrian. Livia sadly died at the scene at 7.40 pm. At the time, George and Giulietta were completely unaware of what had happened. I remember George telling me how he had arranged to collect Livia after her class, and on his way there he saw blue lights flashing. He spoke of how the thought crossed his mind that it must be sad that for the relatives of the person being attended to by the emergency services.
When the case came to trial and the driver was found guilty by unanimous verdict of the charge of causing death by dangerous driving on 6 November 1998, I think everybody expected a custodial sentence. The judge, however, considered the case to be borderline with careless driving and accepted the defendant’s last-minute decision not to testify. The judge declared that there was no benefit in sending the defendant to jail, as he had previously been of good character, and said nor would it serve justice. The defendant received a £2,000 fine, 10 points on his licence and a five-year ban from driving.
An appeal against this leniency was immediately lodged with the Attorney General by the family and the Crown Prosecution Service. As he did not consider the sentence to be unduly lenient, the Attorney General declined the appeal. In 2000, the family took the Attorney General to judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness. The first attempt failed. At the second attempt, the High Court found that, for the purpose of the hearings, it had been an unduly lenient sentence, and that while the Attorney General had made an error of judgment in denying the appeal, he had not made an error of law.
Still disappointed, in 2002 the family turned to the European Court of Human Rights to test articles 2, 3, 13 and 14. Again, Livia’s case failed. All avenues in the criminal process having been exhausted, the family turned to civil redress and the civil case succeeded. I understand that everyone who has read about Livia’s case agrees that the sentence was very light.
The inspiration for an award in Livia’s memory arose from the work of the three police officers in charge of the case, who were described by George and Giulietta as “superlative”. At that time, there was no public accolade for traffic police officers. The award was established by Livia’s parents in gratitude to the road traffic officers who investigated Livia’s case. George and Giulietta recognised that they fulfilled the expectations of professional service and integrity, and they formed the criteria and mandate for the Livia award. Through their own experiences, the family have, most admirably, turned their grief into something very positive.
The Livia award for professionalism and service to justice has grown from an award that was first presented in the Livia memorial garden as a memento of personal gratitude, into a milestone in the Metropolitan police’s history and annual agenda. The Livia memorial garden in Enfield was opened by the then hon. Member for Enfield, Stephen Twigg, in October 1999. The 100 square metre derelict site, adjacent to the pavement where Livia was killed, was transformed into a haven for public use. Stephen remains closely involved with the Livia award to this day.
The award has been endorsed over the years by all the Prime Ministers since that time, from Tony Blair through to Gordon Brown, David Cameron, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and Boris Johnson, along with every single Metropolitan Police Commissioner since 2000, and, most especially and significantly, by the Metropolitan police’s traffic command and its officers. The award is made annually to the Metropolitan police officer in the roads and transport policing command, serious collision investigation unit who is judged to have provided the most meritorious service to road death investigation, either in a specific case or sustained through several investigations, or by providing the family of a road crash victim with outstanding service.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making an incredibly powerful speech. Having inquired about what goes on behind the scenes when investigating fatal road traffic collisions following a particularly tragic case in my constituency, I know that one thing that distresses families is the length of time it takes to investigate a collision and bring a case to court. West Yorkshire police do fantastic work and I pay tribute to them, as he is paying tribute to some of the officers he has referenced. One challenge is that it takes three years to train a forensic collision investigator. The challenge of getting the capacity in those training courses to train officers, so that there are enough incredibly talented and experienced officers to do this important work, is creating some of those delays. Does he share my thought that that is something for the Government to consider, so that the training can be undertaken in a timely fashion to ensure that we have the right number of special investigators and we get justice for families who are hit the hardest by these tragedies?
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Lady makes some important and pertinent points. I will go on to talk about the work of some of the officers I have heard about as a judge for the award. She is right to talk about the specialism of the role and the importance of effective training, and the time it takes for officers to achieve that level of expertise.
There are three criteria for the Livia award: service to justice when outstanding detective ability is displayed, professionalism when there is clearly excellence in the investigation, and service to the families of the victims. A 25th anniversary event was held in November last year, and I am proud to have been asked to be a member of the judging panel in recent years. It is worth pointing out that throughout those 25 years, the panel has been independent of the Metropolitan police and, indeed, independent of George and Giulietta. It consists of professionals and former professionals including solicitors and barristers, a former court reporter for a major newspaper, former senior police officers and, usually, a Member of the House of Lords and a Member of Parliament. It is also significant that nominations are made by colleagues of officers involved in the investigation of serious road transport collisions. The nominations are initially in writing, and are followed by interviews with those who are nominated.
In reading these accounts and hearing from the nominees each year—this is relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch)—I have been struck by the professionalism and service to justice that each of the candidates portrays. I have read, and heard face-to-face, accounts from police officers who have had to attend the most harrowing incidents. It was particularly interesting for me, as a provincial MP from a small town in the midlands, to understand some of the challenges of policing in a capital as large and sophisticated as London. Often, the people who have to pick up the pieces and bring families together are police officers, and I have heard a great deal from family liaison officers—a role that I had not heard of before my involvement with the Livia award. Being a member of the panel has given me an insight into a world that I would not otherwise have seen.
I want to provide a flavour of the calibre of the candidates, and the kind of work that they have had to do, through a couple of case studies. The first is the 2023 Livia award winner, Detective Constable Davina Nash, who had been the collision investigator for a serious injury collision that took place in Acton, London, in June 2021. The collision resulted in potentially life-changing injuries to a two-and-a-half-year-old girl who was with her mother and brother, crossing a major road showing a green light at a pedestrian crossing. She was on a toy scooter when, despite the signal being red for traffic and a stream of stationary cars waiting for the signals to change, a moped rider approached the crossing at speed, overtook the stationary cars and collided with the little girl, who was part of the way across the crossing. Her injuries were so severe that medical staff thought she would die, or would be left with a severe brain injury.
As family liaison officer for the family, DC Nash had to pick up the pieces. She carried out a meticulous and thorough investigation, and her work led to a successful prosecution for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving while over the cannabis limit, and driving with no licence and no insurance. The judge imposed the maximum sentence possible after a guilty plea reduction, which was 42 months’ imprisonment, and commented that the sentence was nowhere near high enough given the gravity of the little girl’s injuries.
The second case study refers to the work of another 2023 award nominee, Police Constable Ed Raymond. On Sunday 10 July 2022, a fatal road traffic collision occurred in New Kent Road, Southwark. The 24-year-old driver was unlicensed and at almost twice the drink-drive limit when the car that he was driving smashed into a pedicab, throwing the passenger from the vehicle and killing her. The driver of the rickshaw sustained life-changing injuries.
PC Raymond was employed as a family liaison officer—such an important role—and he went to extraordinary lengths to support the victim’s family. In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and a number of other offences, and was sentenced to just over nine years in November 2022. However, in the first case of its kind, the case was reviewed by the Attorney General and an unduly lenient sentence appeal was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in January 2023. This was due to the changes in sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous driving that came into force in June 2022. The appeal resulted in the first stated case and the sentence was increased by a third. The driver of the vehicle is now serving 12 years in prison.
PC Raymond’s role was to ensure that the victim’s family were fully supported throughout, and he was able to establish a very special relationship with them. A year on from the collision, he joined the family in raising over £9,000 for various charities, one of which is Brake, which provides support for bereaved families who have lost loved ones in road traffic collisions. I give those examples as an illustration of the severity of the cases that officers are having to deal with.
George and Giulietta have not initiated these awards over 25 years just for the sake of the awards; they have also fought tirelessly for more appropriate punishment for those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. On both fronts they have been incredibly successful. It has been an honour to work alongside the Galli-Atkinsons and to see how their energy and dedication to road safety has inspired and changed the work of the police in this area. As a consequence of their pressure, there are now three specialist units within the Metropolitan police: the roads and transport policing command, the serious collision investigation unit and the forensic collision investigation unit. All are working tirelessly on the vision to achieve safer roads and fairer sentencing.
The roads and transport policing command is the largest operational command unit in the Metropolitan police and, working in partnership with Transport for London, its focus is to deny criminals use of the roads, and to reduce serious injury and road deaths within London. The roads policing teams work 24/7, 365 days a year, responding to serious and fatal collisions and incidents as well as targeting collision hotspots and educating road users.
Education is a theme that George and Giulietta have picked up. They have been involved with many successful campaigns and programmes as well as supporting road safety charities such as RoadPeace, Brake and Victim Support. I would like to refer particularly to Safe Drive Stay Alive, which George helped to set up in Enfield in 2008. Positive feedback grew, and more and more London boroughs became interested in delivering that brand of road safety education to a range of people that it was important to influence, including learner drivers in their sixth-form years. This programme, initiated by George, eventually covered 19 London boroughs, working in partnership with councils, emergency services and the roads police.
As the local MP in Rugby, I am delighted that the programme was introduced in my constituency in 2017—George and Giulietta having come up to the midlands—when funding was provided by the Warwickshire chief constable. I have seen that Safe Drive Stay Alive is a professional, high-impact and effective stage show. The objective of this road safety initiative is to show easily influenced young people why, as young drivers, they and their passengers are so vulnerable in their early years on the roads, and to show them what they can do to reduce this vulnerability. I have absolutely no doubt that those messages have saved lives.
George has also been involved with Learn2Live in Hertfordshire—an initiative similar to Safe Drive Stay Alive that reached more than 7,000 students. He was subsequently asked by the Ministry of Defence in 2019 to be involved with its road safety initiative, Survive the Drive, in London and Surrey.
Over 25 years, George and Giulietta have contributed to countless public consultations on road safety legislation and enforcement, and their influence has borne fruit. In 2011, the then Member for Enfield, Southgate, David Burrowes—who was a judging panel member for a number of years, and who worked closely with George and Giulietta—successfully campaigned for a change to dangerous driving legislation to increase the maximum sentence to five years.
To this day, the couple are campaigning tirelessly with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the road safety investigation branch, promised by the Government, comes to fruition. I am delighted to say that in 2023, for the first time and after much campaigning in which George and Giulietta have been instrumental, the Home Office included roads policing in its strategic policing requirement, starting at paragraph 166:
“Roads policing is responsible for the enforcement of traffic laws, detection, deterrence and the response to illegal or dangerous activity on the roads… Roads policing capabilities play an essential role in tackling the use of the roads network by terrorist threats and serious and organised criminals involved in county lines drug transportation, modern slavery and human trafficking. They are also essential in managing incidents caused by public disorder or civil emergencies.”
George and Giulietta are truly an inspiration, and their energy and commitment to road safety, fair sentencing and proper recognition of outstanding police officers in this area of policing deserve high recognition and praise. Rugby is incredibly lucky to have two such people in our midst, and it has been my honour to have been invited to join Giulietta’s work on the Livia award.
I have found it inspirational, and deeply challenging, to learn about the work of road collision investigators. The role is sometimes overlooked within the police service, but it is vital to the pursuit of justice for those affected by road traffic incidents. The work that George and Giulietta have done to maintain the high profile of the Livia award throughout its 25 years has done much to highlight this valuable policing role, and has recognised many police officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in supporting families such as the Galli-Atkinsons.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing this Adjournment debate. Every road traffic death is a tragedy, and I strongly echo what he said about the impact on those affected. I join him in thanking the police for the excellent work they do up and down the country every day to keep our roads safe, and to respond to fatal and serious road traffic incidents. These are often extraordinarily distressing incidents, but it is the role of the police to investigate them in a clear-minded and thorough way. The investigations can often be complex and technical, but the public rightly expect the police to undertake them.
I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to my hon. Friend’s constituents, George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson, for the tragic loss of their daughter Livia. I have been very moved, as I am sure we all have, by his description of the family’s work since the tragic death of their daughter to try to bring some good out of an awful personal tragedy.
I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to George and Giulietta for the work they have done these past 25 years to promote and campaign for road traffic safety, including in establishing and perpetuating the Livia award for professionalism and service to justice. As my hon. Friend has said, it has played such an important role in highlighting the work that collision investigators and family liaison officers do—in trying to bring some answers following tragedy and in looking after the families in their hour of darkness as best they can.
Police officers up and down the country show, on a daily basis, enormous commitment and dedication in responding to fatal road traffic incidents, and it is right that their efforts are recognised. Again, I thank the Galli-Atkinsons for what they have done to support and promote this work, and to campaign for road safety. What they have done has truly made a difference over the past 25 years, as my hon. Friend set out. They should be incredibly proud that they have shown such courage, fortitude and determination to bring such good out of a terrible tragedy.
Of course, many families respond in that way. As a constituency Member of Parliament, and in my role as the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, I, like other Members, often meet families whose lives have been touched by tragedy; and we find that often they do respond as the Galli-Atkinson family have, by trying to bring some good out of their tragedy in order to help other people who find themselves in the same situation. It is important that we, as Members of Parliament and Ministers, listen carefully to what families who have had such terrible experiences have to say, to make sure that we in Parliament and in Government can learn from them. I therefore repeat my thanks to the Galli-Atkinson family for their campaigning, which does make, and has made, a difference; their voice has absolutely been heard.
Let me make one or two more general remarks about road safety, which is, of course, a priority for the Government. We continue to work to make our roads safer. Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we are not complacent. In 2022, there were, sadly, 1,711 fatal road collisions—each one a life cut short. We need to make sure we do everything we can to make our roads safer and to tighten the law where it needs to be tighter. We need to do that to make sure, first, that accidents are avoided and, secondly, that where a driver has been careless, dangerous or reckless, or has driven under the influence of drugs or drink, they are brought to justice, that families can see justice being done, that there is a deterrent effect and that those sentences can be felt across society.
Although we have safe roads compared with many other countries, the work is certainly not done—there is more to do. By working with Members from both sides of the House—especially those whose constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, have experienced tragedy—and listening to them and to their experiences, I know that we can do even more. All of us will work together to make sure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2024.
This instrument makes an update to financial services legislation to make operating a pension dashboard service a Financial Conduct Authority-regulated activity. Let me begin by saying that the Government have long held the ambition of delivering pension dashboard services to the public. It is very important that individuals can easily access and view data about their pension savings in one place and at their convenience. Executed well, pension dashboards can deliver significant benefits to consumers, providing better access to information about their pensions held in different schemes. These days, people often have many different schemes.
The instrument will bring a step change in how people engage with their pension savings and will finally allow people to have a full picture of those savings. Equipped with that information, individuals will be better able to plan for their retirement, seek financial advice and guidance, find lost pension pots and make informed decisions. The Government are supporting the development of the digital architecture needed to make pension dashboards a reality, as well as facilitating the development of a Government-backed pension dash-board by the Money and Pensions Service. We have also supported the development of multiple private sector pension dashboards. Different individuals will have different needs, and this will ensure that a wider range of platforms exist to suit such needs.
However, we are clear that this multiplicity of providers can only take place with a suitable and robust regulatory framework, recognising that consumers using pension dashboards could be vulnerable to unfair potential harms. During the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, the Government committed to bringing the operation of a pension dashboard service within FCA regulation. This order amends the regulatory perimeter to make operating a pension dashboard service that connects to the Money and Pensions Service’s digital architecture a regulated activity. Once in force, it will mean that anybody choosing to operate a pension dashboard will need to be authorised and regulated by the FCA.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
This new legislation refers to a lot of personal data about individuals’ pensions, and the Government have suggested that commercial bodies will also be involved. Can the Minister give guarantees about the protection of the data of individuals concerned?
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. The whole Committee knows of his strong commitment not only to those in his constituency but those across the country when it comes to protecting people from unfair potential harms. He has illustrated that commitment with his question. I would say two things in response. First, the reason we are making this a regulated activity is precisely to protect individuals, whether it is their data or protecting them from being open to potential scams or anything else. That is why under the regulated activity the FCA will be watching anybody who operates a pension dashboard service. Secondly, the reason we are not just having one Government dashboard service but a multiplicity of private providers is that different people will want different things, and different institutions will operate in different ways. It is important to ensure that we have the right competition, but that competition needs to be underpinned by safety and security. That is why this is being made a regulated activity.
Firms that are authorised by the FCA and are granted permission to undertake the new regulated activity will have to follow the rules set by the FCA. As hon. Members may be aware, the FCA consulted on rules for pension dashboards last year. We will continue to work with the FCA as it develops its response. In conclusion, this instrument delivers an important change to ensure that appropriate consumer protections are in place while progressing our ambitions for pension dashboards. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting this measure, which I commend to the House.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. I support the order, which designates the operation of a pensions dashboard as a regulated service; it must therefore be regulated by the FCA. The Opposition support any initiative that helps people to manage their finances and save for later life. The changes being debated are long overdue. Even though I support them, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I have some questions. International evidence and the DWP’s own impact assessment show that to reach their potential to help millions of people, dashboards must be incorporated into services that people already use, so how will the Government encourage firms to come forward to offer dashboards and ensure that they are regulated safely? When will the FCA publish its final rules? Does it expect commercial dashboards and the Money and Pension Service’s dashboard to be available at the same time?
Pension dashboards have already faced delays, as the Minister will know, and the Association of British Insurers has warned that the industry needs confidence that the existing timetable will stick to ensure effective delivery of this initiative. To what extent will pension dashboards rely on other parts of the Government? For example, will they rely on the Government’s One Login service and how will that affect the market for pension dashboards?
Some dashboards will present other financial data alongside pensions. That is one of the main benefits to consumers: to see all their finances in one place. As such, this statutory instrument is relevant to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill as the smart data proposals in the Bill will enable the Government to create a framework for open finance and the digital verification proposals will make it easier for consumers to prove who they are online. Could the Minister reassure me that these related initiatives will not be considered in isolation and that he will take a holistic view of the legislation?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I will also support the order, but I too have some questions. Too often in the pensions field, we have seen the Government and the regulators act in two ways. I doubt that any of us are without constituents who have been affected by scandals such as those at London Capital & Finance, the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme and the British Steel pension scheme—the list goes on and on. There cannot be any doubt that the way in which the Government moved in the mid-2000s and the 2010s made it easier for people to do different things with their pensions. That is how they saw it. It also made it far too easy for people to get caught out and scammed out of their pensions. The risks were not properly thought through at the time and, to a large extent, we are still playing catch up.
The victims of some of the schemes that I mentioned still have not got the money back, and some of them never will. Could the Minister give more detail on what specific criteria applicants will need to satisfy in order to be allowed to operate a pension dashboard, and what follow-up action will there be? How will we make sure either the Government or the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to make sure that a business that met the criteria at the start continues to meet it after two years, three years, five years and so on?
I want to reiterate some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck about security standards, particularly for information security. This is clearly going to be an area of interest to the Information Commissioner’s Office because it is responsible for the protection of personal data in any circumstances. It concerns me when a legal regulatory responsibility is split between two regulators, especially when one of those regulators is the FCA. Too often we have seen catastrophes that could have been prevented were it not for the fact that the Financial Conduct Authority thought it was somebody else’s job to regulate and somebody else thought it was the FCA’s job. Can the Minister give a bit more detail about where precisely the regulatory boundary will lie between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office? How will he make sure that, if there is a problem with where that boundary lies, it will mean that two people try to intervene rather than them both standing back and assuming that it is other person’s responsibility?
Assuming that the data on someone’s dashboard will have to have come from, for example, the Money and Pensions Service, and that that service will have to have brought information about somebody’s state pension, possibly indirectly, from the Department for Work and Pensions, what will the Minister do to make sure that the people who hold the initial information—such as the DWP or the Money and Pensions Service—are not legally permitted to share that data with anyone until after the registration has been fully cleared? What will he do to ensure that they stop providing that information immediately if, for any reason, the registration comes into doubt?
It is one thing to say that firms will not be allowed to operate these systems if they are not registered, but we should also surely say that those who provide information into a system and who provide access to electronic means of exchanging information have a responsibility as well. If the Money and Pensions Service has authorisation to hold somebody’s personal data, surely it can only release that information with the service user’s explicit permission, and it should not be allowed to do that until after it has been approved by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Finally, will there be any restrictions on the operators of a dashboard using the information that will be held there for any other purposes? Will they be allowed to use that information to provide helpful advice—as they would see it—to push their own products? Will they be allowed to suggest to somebody, “I see you’re getting a pension from so and so—have you thought about shifting it to somewhere else? Because you would do better out of that.”
There is a very grey area between the provision of information and the provision of pension advice. Again, far too many people have been caught out because they were given what they thought was independent advice, but what was actually a sales pitch for particular pension schemes. Could the Minister please explain what steps are contained either within this order, or elsewhere, to make sure that the benefits of the pension dashboards, which I agree could be very significant for the pension holder, will not be tempered, or even undone completely, by placing the holder at greater risk of suffering the fate that far too many of my, and all our constituents, have already suffered? They put their pensions somewhere they thought was safe, but when the time came to collect those pensions, they discovered that they had disappeared.
Bim Afolami
A lot of interesting points have been made, and I will address those made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who raised the broader policy agenda around open banking. In response to her question about whether I will take a holistic view, the answer is yes. It is important to see all of these things in one picture, and I am doing a lot of work with the industry on that.
However, it is important to see that there are fundamental differences between the goals of open banking and pension dashboards—and this also addresses some of the points made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes. Open banking seeks to enable data sharing and increased competition and innovation in the banking market, whereas pension dashboards will help increase consumer awareness and understanding of their pensions. Therefore, in terms of what the purpose of those services are, we are talking about a difference between producers and consumers. One of the key differences is that it would be very unusual for somebody not to know the provider of their bank account, whereas we know that people have lost track of their pensions—often because they have so many different pots.
On the hon. Lady’s question about whether pension dashboards will use the Government’s One Login service, the short answer is that I do not know, but I am happy to write to her on that. I confess that I will have to check that myself, and I thank her for that question. On the hon. Lady’s question about timing, this SI is the beginning of the process whereby, as soon as possible, we will make sure that the architecture is developed safely.
That takes me on to not just the hon. Lady’s point, but also the point made by hon. Member for Glenrothes about minimising the risk of people losing their data. It is important for the Committee to know that no data is stored on pension dashboards. As a result, it is not possible to mass-harvest individuals’ data via dashboards technology. As for the Money and Pensions Service, security standards are designed to ensure that the ecosystem interface of qualifying pension dashboards meet the appropriate level—
Peter Grant
I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, but he will be aware that it was not possible for anybody at Fujitsu to mess about with the information held on Horizon until somebody discovered that it was possible. Without going into too much detail, at what level of expertise and at what level of independence from the whole project are the assurances of IT security being tested?
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman asks at what level. In terms of the Money and Pensions Service, it is the National Cyber Security Centre that is advising specifically on these. I am happy to talk to him about it in future weeks and months, but that is the level of seriousness with which we take this issue.
When it comes to other private sector providers, as we talked about at the beginning of the debate, the FCA will determine at which point they are able to connect to the technical architecture. There are various dependencies, including the time required for them to familiarise themselves with the rules, when the architecture is ready and various other things, but the FCA will determine that. Why? I go back to the whole purpose of this statutory instrument: the FCA will make sure that this is a regulated activity to address the concerns of the Committee and others, because it is very important, as we all agree.
The SI introduces an important addition to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to ensure that pension dashboard operators are appropriately regulated and that consumers are protected. I am glad that there appears to be broad support from the Committee for the aims of the order. I thank Committee members for this debate, which I hope they have found informative, and I hope that they will join me in supporting this secondary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023
(10 months, 3 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 Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1397).
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Cummins. I welcome the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—it is good to see Whips taking their rightful place.
This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, known as the CPRs, to provide a closed material procedure for court proceedings relating to prevention and investigation measures. I will refer to these as STPIMs—state threats prevention and investigation measures—to distinguish them from terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which are known as TPIMs.
STPIMs are new measures established under provisions in part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 that closely replicate the provisions for TPIMs in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. STPIMs provide a suite of restrictive measures that can be used, where necessary and proportionate, to prevent, restrict and disrupt an individual’s further involvement in state threats activity, where prosecution and other disruptive actions are not possible. STPIMs will be used sparingly and as a measure of last resort to mitigate the immediate threat an individual poses while they continue to be investigated by the authorities.
STPIMs require specific procedural provision in order to be workable. This statutory instrument, while not establishing STPIMs, makes that procedural provision to enable their operation. The imposition of STPIMs requires the permission and review of the court and contains a procedure for appeal by the STPIM subject. This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to provide the court with a bespoke closed material procedure for proceedings relating to STPIMs.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that there would need to be court approval. What level of court would it be, and will there be any ministerial approval required, or is it just the court?
Mike Freer
My understanding is that this would require High Court approval. There is a review mechanism by the subject, subject to the purview of the Home Office, but it does not involve the Secretary of State for Justice.
The procedure includes, in particular, for applications by the Secretary of State for permission to impose measures, directions for a review hearing after the imposition of the STPIM and appeal against the imposition of the measure itself, or any other determination in connection with the STPIM. Both the review hearing and any appeal hearing will be determined on judicial review principles.
These cases will inevitably involve sensitive material. This instrument therefore sets out a procedure to enable the sensitive material to be relied on by the Government, and the evidence against the STPIM subject, to be tested by the court, but through a closed procedure that will ensure that it can be adequately protected in the public interest. This rule change is effected by amending part 80 of the CPRs, which contain rules relating to TPIM proceedings, so that the rules cover the equivalent STPIM proceedings.
In conclusion, the Government have publicly committed to provide operational partners with the tools needed to combat state threats. STPIMs are important measures within this toolkit, and this instrument is vital in ensuring that STPIMs are a usable tool that can be fully defended and justified in our courts through both open and closed proceedings. Given the sensitivity of the evidence, which will be a key component in why an individual cannot be prosecuted and why the use of an STPIM is necessary, it would fundamentally undermine the scheme if closed proceedings—where sensitive intelligence and national security arguments can be made—were not available. I hope colleagues will agree.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mrs Cummins—I do not believe it will be necessary to detain you for long. Apologies that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North could not be here.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the purpose of the SI. As he said, it amends the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 and includes provision for a closed material procedure for core proceedings relating to STPIMs, which were established under the National Security Act 2023. Our first duty in this place is to ensure that we keep our people across the country safe. The measures proposed today assist with that by ensuring that the law is amended appropriately to facilitate proceedings undertaken in relation to the 2023 measures relating to states as well as individuals.
The National Security Act provides a major update in legislation to counter state threats. Before it was passed, there was no available measure tailored to the specific terrorist threats posed by foreign state activity, and TPIMs were available only in relation to individuals. It is therefore clear that, without the measures in this SI, the purpose of the changes to the National Security Act would not be achieved.
The instrument also relates to High Court STPIM procedures and the use of closed material—material the disclosure of which it is believed would be contrary to the national interest. Just as there has to be caution in the use of the power relating to both TPIMs and STPIMs, there must be caution around withholding information that may be in the public interest. I note that the Secretary of State is required to disclose all the material that is relevant to proceedings but, with the permission of the court, may withhold closed material from the individual, although such material must be disclosed to the court and the special advocate.
We must be nervous about any action in this area that could prejudice a fair trial, which the Minister touched on. How will the Government ensure that we do not get into that situation, and is there any provision to avoid that? The explanatory memorandum outlines the procedure for the imposition of an STPIM notice, the need for a directions hearing and for a substantive review, and appeal arrangements. Is the Minister content that the courts have the necessary powers to ensure that the Secretary of State deals with these notices in the most appropriate and transparent way possible, given the likely need for some information to be withheld?
Overall, we are content that the measures before us are necessary in the national interest. For that reason, we will not oppose them.
Mike Freer
Let me touch on a couple of points. First, yes, we are content that the Secretary of State has the relevant powers to ensure that these measures are used correctly, and those involved also have an appeal mechanism to ensure that they are being applied correctly.
One reason why the closed material procedure is required is that, while we all appreciate the need for transparency and for justice to be seen to be done, putting sensitive information into the public domain would disclose the sources of that information, which could put people at risk and might also create a flight risk. Another reason is that, sometimes, the Security Service may wish the person operating on behalf of a state actor to continue their activity while they can be monitored, and disclosing information might cause that activity to cease while the security services are undertaking that work. That is why, on balance, we think these measures are a necessary step to ensure that our national security needs are met and that justice is met.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anthony Mangnall
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
…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.
[Official Report, 24 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 350.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) in the debate on the Situation in the Red Sea.
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
…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 to fire at an aerial target in anger—and in self-defence, in their case.
Westminster Hall
(10 months, 3 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
Next General Election
(10 months, 3 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
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 641904 relating to the next general election.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to introduce the petition and give voice to its hundreds of thousands of petitioners, as well as pretty much everybody I have spoken to recently regarding the current state of this country. The petition calls for an immediate general election in the light of the chaos of the current Government. It is clear in its demand:
“The Prime Minister should call an immediate general election to allow the British public to have their say on how we are governed, we should not be made to wait until January 2025”.
It goes on:
“Consistent opinion polling has shown the British public have lost confidence in the current government. The NHS is in crisis, the asylum system is broken, there are delays at the ports, and institutions are failing. The British people should be given a say on what to do next.”
I pay tribute to David Nash, who started the petition. More than 286,000 people have signed it—383 of them my constituents in Gower—and the number is climbing as we speak. That demonstrates the strength of feeling of dissatisfaction and dismay at the Government and the turmoil that we find ourselves in in this country. That dismay is not new. Members will be aware that this is not the first petition or debate of its kind. In October 2022, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) opened a discussion in this hall on a similar petition, which received almost 1 million signatures. The fact that this is the second debate on an immediate general election in less than 18 months is about as strong an indicator as one can get of how much the governing party have lost the respect of the British people.
Let us remind ourselves of the situation surrounding the previous debate. Inflation had reached a 41% high; families were confronting a cost of living crisis and unaffordable energy bills; and there were record backlogs in our NHS. After becoming the fourth Conservative Prime Minister in six years, solely on votes from Conservative party members whose backing represented just 0.17% of all voters, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) delivered a mini Budget that caused complete market turmoil and led to further havoc with U-turns, reversals and the sacking of the then Chancellor.
Fast forward to now and the only thing that has changed is the Government’s figurehead. Despite there being a new Prime Minister and promises of a new direction, chaos persists and continues to govern as matters get even worse for the country. That fact is glaringly obvious to just about everyone other than the Prime Minister, who is so out of touch that he continues to tell the public how good they have got it as they feel the country burning around them everywhere they turn.
British people continue to pay the price of the Conservatives’ catastrophic mini Budget, delivered with absolutely no mandate from the British people. It triggered an economic meltdown and saw the pound plummet to its lowest level against the dollar in 37 years. At the time, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that the uncertainty caused by the fiscal event was directly pushing up longer-term borrowing costs, and it was right. Interest rates soared and families were forced to cope with higher mortgages, with the average mortgage up £240 a month. That is on top of the cost of living crisis, which continues to exert enormous pressure on families as they face higher food and energy bills.
The mini Budget shows the catastrophic consequences of behaving recklessly with the economy, but the extent of the Conservative Government’s economic damage goes beyond that one disastrous event. The Government have presided over a period of national decline. We have had 11 growth plans from seven Chancellors, yet economic growth is stagnant. Under the Conservative Government, GDP growth has averaged 1.5% per year. This year we are forecast to be the slowest growing economy in the whole of the G7. National debt is at the highest level since the 1960s and has more than doubled since 2010.
Experts predict this will be the biggest tax-raising Parliament on record. There have been 25 Tory tax rises since the last election. Even after this month’s tax changes, the average household is still set to be up to £1,200 worse off. Fourteen years of economic failure is having a devastating impact on the people of this country. With taxes eating into wages, mortgages rising, interest rates and inflation high, and prices in shops still going up, too many families are struggling to make ends meet.
This Parliament is on track to be the first in modern history in which living standards in this country have contracted. Household income growth is down by 3.1%. A report published just last week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 14.4 million people were in poverty in 2021-22. That is 22% of people in the United Kingdom—let that number sink in. That included 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.2 million children and 2.1 million pensioners. That is completely unacceptable. The economic damage caused by this Government is leaving British people worse off, and it is most acutely felt by the most vulnerable in our society. Increasing numbers of children and pensioners reside in poverty, as this Government preside with no public mandate or democratic accountability for the policies they seek to pursue.
Although we have the biggest tax burden since the second world war, public services are crumbling. Never before have a British Government asked their people to pay so much for so little. Schools with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—are literally falling down, and a headteachers’ union warned just last week that parents are taking their children out of those schools as a result. The RAAC failure is just one issue affecting schools in England. According to a National Audit Office report last year, 700,000 children are being taught in unsafe or ageing buildings.
The NHS is in crisis after more than a decade of Government mismanagement. With waiting lists totalling over 7.6 million, one in seven people in England are on NHS waiting lists—more than ever before. These people have put their lives on hold while they wait in pain and discomfort for months or even years. The Conservative Government cut 2,000 GPs, and now patients find it impossible to get an appointment. Patients are waiting dangerously long for ambulances, and it is common for ambulances to queue outside hospitals for hours on end to hand over patients. The latest analysis of NHS England figures revealed that 420,000 patients had to wait 12 hours or more in A&E last year—a 20% increase on 2022. I know that sounds like a dystopian nightmare but, alarmingly, it is the reality of the current situation. Healthcare should be available for all who require it, but 14 years of Conservative failure means that people can no longer trust that the NHS will be there for them in their hour of need.
I could go on about how this Government have broken the asylum system, failed to clear the asylum backlog or end asylum hotel use, and spent £400 million of public money on a discredited, unworkable and immoral Rwanda plan without sending a single asylum seeker there. I could expand on how, despite their promises about being tough on crime, the Government are failing on law and order, with over 90% of crimes going unsolved, only 3.9% of sexual offences—of which 2.4% are rapes—resulting in a charge or summons, and record high fatal stabbings, as knife crime has soared 77% since 2015. I will leave those things just to a mention as I am conscious of the time that I have already spent outlining the Government’s failures.
All the Conservative Government have to show for themselves is complete and utter chaos. They have overseen the degradation of standards in public life. Six by-elections were held last year, with a further two expected next month. After five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors, the public are worse off. Granted, we live in a parliamentary democracy and it is not the first time that a Prime Minister has changed in the middle of a Parliament, but we are now on our third Prime Minister since the general election in 2019. Two of those were elected by Conservative MPs and members, rather than the electorate. That is discouraging for the British people, who have had no say in the direction of their governance or who their Prime Minister is.
In the debate on a similar petition back in October 2022, concerns were rightly raised about the lack of a mandate of the then Prime Minister, who was elected solely by Conservative party members. That Member then went on to claim the title of the shortest-serving Prime Minister this country has ever seen, after triggering an enormous economic crisis, so I think we can say that those concerns were definitely well founded. But our current Prime Minister has even less of a mandate to govern. He failed his own party’s leadership contest and is now failing to serve the interests of the public—indeed, a recent YouGov poll puts the Government’s disapproval rating at 66%. Perhaps he might be more successful at engaging the public elsewhere: if he does choose to call an immediate general election, he will have plenty of time to prepare for a starring role in “I’m a Celebrity”.
It is no wonder that the Prime Minister cannot command the confidence of his country, given his inability to secure the assurances of his own party. I am a teacher myself, and he is like a supply teacher in charge of an unruly class. “Stand up and fight”—that phrase was repeated by the Leader of the House 19 times in a speech to the Tory conference, with 12 of those in quick succession. She did not mean for her party’s MPs to fight each other. The petition’s signatories are expressing their anger at a governing party at war with itself and more focused on its in-fighting and psychodrama than meaningfully tackling the multiple crises that they lurch this country to and from.
The recent developments regarding steel are a prime example. The future of Port Talbot steelworks is integral to communities across south Wales, and so to many of my constituents. The Conservative Government spent half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to make thousands redundant and leave us unable to make our own primary steel. They continue to refuse to engage with the First Minister of Wales to discuss the matter, demonstrating nothing but callous indifference to the thousands of workers—my constituents included—whose livelihoods are at stake thanks to this Government’s incompetence. Let us not forget the bigger picture: the lives and livelihoods of those who work in a supply chain and the local economy—even those who work on the tugboats bringing the ships into port—are affected.
For too many people, it can be hard to remember a time when Government politicians could be trusted to act in the public’s interests and to a standard expected in public life. Indeed, in these unprecedented times, the only thing that seems certain is the persistence of chaos from our governing party. The country is fed up and deserves better than this mayhem with no mandate. I remember why I got into politics—as a single mother and a schoolteacher at the time of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, it hit me then—but it is no wonder that after being ignored for 14 years our public servants feel how they feel today. The petitioners’ ask is clear: to be given the opportunity to have their say on how they want this country to be governed.
The legislation is clear that the current Parliament must be dissolved no later than five years after it first met, which places the deadline for dissolution on 17 December 2024. Any decision to dissolve sooner and call an early election is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Failing that, Government Members can join Opposition Members to put things right. The Prime Minister has already indicated a willingness to hold an early general election by ruling out an election in January 2025. Having outlined the current state of this country, it can be hard to imagine how things could possibly get any worse. Sound familiar? We have been here before, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the longer the Government delay giving people their say, the more damage their incompetence will inflict on this country.
Deltapoll polling for The Mirror at the beginning of January found that half of the public, and even 38% of Conservative voters, say they want an election by the end of the spring. Only 12% like the sound of the Prime Minister’s working assumption of an election in the second half of the year. Members of Parliament have a duty to the public to govern in the national interest. In that vein, will the Minister say when the public will have a chance to decide who should lead us going forward? Will the Government act in line with the interests of the British people, and their own voters, and call for an immediate general election? Whichever Government are elected, they will at least have the support of the public and the mandate to govern.
The Prime Minister is attempting to inspire the Tory party faithful by pitching himself as a change candidate. His party has been in power for 14 years, and it is true that in that time it has faced some very difficult external factors, including the pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, this Government have only mishandled their responses to those factors, and they have consistently made political choices, with the lack of a clear mandate, that have made things so much worse. They have no right to claim that they have the solutions to the problems they created themselves. The petition calls on the Government to put an end to the chaos and uncertainty by giving the people their say. It is time for the Government to put the national interests first.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I was not expecting to be called quite so early—I thought many more people would be keen to speak in this debate. Thank you for chairing it, Mr Dowd, and I thank the Petitions Committee—particularly the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who led the debate masterfully and covered a huge number of issues and the reasons why petitioners signed the petition.
I first got involved in party politics and joined the SNP in 2001. When we were out canvassing and campaigning, it was not unusual for us to knock on doors and for people to say, “I’m not sure who I’m voting for.” In some circumstances, people were inevitably voting Tory, but they were too shy to tell us because they were embarrassed about it. That was quite a common thing back then—it was quite common for a significant number of years. We then had the Lib Dem-Tory coalition, and there was a bit more optimism around the Conservatives and people were actually willing to admit to us that they were voting Conservative. Well, that has disappeared again. Believe it or not, there are some people in Aberdeen North who vote Conservative—in fact, the Conservatives came second there in the last election. We have all these people who are pretty definitely going to vote Conservative, but they are now too embarrassed to say it, because they are looking at the situation down here in Westminster and they are unwilling to admit that that is the party they are going to vote for.
There are so many issues that it is difficult to pack them all into a short speech, but I will try to cover a few. First, on inflation and household bills, which the hon. Member for Gower covered masterfully, this UK Government have failed to do enough. They stand up and talk about the fact that inflation has dropped, but prices are still going up. We still have inflation. Potatoes, pasta, rice—the most basic foodstuffs, which people cannot avoid buying—have increased massively in price. We cannot avoid buying some of those essentials, and their prices continue to increase. I do not know how often you buy butter or margarine, Mr Dowd, but it is twice the price that it was just a couple of short years ago. Again, that is a staple. People need fats in their diet. We need all sorts of different foods in our diet. If the prices keep going up—and they are, because inflation continues to go up—then things get even worse and people can no longer afford to buy things. That is without the energy prices that people are now paying, and the UK Government’s refusal to provide another energy rebate despite the fact that they know that folk cannot afford to live right now.
I have been in elected politics since 2007 and I have never seen less optimism. Before, when people came to us because they were struggling and had money problems, we could quite often say, “Are you claiming everything that you’re supposed to be claiming?” We could give them advice and give them options. Now, because people are already claiming everything they are entitled to, the only option we can give them is food banks. How have we reached the point in 2024 when the only ray of sunlight for so many families is the fact that they can get a food parcel every so often? It is absolutely unconscionable that we are in this situation, and it is because of the choices being made by the Conservative Government. It just is the case that they could make different choices, which would allow people to eat, heat their homes and feed their children better.
The Government need to reassess social security and ensure that it is enough to live on, because at the moment it is not. The augmentation of universal credit for those on the lowest wages still does not give them enough money to live on, and the UK Government’s pretendy living wage is not enough to live on either. People are working all the hours they can and claiming everything they possibly can—they might be disabled and unable to work—yet they still do not have enough money to live. It is no wonder that people are completely and totally fed up.
Significant parts of the public sector are devolved in Scotland, including the NHS. However, if the UK Government continue to squeeze the public sector by giving it less and less money, and if they continue to privatise parts of the NHS, then, because of the Barnett formula, that will have a significant impact on Scotland’s budget. The Scottish Government cannot borrow in the way that the UK Government can, and they have to deliver a balanced budget every year, yet they are being constrained by choices that are not our own, because of the decision-making processes in Westminster. All those decisions to cut public services in England and Wales, or in England or in the UK as a whole, have a knock-on impact on Scotland’s budgets, and on Wales and Northern Ireland as well.
It is ridiculous that the public sector is being so squeezed that it is struggling to afford to provide even basic services, and neither the NHS nor public sector workloads are helped by the UK Government’s immigration decisions. It is more difficult than ever to get people to work in care, for example, because of the changes being made to immigration. After London, Aberdeen is the city with the highest percentage of people born outside the UK. We have a massive immigrant population in Aberdeen, and we love that; it is brilliant. We have an immensely multicultural, diverse city—I was at a Hindu event on Saturday night. Aberdeen is vibrant because of that, but it is becoming increasingly difficult because of the UK Government’s ideological opposition to immigration.
People in my constituency would rather have care workers to look after them than have immigration stamped out. In Aberdeen, we have got hotels run by Mears that are full of asylum seekers who the UK Government do not allow to work. I mean, for goodness’ sake, allow people to work and contribute to the economy and the society they are living in. It is better for everybody, if they have got an asylum claim in, if they are allowed to work and contribute—if they are allowed to integrate, become part of the community and provide support, and particularly care for our older people.
The other thing that has happened in relation to democracy and trust is that each of the significant number of Conservative Prime Ministers that we have had, one after the other—we could almost say that it might be a ploy—has been able to put a whole bunch of people in the House of Lords and thereby unbalance it even more. If we have five Conservative Prime Ministers in eight years—and who knows how many there might have been by the end of this year—then we get tranches of people sitting in the House of Lords with a Conservative hat on.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Can the hon. Member think of another time when the governing party changed Prime Minister twice during a Parliament without going to the country, because I cannot?
Kirsty Blackman
No, I cannot think of such a time either, and it is really shocking that we are in this situation, especially because, as the hon. Member for Gower laid out, the current Prime Minister was not elected by anyone apart from the people in his constituency. He was not even elected by the Conservatives; they did not want him, but they ended up with him as their second choice. The people have not had their say. They have not had the opportunity to say, “Yes, we’re happy with this situation. We’re happy with the former Prime Minister crashing the economy and our mortgage rates going through the roof and the UK refusing to cancel VAT on those mortgage rates.” They have not had the opportunity to say that. I think that they would say, “We’re deeply unhappy and pessimistic about the future. We don’t see that there is a ray of sunshine here, because the system continues to be broken.”
In the last few years, this UK Government have done what they can to erode democracy. They have done what they can to ensure that it is more difficult for people to vote, including introducing voter ID, which we in Scotland vehemently oppose. Actually, if we look at it, we see that it is not the case that there is voter fraud. The requirement for voter ID just means that people who are less privileged and more disadvantaged are less likely to be able to take part in democracy, which suits some Conservatives down to the ground. It is completely shocking that we are in this situation.
I will just mention a couple of other things. Regarding climate change and a just transition, energy prices are going up. The UK Government are putting through the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill to ensure that there is more licensing of oil and gas fields, which will make absolutely no difference to the prices that people pay for their energy. What it will make a difference to is the profits of those energy companies—that is where it will make a positive difference. Those companies will have higher profits if they are able to carry out more exploration and have more fields licensed as a result of those explorations. It takes something like 16 years for a field to come through, so licensing more today will not make any difference to the prices that my constituents are paying for their energy.
The Government are doing these things, making these decisions and making statements about climate change, for example about electric cars, in the face of ever-increasing extreme weather events and ever-increasing climate change. The world is not meeting its climate change targets, and if we ask young people what they are concerned about, we find that it is climate change. They are particularly concerned that our political leaders are refusing to concede that climate change is the most important issue and needs to be tackled. The UK Government need to lead from the front but they are absolutely failing to do so. They should be supporting renewable energy—energies of the future—rather than pouring more time and energy into increasing the amount of fossil fuels that we are getting out of the sea.
As for EU membership, we were dragged out of the EU against the will of the people of Scotland, despite being explicitly promised during the Scottish independence referendum that the way to stay part of the EU was to remain part of the UK. So many people in Scotland voted no in the Scottish independence referendum because they felt so strongly about the EU and believed what Better Together campaigners were telling them. Then, immediately after the 2019 general election, we were taken out of the EU, despite every single constituency in Scotland—every single area in Scotland—voting to remain in the EU. We have now left the EU, and that has had a significant negative impact. There has been a ratcheting impact on inflation, for example; leaving the EU has meant that we are more negatively impacted by those issues. The Minister will no doubt say that that is entirely because of global factors, but it is just not; it has been exacerbated extremely by Brexit.
The solution, as put forward in the petition, is to have a general election and allow people to have their say. The reality for people in Scotland is that we have a lifeboat, which we want to take to get us out of here. We have been asking for an independence referendum. We have been making it clear that we are utterly fed up with the Westminster system and the decisions that are being taken down here—even things like the fact that the timing of the general election is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, whereas the timing of elections in Scotland is set by statute. They happen on a regular basis—every four or five years. There was a change that needed to take place to realign elections, but they take place on a four-year cycle.
It is grim that we end up in this situation and the UK Government can just say, “No, we don’t want to let them have an independence referendum. It doesn’t matter how many people in Scotland want independence; it’s up to us. We are going to make those decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland,” just as they are making so many other decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland. But the decisions that they are making about immigration, human rights and climate change are not being made in the name of the people of Scotland. We need the chance to take that lifeboat to get out of here so that we can make our own decisions—the right decisions for the people who live and work in Scotland—rather having decisions made by the Westminster Government, whoever it is that they are making those decisions for, because they certainly are not making them for the benefit of the general population.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) set out the real sense across the UK that it is time for change. In my constituency alone, 768 people have signed the petition we are debating.
People do not have to follow politics closely to see that this is a withering Government at the end of their days. The sooner the public can have their say, the better. Yet our unelected Prime Minister is too scared to commit to a date for the election. He is clinging on to power, hoping things will get better, but the writing is on the wall and his party knows it. Just look at the events of the last three weeks. We have seen a Tory MP resigning over the party’s direction and another senior Tory MP calling on the Prime Minister to stand down, and now we learn that there is a group of ex-advisers, Tory donors and rebel MPs in the shadows trying to topple him. No doubt the leadership campaign domain names are already quietly being purchased: MoveOverForMordaunt.org,BelieveInBadenoch.co.uk and BowDownTo Braverman.com. But no matter who the leader is, the one thing these Tories have in common is that it is party first, country second.
For years now, our politics has been held hostage by the factionalism inside the Conservative party. This chaos is unsustainable and we can no longer afford it. For once, the Conservatives should put the country first and call an election, because people are crying out for change. The mandate for this is clear. Even the Prime Minister knows it. It explains his inability to stick to a strategy as he attempts to match the public mood. This time last year, he was branding himself as Mr Competent. He was all about delivery. Remember the five pledges? Well, the only one he delivered on was the only one that was not actually in his control, so at conference he switched to being Mr Change, correctly putting forward the argument that the country needs change, but incorrectly —and staggeringly—putting forward his answer: five more years of the Conservatives. And then what did Mr Change go and do? He hired a former Prime Minister as his Foreign Secretary. With the Mr Change narrative not sticking, what has he now settled on? Mr Continuity: “Stick with me, because it is better the devil you know.” Well, he had better call an election soon, because at this rate he is going to run out of new Mr Men to choose from.
Despite the Prime Minister trying to say the answer to the question of change is another five years of the Conservatives, we will not be fooled. Just look at the last 14 years: failure on the economy, on the NHS and on tackling crime. None of that would change with a fifth Conservative term. The Conservatives have no right to complain that they have the solutions to the problems they created. Remember that the Conservatives chose, through ideology, to crash the economy with their mini Budget. Families up and down the country are still paying the price through increased mortgages and rents. As we enter the election year, the Conservatives may masquerade as tax cutters by reducing national insurance, but this is the biggest tax-raising Parliament in living memory. For every 10p by which they have increased working people’s taxes, their tax gimmick gives only 2p back. The average family is set to be £1,200 a year worse off under the Prime Minister’s tax plan, at the very moment that we are also living through a Tory cost of living crisis. We can look far and wide, but they have no plan for the economy.
The chaos does not end there. The Conservatives have also pushed our NHS on to its knees. They have wasted £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation, instead of investing in the equipment and technology that a modern health service requires. Millions of patients have been waiting two weeks or more for a GP appointment, but is that really a surprise, given that GP numbers have been cut by 2,000? Overall, across the NHS, waiting lists have hit record levels, yet the Government throw their hands up and say it is not their fault. It is a simple equation: the longer the Conservatives are in government, the longer patients wait. And sadly, the longer they are in power, the more political chaos we experience. Since 2015, we have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors and 13 Housing Ministers. Government cannot run effectively with that kind of churn. Imagine a financial adviser trying to get someone to invest in a business that had that kind of turnover in its leadership. They would run a mile.
That is not even taking into account the misconduct and sleaze: £3.5 billion-worth of covid contracts awarded to Tory-linked firms, Tory MPs facing accusations of cash for access and favours, and of course partygate, which shows as clearly as possible that, with the Conservatives, it is one rule for them and another for the rest of the country. They have fundamentally broken the trust the public should be able to have in their leaders.
Indeed, while the economy flatlines, the only thing that continues to grow—aside from NHS waiting lists—is the number of factions of Conservative MPs. They have the New Conservatives, the No Turning Back group, the Conservative Growth Group, the European Research Group, the Northern Research Group and—wait for it—the Common Sense Group. Then, just last week, we saw the launch of the Popular Conservatism group, led by a former leader who was so popular that they were outlasted by a lettuce. That splintering is emblematic of a failed political force. None of them can agree on the direction of their party, let alone the direction of our country. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Tories are not governing for the country. They are not even pretending to fight for the British people. It is all about their party; it is all about a game for power.
Meanwhile, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has changed the Labour party. He has put it back in the service of working people: a party that is proud, does not take its support for granted and will always put the country first. It is a party that has the direction and hunger to actually effect change. That is captured in our long-term plan for the country—a plan to turn the page on the last 14 years and change the country for the better.
We need a mission-driven Government who can deliver a decade of national renewal, financial stability and strong fiscal rules so that we never have a repeat of the disastrous Tory mini Budget. We will build 1.5 million more homes over the next Parliament, with first-time buyers given first dibs. We will get the NHS back on its feet, and deliver 2 million more operations and NHS procedures to cut waiting lists. We will deliver 700,000 new dental appointments and take back our streets from gangs, drug dealers and fly-tippers, with stronger policing and guaranteed patrols in town centres. We will provide opportunity for every child through free breakfast clubs in every primary school, more specialist teachers, and better training and apprenticeships, so that every young person is ready for work and ready for life. We will make work pay through our new deal for working people, banning zero-hours contracts and outlawing fire and rehire. That is what a serious, united party can deliver.
Our country is crying out for change after the last 14 years of chaos. In just 94 days, on 2 May, we will have local and mayoral elections. Throughout the country, voters will be going to the polls for local councils and nine combined authority mayors. Thousands of candidates of all persuasions will be putting themselves forward so that voters can give their verdict. They should all be commended, and the winners will have a mandate. That is more than the Prime Minister currently has, which is why he should call a general election. No one voted for the third Tory Prime Minister of this Parliament—not even his own party. He has no mandate, which is why he has no authority and why the Tory soap opera continues. He should have gone to the country when he became Prime Minister, but he denied the public their say. Bottling it again would be to hold the country in contempt, condemning us to more of this unnecessary and counterproductive Tory in-fighting.
We need to have our say on the last 14 years. Do we want another five years like the last, with chaos, decline and failure, or do we want real change and national renewal with a mission-driven Labour party? This is the question when the election comes. The Government should call a general election now, so that people can have their say.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I can see that it is going to be a long year. We will have plenty of time over the next few months to rehearse all the points put across by Opposition Members, and no doubt some of the points that I will put across from the Government. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on moving the motion on behalf of the signatories to the e-petition, which calls for an immediate general election.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Lady that the requisite authority has not been delegated to me at this time and I am unable to grant her wish for an immediate election. In the absence of such powers, I can refer her to what the Prime Minister has already said—that he is expecting a general election in the second half of 2024, so it could be as soon as five months away. The hon. Lady will be aware that the authority rests with the Prime Minister and the King, but we will have an election in 2024.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked for a ray of sunshine, and here I am. There are extraordinary stories to be told from the past 14 years. There are better state schools, as judged by PISA, the programme for international student assessment. We are doing better in international rankings than ever before, thanks to the reforms and investment that we have made. There are better apprenticeships, helping more young people to earn while they learn and move into work. We have the best universities in Europe, sought after by many; record employment, underpinned by an improved welfare system in the form of universal credit; more free childcare than ever before; a national living wage; same-sex marriage; two new aircraft carriers; and the fastest decarbonisation of any major economy. We appreciate that we still have further to go, but emissions are down by more than 50% since their peak in the ’70s.
Brexit has been delivered, with global free trade deals, notably an enormously important one with the Pacific. We have more money than ever before in the NHS; record numbers of doctors and nurses; neighbourhood crime down by 50%; and 2.5 million homes. Not only have we had better growth since 2010 than Germany, France, Italy and Spain, but the International Monetary Fund expects the UK to have better growth than Germany, France, Italy and Japan in the medium term. Last year, the UK overtook France as the eighth largest manufacturing nation on earth.
These are all the result of choices. They are all the result of the decisions taken by Conservative Governments since 2010. Have this Conservative Government achieved that because we were handed a golden legacy by the previous Labour Government? Not a bit of it. When we took over, the economy was in the sewer. Since that time, we have managed to deal with the largest public health crisis in a century, the largest war in Europe since 1945, the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s and the highest inflation since the 1980s—and still the projections for our country going forward are good, and confidence in our nation’s economy among our international partners remains high.
I look forward to taking these arguments and more to the electorate in the months ahead, and I look forward to rehearsing the back and forth with hon. Members in the Chamber and beyond.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I was quite surprised that we did not have a higher turnout, because the demand for a general election is so great. I understand that the Minister is not the Prime Minister, which is a great shame, because we need answers now. As a member of the Opposition party, I look forward to the next general election, as I am sure many others do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 641904 relating to the next general election.
Written Statements
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Grassroots Sports Projects
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
We know that active people are fitter, happier and healthier, which is why we have set out our ambitious “Get Active Strategy” to get over 3.5 million people more active by 2030, including 1 million young people. Delivering on this strengthens our communities, makes us healthier—both physically and mentally—and creates a more prosperous society.
To achieve this, it is vital that everyone, regardless of their background or location, has access to world-class sports facilities. That is why we continue to support, sustain and grow community and grassroots sport with this historic level of investment.
As part of this commitment, His Majesty’s Government are delivering historic investment to improve and upgrade multi-sport pitches and facilities across the whole UK. Our investment of over £320 million between 2021 and 2025 will help to level up grassroots facilities, target those communities most in need, and increase participation in sport among under-represented groups—for example, women and girls, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. In fact, any project in England receiving a grant of over £25,000 must provide an equal access usage plan for women and girls. At least 50% of this funding is going directly to the most deprived areas across the UK, and over 40% of projects are also supporting a sport other than football in order to spread the benefits as widely as possible.
Since 2021, over £200 million has been invested in over 1,800 projects up and down the country, improving the natural and artificial grass pitches on offer to communities and upgrading floodlights, goalposts, changing rooms and toilet facilities. These are all delivered in partnership with the Football Foundation in England and the Football Association in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Combined with funding from the FA and the Premier League in England, our investment is delivering real change in the communities that need it most across the UK—from Fermanagh to Rhondda, and from Grimsby to Motherwell.
On Saturday we announced the sites that have received a share of £93 million in 2023-24 so far—over 1,100 projects delivering vital improvements to grassroots facilities and increasing opportunities to play for under-represented groups. A full list of the projects can be found on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/multi-sport-grassroots-facilities-programme-projects-2023-to-2024 and have been placed in the Library of the House.
With a further Government investment of over £120 million to come next year, including £25 million towards the £30 million Lionesses Futures Fund to get girls playing, we will continue to build on this historic investment. We are committed to inspiring future generations of sporting talent, increasing participation in physical activity, and levelling up facilities across the UK.
[HCWS217]
Telegraph Media Group: Public Interest Intervention Notice
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I would like to make a statement on my decision to intervene in the anticipated acquisition of Telegraph Media Group Ltd by RB Investco Ltd.
My Department has written to solicitors acting for the Barclay family and RedBird IMI, the current and proposed owners of Telegraph Media Group, to inform them of my decision to issue a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) in relation to the anticipated acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group by RB Investco.
This is further to information that my Department received this week that Redbird IMI has made changes to the corporate structure of the potential acquiring entities of the Telegraph Media Group, which has created a new relevant merger situation.
This PIIN 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 anticipated acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group by RedBird IMI and that these concerns warrant further investigation.
At this stage, my decision to issue the PIIN triggers the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters; and for Ofcom to report to me on the media public interest considerations in section 58(2A) of the Enterprise Act 2002—namely, the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers. Having consulted the CMA and Ofcom on the time they need to conduct the necessary investigations, I have asked them to report to me by 9 am GMT on 11 March 2024.
My Department has also written to Ofcom and the CMA today to extend the deadline by when I expect to receive their reports in relation to the PIIN that I issued on 30 November 2023. I now expect them to report to me on this PIIN also by 9 am GMT on 11 March 2024. This means the 30 November PIIN and the associated pre-emptive action order that I made on 1 December 2023 both remain in force.
I reserve the right to take such further action under the Act as I consider appropriate, which may include exercising my powers under section 42 in relation to any other relevant merger situation. My decision to issue a PIIN is without prejudice to my ability to take any such additional action in accordance with the Act.
My role as Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and follow a process that is scrupulously fair, transparent and impartial.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will update Parliament after both reports from the regulators have been received and considered.
[HCWS216]
Low-carbon Hydrogen Standard: Regulations
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my noble Friend Lord Callanan, has today made the following statement:
I am making this statement to fulfil the commitment to inform Parliament via a written ministerial statement whenever the ambulatory reference to the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard—the Standard—in the Hydrogen Production Revenue Support—Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty—Regulations 2023—“the Regulations”—is updated. A new version of the standard—version 3—has now been published.
The Energy Act 2023 (“the Act”) makes provision for the implementation of the Hydrogen Production Business Model (HPBM), which is intended to provide revenue support to overcome the cost gap between low-carbon hydrogen and higher carbon counterfactual fuels. The HPBM is designed to incentivise the production and use of low-carbon hydrogen, supporting the UK’s net zero and energy security ambitions.
Section 57(1) sets out the overarching power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to revenue support contracts. There are a number of provisions in chapter 1, part 2 of the Act that set out the matters that regulations made under section 57(1) may cover. The provision in section 66(5) of the Act enables revenue support regulations determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low-carbon hydrogen producer to make ambulatory reference to published documents, including standards, external to the regulations—i.e. as the documents have effect from time to time. Given the nascency of the hydrogen industry and the need for regulations underpinning the hydrogen production revenue support contracts to provide sufficient certainty to investors, the ability to make ambulatory reference in regulations provides flexibility to help ensure the scheme is in line with the latest technological developments to encourage ongoing innovation and investment. This approach also aligns with consultation feedback to ensure alignment with the UK Government’s definition of low-carbon hydrogen when allocating support to projects under the Hydrogen Production Business Model.
The regulations were laid in draft in Parliament on 8 November 2023 and came into force on 20 December 2023. Bar certain exceptions for low-carbon hydrogen producers who applied for financial support before the commencement date of the regulations, the regulations determine whether a low-carbon hydrogen producer is “eligible” in relation to proposals it makes for the production of hydrogen produced in accordance with the low-carbon hydrogen standard. The regulations define “the low carbon hydrogen standard” as the document published by the Secretary of State in April 2023 entitled “UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard – Version 2” or such standard as may be from time to time published for the purposes of these regulations by the Secretary of State. The regulations provide that where the Secretary of State publishes a new or revised low-carbon hydrogen standard for the purposes of the regulations, the publication of the new or revised standard must include, or be accompanied by, a statement in writing that it is published to replace the previous version of the standard.
The standard sets a maximum threshold for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the production process for hydrogen to be considered “low-carbon hydrogen”. It sets out the methodology for calculating the emissions associated with hydrogen production using production pathways in scope of the standard, and the steps that producers should take to prove that the hydrogen they produce is compliant with the standard.
On 13 December 2023, in the period between the regulations being laid in draft and coming into force, version 3 of the standard was published and focuses on ensuring that the requirements set out in the standard are clear and can be effectively applied under hydrogen production revenue support contracts and other future schemes. More consistent language is used in version 3 for indicating requirements of the standard, recommendations and permissible actions, and there has been restructuring and rationalisation of text for accuracy and conciseness. A key change to version 3 of the standard is to include “Gas Splitting Producing Solid Carbon” on the list of hydrogen production pathways that are within scope of the standard. At the time of publication, it was made clear that it was intended that version 3 of the standard would be the version for the purposes of the regulations when the regulations come into force.
The standard was republished on the 21 December 2023 to confirm that version 3 replaces any previous versions of the standard for the purposes of the regulations. This means that currently version 3 of the standard is the one that is to be used for assessing eligibility under the regulations, bar certain exceptions as mentioned above.
Further details on the standard and the changes made can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-low-carbon-hydrogen-standard-emissions-reporting-and-sustainability-criteria.
[HCWS215]
Smoking and Vaping
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Today, the UK Government with the devolved Administrations have published our response to the UK-wide consultation, “Creating a smokefree generation and tackling youth vaping”.
Tobacco is the single most important entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death in this country. It is responsible for 80,000 deaths in the UK a year and one in four of all UK cancer deaths. Smoking is one of the biggest drivers of health inequalities across the country. The majority of smokers know about the risks of smoking and want to quit but are unable to due to the addictive nature of tobacco. Four in five smokers start before the age of 20 and are then addicted for life.
Smoking costs the country £17 billion a year, including the £14 billion cost to productivity, which is equivalent to 6.9p in every £1 of income tax received. In comparison, the tax raised in duty revenue is only around £10.2 billion per year. Smoking puts a significant pressure on the NHS and wider health and social care services.
Moreover, while the evidence is clear that vapes can be an effective tool to help smokers to quit, we are incredibly worried about the alarming levels of illicit youth vaping—rates have tripled in the last three years with around one in five 11 to 17-year-olds in Great Britain now having tried vaping. Vaping carries the risk of future harms and nicotine addiction and, therefore, is never recommended for children. Despite this, it is clear that vapes are being deliberately targeted and marketed at them.
It is essential that we take action to protect future generations from the harms of smoking and stop youth vaping. That is why on 12 October, the Department of Health and Social Care published a Command Paper, “Stopping the start: our new plan to create a smokefree generation”. Following this, we published a consultation, together with the devolved Administrations to gather evidence and views to inform future legislative measures and next steps.
The consultation ran for eight weeks from 12 October 2023 to 6 December 2023. We received nearly 28,000 valid responses to the consultation from a wide range of stakeholders across the UK. A clear majority of responders, 63.2%, supported the ambitious proposal to create the first smokefree generation—one of the most significant public health measures in a generation.
The UK Government and devolved Administrations’ response to the consultation therefore sets out our plan to introduce legislation as soon as possible. Legislation will introduce measures to:
Change the age of sale for all tobacco products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products whereby anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never legally be sold tobacco products alongside prohibiting proxy sales and changing warning notices in retail premises.
Stop vapes from being deliberately targeted at children, while continuing to support adult smokers to quit using vapes to help. It will introduce new regulatory-making powers to restrict flavours, point of sale and packaging for vaping products—nicotine and non-nicotine—as well as other consumer nicotine products. Any restrictions will be taken forward in subsequent secondary legislation, which will be subject to further consultation.
Introduce new fixed-penalty notices for England and Wales to the value of £100 for underage sale, proxy sale and free distribution of tobacco and vapes—nicotine and non-nicotine—and regulate to extend these provisions to other consumer nicotine products.
Additionally, the consultation confirms that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government intend to introduce legislation to implement a ban on the sale and supply of disposable vapes. The UK Government will work with the devolved Administrations to explore an import ban. Northern Ireland officials acknowledge the issues raised during the consultation and will consider potential legislation in future.
These legislative measures sit alongside a package of support to help current smokers quit—including doubling the funding for local authority stop smoking services. They also sit alongside additional enforcement funding. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Border Force have published a new illicit tobacco strategy, “Stubbing out the problem”, setting out their continued commitment to reduce the trade in, and demand for, illicit tobacco, and to tackle and disrupt the organised crime groups behind the illicit tobacco trade. The strategy sets out the new root and branch approach, which targets the demand for illicit trade—the consumers that criminals seek to exploit—as well as the supply—the criminals themselves. It is supported by new funding over the next five years which will be used to boost HMRC and Border Force enforcement capability. The strategy also establishes a new, cross-Government illicit tobacco taskforce, combining the operational, investigative and intelligence expertise of various agencies, and enhancing HMRC’s ability to disrupt organised crime.
I am grateful to the many people who took time to respond to the consultation which helped us accurately consider this policy. The consultation response has been published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS219]
Election Finance Regulation
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
In July 2023, the Government confirmed their intention (HCWS985) to proceed with uprating reserved and excepted party and candidate spending limits and donations thresholds to reflect historic inflation in the years since the respective limits were set between the years 2000 and 2020. The intention to review these thresholds was set out in December 2020, and the Parliamentary Parties Panel was consulted.
Today, the Government have laid before Parliament legislation completing the uprating of candidate spending limits by uprating the limits for candidates at Greater London Authority elections and local authority mayoral elections. The latter will align with the planned new spending limits for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections, ensuring parity between mayoralties.
The uprating of election spending limits is necessary as many of the statutory limits, set in absolute terms, have not been uprated in recent times. Some have not changed since 2000, as is the case for Greater London Authority elections. The lack of change in absolute terms impacts campaigning ability, given the increased costs of printing, postage and communication, which is vital for parties and candidates to engage with voters.
Parliament anticipated this, which is why the legislation allows for these limits to be adjusted to account for inflation. The Government’s policy is to increase them so that they are the same in real terms as the original limits set by Parliament.
Furthermore, violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated and will have absolutely no place in our public life. The Elections Act 2022 provides for new measures to tackle intimidation in elections, building on the wider work to address intimidation in public life—as outlined in the written statement of 9 March 2021 (HCWS833).
No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy. To provide clarity on the issue of whether security expenses fall to be regulated under electoral law, the legislation laid today also explicitly exempts reasonable security expenses from contributing to spending limits for political parties, candidates and other campaigners at reserved and excepted UK elections. This will ensure that these limits are not a barrier to providing adequate security during election campaigns.
Many parties and agents already take the view that money spent on the security of a candidate is clearly not money spent promoting that candidate to the electorate; however, the Government believe there are merits in explicitly stating this in law to provide greater clarity.
Together, with the other recent instruments the Government have made, these measures will support continued democratic engagement by political parties and candidates, and facilitate continued freedom of expression whilst ensuring our elections remain safe, free and fair.
[HCWS218]
Grand Committee
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—I am told that that is unlikely—the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Monday 29th January 2024
(10 months, 3 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-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (29 Jan 2024)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, alongside others in my name to Clauses 89 and 103, would revert the relevant Clauses back to the ones first introduced in the House of Commons. This would reinstate judicial review principles as the means by which appeals against penalty decisions are heard, rather than such decisions being determined on the merits.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 64, I will also speak to Amendments 65, 67, 71 and 72. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, cannot be here and sends her apologies, but she asked me to stress her absolute support for this amendment. I have added my name to Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Tyrie, who, I am sure, will make important contributions shortly in support of their amendments. All our amendments would revert the appeals process back to judicial review principles for resolving appeals against penalty decisions, unlike the late government amendments, which substituted merit reviews.
This debate follows on from last week’s excellent debate on the impact of making CMA decisions proportionate and strengthening the right of SMS firms to argue for countervailing benefits to be taken into account. The issue of judicial review versus merit appeals goes to the heart of the argument about achieving the right balance between the rights of SMS and challenger firms. Of all the many submissions we have received on the Bill, this has received the most attention—from those on both sides of the argument—and we have taken note of all those views.
The Government’s amendments matter, because penalties such as fines are the most significant deterrent in preventing strategic market status companies breaking the conduct requirements established by the CMA. There is real concern that, under the new wording, SMS firms will use the appeals process to delay implementation of the fines and thereby reduce their incentives to comply with the order. Also, as the fines do not have to be paid until any legal challenges are finally resolved, there is an incentive to drag out the final decision through the courts. The fact that they have lobbied for these changes raises real questions about their motivation in pursuing this.
When we met with one of the potential SMS firms recently, it argued that the new regime gave the CMA too much power and that a merit appeal process was the only way to provide a check against misguided or ill-informed decisions. It has also been argued that the Furman review recommended that any loss of the right to merit reviews should be coupled with an enhanced role for independent decision-making to protect against executive overreach. We accept that this new regime does give the CMA significant new powers, and this has already been a theme of our debates, but we would argue that the scrutiny of whether it is carrying out its duties effectively should be through Parliament, not through individual costly legal cases going to merit review.
We are supporting several amendments to the Bill that would enhance Parliament’s oversight of the CMA’s activities. In addition, it is important that the CMA explain its decisions in detailed written reports and disclose its underlying data to interested parties in order to allow them to identify errors. All this would help to shore up scrutiny of its decisions.
As the CMA itself argued in giving evidence to the Commons committee, judicial review is the established system for much of its work, including merger control and market investigations. It also applies to a number of other regulators. The advantage is that it avoids protracted litigation and encourages engagement early on, with constructive and collaborative outcomes. We agree with this approach, which is why we believe that appeals through judicial review will deliver swifter and more effective outcomes.
In his response at Second Reading, the Minister made the point that appeals on full merit bring the regime into line with the Enterprise Act 2002. So far, this seems to be the only justification the Government have made but, as we have made clear, it is not the only comparator. Many other regulators, including Ofcom’s role under the Online Safety Act, do not use merits reviews on appeal. We do not believe that the case has been made for this change; we believe that both sides benefit from a prompt resolution of the issues which a JR process will deliver.
In the meantime, noble Lords have submitted other amendments in this group that seek to limit the application for any merits review. We would argue that the cleanest way to achieve our objective is to revert to the original wording, but I very much look forward to hearing their views and having this debate. I therefore beg to move Amendment 64.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to my amendment in this group, Amendment 66, which does what it says quite clearly in its explanatory statement. This amendment would make it clear on the face of the Bill that
“the only CMA decisions subject to full merits review in Part 1 of the Bill are the decision to impose a penalty, the level of the penalty, and the timing of the penalty”.
Before I go on, may I please also thank all noble Lords who have added their names to my amendment? They are the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentford—no, Brentwood; sorry, they are quite different, I think. I will say something shortly about the other amendments in this group.
Noble Lords will know that I was very public and vocal in airing not just my own concerns but those of the Communications and Digital Committee that the essential judicial review process for appeals against CMA rulings that is in the Bill might be overturned by the Government in the face of lobbying by big tech. As I said at Second Reading, there was much relief that the Government did not go as far as we feared they might, but the introduction of a merits appeal on penalty still causes alarm, because it is hard to see how such an appeal will not reopen the substantive finding.
My amendment seeks to prevent that happening, but we need to look at the practicalities of this, which is where I would also include the other amendments in this group that seek effectively to reverse the Bill back to its original wording. If a firm appeals the penalty, how will a complete rerun of the basis for the CMA intervention be avoided? I have had a conversation with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because he is the legal expert—I am not at all. He made a couple of points to me that are relevant for me to air in my remarks.
I would like my noble friend the Minister to tell us what would be relevant for a firm to appeal on its merits, because once we start to look at the practical differences between an appeal on the penalty and one via the merits process, as opposed to a JR test, what worries me is that it will not simply be an argument that the penalty was excessive, as in when people say, “The prisoner should have got five years when he got seven”. How will the Government, by virtue of the changes they have made to the Bill, avoid a complete rerun of the basis for the CMA’s original intervention? I fear it will be argued, when it brings an appeal on the merits of the penalty, that this is also all relevant to an appeal on the merits of the substantive finding. Basically, we will find that the whole decision starts to get reopened.
As I said to my noble friend the Minister last week, with the amendments I have tabled in Committee, I have tried to avoid repeatedly unpicking what the Government brought forward at Third Reading in the Commons. At the very least, there must be further clarification in the Bill if the merits appeal on fines is to stay. However, to satisfy this Committee—and, ultimately, your Lordships’ House—against reverting the Bill to its original wording, my noble friend the Minister must convince us of the practicalities of how the merits appeal on fines system will work in practice, and that it will not undermine the JR process for substantive CMA rulings.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Stowell in speaking to my Amendment 69. As has already been mentioned, a common theme runs through all the amendments in this group: limiting full merits appeals and ensuring that in practice they apply only to the imposition of financial penalties and the quantum of those penalties, as set out in Clauses 85 to 92.
As has already been stated, when he sums up, my noble friend the Minister needs to explain how this will operate in practice and why this situation is so special that a different approach is needed from that of any other regulatory environment, such as Ofcom.
There is nothing more to be said. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I am tempted to ask whether the amendments were government late amendments or late government amendments, but I will leave that hanging with the Committee. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we have clarity on how this approach will work when the Bill becomes law and that there is a watertight limit on the deployment, and potential misuse, of full merits appeals.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I have put a couple of amendments down which I suspect will not fully accord with the mood of the majority of the Committee on JR. I also support the removal of full merits appeals on fines, and I would like to explain why I have taken that position.
The Government took a number of important decisions on appeals in the other place. One was an amendment conceding that the scale of fines will be subject to a full merits review. Another stuck with the narrow definition of JR, or pure JR. Those two decisions are directly linked—politically, economically and legally—and there is a trade-off between them. They are best considered together.
My view on the fines issue is straightforward. There are two main reasons why the Government have got this decision wrong. First, a key point that we must bear in mind is that fines in the UK for all forms of breach of competition, anti-trust and consumer protection law are, on average, far lower than those in any comparable jurisdiction. As a result, both in the competition field and with many financial regulatory issues, fines are treated as a business cost by large firms. This has been a major weakness of our regulatory framework for decades and is still there now. If fines are to serve as a deterrent to platforms, they need to be large—perhaps very large, even unprecedentedly so for the UK. I fear that a full merits review will drag fines in only one direction, and we have the history of fines review by the CAT in other areas in support of that view.
Incidentally, I am amazed that the Treasury has not taken a closer interest in all this, because fines score against the consolidated fund, but it seems quite sleepy on this issue. It should be very wary of a full merits review of fines.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, who has made an important speech. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell, to which I have added my name. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which cover similar ground. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests set out on the first day in Committee.
Two key themes seem to have emerged consistently during the scrutiny of this Bill in Committee: first, the need for there to be as much clarity as possible with no room for protracted legal wrangling as a result of legal loopholes; and, secondly, the emphasis on the speedy resolution of disputes. My noble friend’s amendment goes to the heart of both those themes and seeks to enshrine in the Bill the Government’s stated commitment, which is strongly shared by the Grand Committee, as I have seen to date, to clarity and speed.
As the Minister made clear at Second Reading, the Government intend that merits-based appeals are available once a breach has been found only if
“the imposition of a penalty was not appropriate, the level of it was not suitable, or the date by which it should be paid needs to be changed”.—[Official Report, 5/12/23; col. 1450.]
Merits appeals are not intended to apply to the decision that a breach has occurred or to the decision to set a conduct requirement in the first place or to introduce a remedy such as an enforcement order following a breach.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the Committee? Unfortunately, I missed the first minute of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as I was trying to comply with etiquette and remain in the Chamber until the conclusion of the opening speeches on the Rwanda Bill. If the Committee permits, the points I was going to make have largely been made by others, so I can be particularly brief.
At the heart of this legislation is the decision: do we want the regulation to be done by the DMU or, de facto, by the courts? This is, effectively, a twin attack. First, there is the proportionality provision inserted into the statute, and now we have the change in the test of appeals on sentences. The combination of those two seems inevitably to lead to further court involvement, and it is not the intention that courts should be the regulator. The courts are there, as the noble Lord said, to stop executive overreach or some illegality in the approach based on usual JR principles. They are not there to second-guess what the DMU has done.
If the amendments, or something like them, are not accepted, I fear that an appeal of the merits will involve going into everything, as other noble Lords have said. We would have the war of the lever arch files, so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, at Second Reading. Lawyers will act, and continue to act, and it will frustrate what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, as I have been cited by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, it is incumbent on me to speak on the same principles as him. Everything that I want to say has already been said, but that will not stop me putting in my two pennies’ worth. This is the stuck-record part of the debate, where I repeat what I said at Second Reading and simply put on record my support for all these amendments.
I will pick up on what some noble Lords said in their comments. I wholeheartedly endorse what my noble friend Lady Stowell said. In the real world, if you have an appeal on the merits of a fine, it seems almost impossible to see how you stop leakage into an appeal on the merits of the case. So you are, in effect, back to square one and, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put it, the war of the lever arch file.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, was fascinating and a master class on the different aspects of judicial review: an appeal on the merits, an appeal on JR-plus, or an appeal on JR. When I was a Minister, I dealt with this debate with Ofcom, when it started the process of wanting to move from appeals on the merits to appeals on JR. To the layman, an appeal on the merits is in effect a full rehearing of the case: you go back to square one and simply have the trial all over again. An appeal on JR means that you at least have to identify a flaw in the reasoning of the regulator when it comes to a judgment. If, in effect—here, I bow to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie—settled law informed by European directives means that some element of the merits of the case are taken into account in a JR appeal of a regulator, so be it. It may be the difference between a passive and an active decision, as it were.
In this Committee, we understand how you can judicially review a decision by a government department. When a regulator is making an active decision to bring a prosecution, and it then finds guilty the company that it is prosecuting, some element of the merits may well be taken into account. It seems to me that how it is drafted may well be important, but the clear intent should be that any appeal, whether on the actual decision or the level of the fine, should be an appeal based on JR, when it comes to how a judicial review is understood when appealing a decision by a regulator.
I finish with the simple point—this is the stuck-record part—that it clearly is the settled will of this Committee, and I suspect it will be the will of the House when this comes to Report, to constantly guard against giving the SMS companies too much opportunity to wriggle out of decisions made by the regulator.
I should add that a lot of the tone of my remarks at Second Reading and in Committee might make it seem that I am in the pocket of the regulator. I am certainly not. I have lots of concerns that, at other times, would make me say that I think the regulator often strays too far and interferes in far too many cases. I am not resiling from the fact that there clearly should be an opportunity to appeal its decisions. Often, it backs away before it gets to a decision, but its interference in mergers and takeovers sometimes leaves me slightly baffled, particularly when it involves companies that have very little presence in the UK market. I am not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that the regulator is perfect, but I know that any procedure it undertakes, as it will do when this law is passed, will be long and expensive, so we must guard against making it even longer and even more expensive.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I seem to have found my space in this Committee following my noble friend Lord Vaizey again. I have put my name to Amendments 65, 67, 71 and 72 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
I would like to add a possible new element to the discussion, as I am conscious that otherwise we are all just literally repeating each other’s words. My noble friend Lady Stowell talked about the practicalities of a full merits appeal for fines and her concerns. We should also think about the incentives on the designated firms and on the CMA.
Much of what we are debating in this Committee is about how we balance the inequality of arms between companies with enormous resources, and the concern that independent regulators, given a large amount of power, can occasionally make mistakes. That is the essence of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, spoke eloquently about the risk of regulators making mistakes. I wish to add to the discussion some facts about the sheer scale of the inequality of arms.
According to a number of different sources, the best public assessment we can get of Apple’s legal budget is that it is north of $100 billion a year. Bruce Sewell, who stepped down in 2017 after eight years as Apple’s general counsel, gave an interview to a student at Columbia Law School in 2019 in which he set out how he thinks about the legal department and the legal budget in a technology company. He said that, rather than take clearly safe actions, the job of the general counsel is to
“steer the ship as close to that line as you can, because that’s where the competitive advantage lies … you want to get to the point where you can use risk as a competitive advantage”.
So, when you have a $1 billion legal budget, you can afford to play the risk card on every review. You can afford to fully resource every full merits review, whereas when you are the regulator, with a substantially smaller legal budget, you cannot risk every single one of your decisions going to a full merits review.
The incentives are equally divergent. The incentive on the regulator is to be really risk-averse; to not risk being challenged. That means that you will not bring the case in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, said last week, we know that we need to embolden our competition regulator. One of the big opportunities on leaving the EU is to have a much stronger competition regime because we know that that will drive stronger economic growth. But a full merits regime, in any part of the process, will make the regulator more risk-averse and will drive the incentive to sail closer to the wind, as Bruce Sewell said. Sailing closer to the wind means less collaboration with the regulator, because you are much better off playing your legal cards in the courts. In both those cases, that is not the regime that we are trying to design. We need to recognise that it is not just about practicalities; incentives are really hard to avoid if you have a full merits appeal process at any stage.
I am therefore left asking why the Government are proposing to do this for fines. The argument we have heard up to now is that the reason for doing so is to align with the Enterprise Act. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, beautifully set out, they are not really aligning with anything in this regime, so that argument does not wash. It is not the same as the regulatory regime for appeals in the sector I come from, telecoms. As I said at Second Reading—I apologise for repeating it—I do not really understand why small telecoms companies, tiny in comparison with these tech giants, are fine to cope with a JR on fines decisions, but the large tech giants need the extra protection of a full merits review, in case they are fined too much money. It sounds like the worst form of tech exceptionalism. Looking at digital regulation in this House in the last couple of years, we have learned that the era of tech exceptionalism should be over and that technology companies are just the same as other companies. They are not wicked and evil but driven by incentives to do a good job for their stakeholders, and if we define the rules of the game to encourage them to use their legal budgets to challenge the regulator, that is what they will do.
Therefore, I am left to believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, said, that the only reason for the change made on Report in the House of Commons was that it was part of some form of explicit or implicit deal to open a back door that will weaken the Bill, which will therefore not achieve what we want. I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Later we will come to how, if we accept them, we will ensure strong parliamentary scrutiny. I hope very much that we do not think we trade one for the other.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to this group of amendments. Other noble Lords have clearly made the case for the amendments in their names so I will try not to repeat what they have said.
Given that, I have three simple questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, having decided that appeals by firms should be decided not on merits in a court but by JR appeal, why have the Government now decided to allow this merits-based appeal on the size of the fine? I know that noble Lords have their own views on this, but I would like an answer and some clarity from the Government. Secondly, what evidence has come to light to persuade the Government to lay their amendments on this matter in the other place? Thirdly, how confident are the Government that, if a firm wins its merits-based appeal on the size of a financial penalty, this definitely will not give the firm a legal basis for challenging the reasons for the penalty and the conduct required by the CMA in the first place? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s responses to these three questions.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, following this superb debate, I am worried about being able to add much to what has been said.
First, I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, said. As ever, I agree entirely with half of what he said, but the other half is rather more controversial. This seems to be a growing habit. Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, if there is a solution to overreach, it must be through greater parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also referred to this and we have amendments coming down the track on it. Going back to JR-plus for the majority of decisions to be made under the Bill would be a retrograde step.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord said that we should not go back to JR-plus, which would bring in a limited form of merits review. However, many decisions in merits appeals have been found to be clearly wrong, once in the appeal, and would have harmed consumers’ interests had they been allowed to stand, under full judicial review. Does the noble Lord agree with that remark? Before he decides whether or not he does, I remind him that I am quoting him in his opposition to the move made in 2017.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is lovely to be reminded of previous remarks but, of course, that was then and this is now. We were talking about the standard for Ofcom then; today, we are talking about the CMA standard. The noble Lord would need to produce evidence that that standard did not in fact have a really poor outcome as a result of the power of big tech not being as limited as it could have been. He talked about us needing to recognise the power of big tech, but that is exactly what adopting the JR standard—the Wednesbury “unreasonable” standard that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about last week, and which all of us are content to stick with—would do.
Of course, what we are trying to do, if possible—if the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are accepted—is to revert back to a JR standard for penalties. I believe that consistency across the board is rather more important than trying to revert to a form of appeals standard that obtains in a different part of the regulatory forest. However, as the noble Lord said, the danger of executive overreach is much more easily cured by increased parliamentary scrutiny than by trying to, in a sense, muddy the waters of the test for appeals.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about incentives was entirely right. Litigation has clearly been used and is being used by big tech for strategic business purposes. We are trying to make sure that this does not drag on for ever and that appealing against the penalties does not open up the whole caboodle as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Black, and others who talked about the change of standard for penalties infecting other aspects of a CMA decision, made very strong points.
Ultimately, the Minister has a large number of questions from noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, asked what would be relevant for an appeal on penalties. What is the motivation for the Government in putting forward this new standard for penalties? What is so special about it and what evidence did they use to come to that view? Is not the danger of using a merits appeal basis that the decisions on which the penalty was based will be unpicked? The practicalities were also raised by a number of noble Lords.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I intervene on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There is a difference. The noble Lord was absolutely right to raise his concerns about Ofcom moving from a merits-based to JR-based appeal, in 2017. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, knows very well, Ofcom often makes decisions on extremely complicated pricing mechanisms. The telecoms companies had a point in saying that a merits-based appeal for Ofcom decisions is worth while, because going through the calculations again could sometimes be worth £50 million, £100 million or £200 million.
Ofcom was right in finally moving to JR for those cases when it took quite important strategic decisions about the marketplace—for example, forcing Sky Sports to offer its content wholesale to competitors. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had a point then and he has one today.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is very nice and helpful to be reminded of things that I had forgotten entirely. We need to make sure that we are consistent across the board. A full merits-based standard is not, for example, used to appeal against fines issued by Ofcom under the Online Safety Act. These Benches have serious concerns regarding the insertion of two different appeal standards in the Bill, as it may decrease the deterrent effect and risk lengthier appeals, as we have heard.
If we are not successful in persuading the Government to change back to JR for penalty appeals, and a merits appeal is to be included, a number of amendments—the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my amendment—are of great relevance to make sure that we do not see that drift that the noble Lord, Lord Black, talked about. A failure to do so could run the same risks as an entirely novel appeals standard. On that basis, we very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my own Amendment 68, which would ensure that there is no further extension of the merits appeal standards into any other part of the Bill. It is intended to have the same impact and draw a clear line in the sand beyond which no court can go.
I am sorry that we do not have the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, here to reveal perhaps another letter from a Minister. We had an interesting discussion last Wednesday, when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quoted the letter, sent to Damian Collins and Sir Robert Buckland, about the nature of the intention behind including “proportionate”. It said:
“In practice this means that firms will be able to challenge whether the DMU could have achieved its purpose for intervention through less onerous requirements”.
In a sense, that is a massive invitation to litigation, compared to ordinary JR. If that move is an invitation to litigation, think how much further along the road we are travelling if we go for a merits test for the fine and the penalties. I hope the Minister will therefore reverse course back to the pre-Report situation in the Commons; that would give a great deal of satisfaction around this Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising the important subject of digital markets appeals through Amendments 64, 65, 67, 71 and 72. I thank noble Lords for their powerful and compelling contributions. I am glad of the opportunity to set out the Government’s position.
These amendments seek to revert the changes made in the other place to the appeal standard of digital markets penalties. This would mean that penalties would be subject to judicial review principles, instead of being heard on their merits. It is important that decisions made by the CMA can be properly reviewed to ensure they are fair, rigorous and based on evidence. As the Bill stands, the key decisions—particularly the regulatory decisions that will drive the benefits from this regime—will be appealable on judicial review principles. Only penalty decisions will be appealable on the merits. This will provide SMS firms subject to penalties with additional reassurance, without compromising the regime’s effectiveness.
Penalty decisions will come at the very end of the regulatory process, if at all. They do not have the same impact on third parties as other decisions in the regime. Conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions will already have been in place to address their intended harm before penalty decisions are considered. Decisions on penalties are different from those about imposing requirements: they are more about making assessments of facts. They will assess what the SMS firm has or has not done. Other decisions that the CMA will take in the regime are forward-looking expert judgment calls. It is appropriate that the latter be given a wider margin of appreciation through a judicial review standard than decisions to impose penalties.
To address the point made by many noble Lords, I make it clear that challenging penalties does not open up the question of whether a breach occurred, or whether a conduct requirement or PCI was right in the first place. I will set this out in more detail in response to the next set of amendments—but perhaps I should say, as I did on the first day of this Committee, that I am happy to listen to and take forward any form of words that strengthens the clarity or intent of the Bill. As I said, the intent of the Bill is that the decision about whether a breach has occurred is made on JR principles.
The digital markets measures, as with other CMA regimes, have always treated penalties differently in the regime. For example, they are automatically suspended upon appeal, unlike other decisions. This would also have been the case under JR. We have aligned penalty appeals with those under the Enterprise Act 2002, as was said, so that parties can challenge these decisions on the merits to ensure that the value of penalties is suitable. The regimes in the Enterprise Act apply to firms from all sectors, rather than just tech firms. In addition, to give two examples, penalties are appealed on the merits in the financial services and markets regime, administered by the Financial Conduct Authority, and, under the Water Industry Act, overseen by Ofwat. In the EU’s Digital Markets Act, penalty appeals are similar to merits reviews in the UK.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I found my noble friend’s remarks very helpful, because they shone a brief light on the Government’s position. Is he saying that, by introducing an on-the-merits appeal for fines, the Government are effectively allowing the CAT to substitute its decision for that of the regulators, whereas if it were a judicial review it would simply have to send back the decision on the quantum or the timing of the fine back to regulator; in which case, he may have a point?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I hope very much that I have a point. I think it would be best for me to write to my noble friend and the members of the Committee to clarify that.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says. It would be helpful if he would give an idea of the sort of arguments that would be open to somebody who is challenging a decision as to the fine and the merits. Will they be circumscribed simply by saying, “Well, it was too much”, or will they be able to look in some detail at the whole process and the interventions that ultimately resulted in the fine? How will those two things be kept separate from each other?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As the noble Lord says, the intent is to keep those two separate. During and on the merits appeal for the penalty, the penalised firm could argue that the value of the penalty exceeded the crime, or that the breach took place inadvertently or by accident. It could not argue, however, that no breach took place; the fact that a breach took place is the premise against which the rest of the penalty appeal takes place. If the firm then wants to appeal that no breach took place, that would be done under JR, not on the merits.
The boundaries of the merits appeal process are explained in the Explanatory Notes for Clause 89. If those can be made any clearer, I am happy to engage on that. We will continue to listen to any concerns that noble Lords have on this important point.
I turn now to Amendments 72A and 72B from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. I thank him for his amendments, which raise an important question about the appeal standard across the wider digital markets regime. These amendments would align the appeal standard of all regulatory decisions in the regime with appeals carried out against Ofcom’s decisions taken under the Communications Act 2003. I am sure that many noble Lords are aware that the appeal standard in the Communications Act regime is often referred to as judicial review-plus. Although Parliament amended the Act in 2017 so that these appeals are to be decided on judicial review principles, the CAT has ruled that, due to retained EU law, it must also
“ensure that the merits of the case are duly taken into account”.
To turn back to this Bill, the Government heard the strong views expressed by your Lordships on the Select Committee, among others, on the importance of retaining judicial review. The changes made by the Government in the other place sought to uphold the use of the well-known judicial review principles for appeals in the new regime, except for those about penalties, as I have already discussed. Judicial review principles balance robust scrutiny of the CMA’s decisions with the need for the CMA to use its expertise to act quickly and iteratively to resolve issues.
As we discussed on the second day in Committee, the Government have made an explicit requirement for the CMA to consider proportionality when imposing conduct requirements and PCIs. As I set out during that discussion, it is right that interventions should be proportionate, but we are clear that any appeals of these matters should be heard under standard judicial review principles.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
In which case, it is clearly not the Ofcom standard, is it? The Ofcom standard imports a measure of appeal on the merits. Why are the Government continuing to assert that this is the Ofcom standard? It is nothing of the sort.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I suggest that I set out a comparison in writing and perform the analysis as to the differences, should there be any, between the two.
Noble Lords expressed a concern on the second day in Committee that there should not be ambiguity in how appeals will be conducted. Introducing a requirement in a new domestic regime that requires an analysis of unrelated retained EU law to be able to understand how an appeal should be decided risks creating that kind of ambiguity. Complicating the appeals standard with EU case law would slow down appeals while the boundaries of what is captured by JR-plus are agreed.
Regarding decision-making, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, mentioned the CMA independent panel. Our approach to internal decision-making balances accountability and independence. Launching major market-shaping investigations under the regime will be reserved for the board. A board committee will oversee the regime’s regulatory interventions. At least half the members of the committee will be non-executive directors and members of the CMA’s independent panel. This make-up will ensure an independent perspective and the ability to develop deep expertise over time.
I hope that the reasoning I have put forward provides the necessary reassurances to noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Again, in the vast majority of the contributions, we seem to have reached a wide degree of consensus, although not totally, in the light of that from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie.
Noble Lords have made a number of important points. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was quite right to take us back to the practicality of appeals on a merits basis; I will come back to the Minister’s response on all that because things are still not clear. How can we be sure that such an appeal will not open the whole case up again? That is at the heart of what we are debating here.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said that we do not really understand why this must be different. Why is it such a special case? It has not been explained to us why this exception has been made.
I very much appreciate the point made by noble Lord, Lord Faulks: at the heart of this issue is whether we want regulation by the DMU or by the courts. There is a real danger of us drifting towards the latter with the Government’s amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, rightly reminded us that regulators cannot afford to take too many risks. There is a fundamental imbalance, with regulators perhaps being forced to be risk-averse because they do not have the budgets of the big tech companies. We understand the danger of the David and Goliath situation that we are in here. It is all too easy to create a system where big tech companies’ lawyers can rule the roost.
The Minister said that decisions on penalties will address what an SMS firm has or has not done. He said that a decision will address not whether a breach has occurred but what led to the breach. Our concern is that we are going to go back over all the evidence of what led to a breach, whereas the fine at the end of it represents the end of the decision-making and is meant to be the deterrent. Again, I will look at Hansard and the Minister’s subsequent letter, but it seems to me from his explanation that he risks opening the whole case up again.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. I understand his experience in all this. Importantly, he said that there is not just one model here—that is, we have a number of regulators that do things differently. As he pointed out, the Government have previously supported the JR model; we must be reminded of that. The noble Lord also raised his concern about what happens if mistakes are made. If mistakes are made, they would be made in the process leading up to the decision, not the subsequent fines. A merits appeal on the fine would not really help if the decisions had happened further up the decision-making process.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that the regulators are not perfect. However, as we have discussed and will discuss again, we need stronger regulatory oversight. That will come—indeed, it needs to come—from stronger parliamentary oversight, which we will continue to debate in our discussions on this Bill.
I come back to the fundamental point made by the Minister. I listened to him carefully but I am still not clear how he will keep the stages separate. How will he keep the decision-making separate from the decision on the penalty? If SMS firms argue that the penalty is too high, they will have to revisit the evidence leading to the decision.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Can the noble Baroness confirm that, in her understanding, there is nothing in the Bill itself that makes that separation clear?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks; he is absolutely right. Again, we look forward to the Minister’s letter that will try to explain how these are two separate processes and that there is a clear cut-off point between one and the other, because I am not sure that that was really what he said in his reply. To be honest, I do not see how they can be separate, as that is not how the systems work. The appeal will be, as I think the Minister said, on what the SMS firm did to lead up to that penalty; therefore, the whole case would have to be revisited.
I do not know that the Minister persuaded many people on this matter. I am sure that we will continue to debate this, and we look forward to reading his letter, which I am sure will explain things in a little more detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would omit the definition of “data protection legislation” in Clause 107, as my amendment to Clause 328 would define that term for the purposes of the whole Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on the third day in Committee. I reiterate the sentiment articulated in the first session by my noble friend Lord Camrose that the Bill, importantly, will drive growth, innovation and productivity and ensure that businesses and consumers in the UK reap the benefits of competitive markets. I thank noble Lords for their contributions throughout the passage of the Bill and for their continued scrutiny and debate.
I turn to a number of miscellaneous amendments put forward by the Government that affect different parts of the Bill. Amendments 214 and 219 introduce a new clause and schedule into the Bill that make amendments to other pieces of primary legislation, consequential to provisions in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The consequential amendments fall into three groups. The first amends sectoral legislation that applies, with modifications, the information-gathering power given to the CMA for its merger control functions in Section 109 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Where that power is applied for non-merger related purposes, the changes made by Part 2 of the Bill—which make express provision about the extraterritorial reach of the power and strengthen the civil sanctions regime that supports its enforcement—are not to apply. The schedule makes provision accordingly.
The second group of amendments is in consequence of Part 3, and the repeal of Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 and its replacement with Part 3 of this Bill. The third group is in consequence of provision in Chapter 1 of Part 4 and Chapter 2 of Part 5, to amend legislation which otherwise restricts disclosure by regulators and others of information relating to individuals and businesses. This will permit them to disclose information for the purposes of the enforcement of consumer protection law, unfair trading and the provision of investigative assistance to overseas regulators.
Amendment 223 amends the commencement provision in Clause 334, so that the new clause and schedule can be commenced alongside the substantive provisions to which they relate.
Amendment 213 will ensure that information that comes to a UK public authority in connection with its power to provide investigative assistance to an overseas authority in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill will be covered by the information disclosure restrictions and gateways in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This ensures that a public authority can share the information that it has collected on behalf of an overseas authority with that overseas authority. This will be in line with relevant safeguards, including personal data protection and safeguards for commercially sensitive information. To help ensure that the investigative assistance regime operates efficiently, the amendment will also enable UK authorities that hold information to which Part 9 applies to disclose that information to another UK authority to facilitate the provision of investigative assistance by that UK authority.
I turn to data protection override. Amendments 73, 206, 207, 208, 216 and 217 are minor and technical amendments which will make provision in relation to data protection across the Bill. Amendment 217 adds a new clause that clarifies that no provision in the Bill would require or authorise the processing of data that would contravene data protection legislation. Amendments 73, 206, 207, 208 and 216 remove provisions that previously applied only to some specific powers and insert a definition of data protection legislation that applies across the whole Bill.
On pre-commencement consultation, Amendment 218 adds a new clause to clarify that:
“A duty to consult under or by virtue of this Act may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act”.
The provision clarifies that the CMA has the flexibility to begin consulting before Royal Assent to ensure that the full set of reforms in the Bill can be implemented as soon as possible.
I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I look forward to addressing any questions or points that they may have about them. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is quite a set of amendments and the Minister rather rattled through his speech, but I have only one question: why are they now being included in the Bill here in Committee? Why were they not in the original version of the Bill? What is the motivation behind these new amendments? I am always a little suspicious. With the data protection Bill coming down the track, we will have hours of endless excitement. The words “data protection” and “government” are sometimes a bit of a red rag, so one always has to kick the tyres quite hard on any provision that appears to be opening a door to disclosure of data and so on. Obviously, in a competition context, it is most likely to be commercial confidential information, but the Minister needs to explain what kind of information we are talking about and why we need to have these provisions included at this stage.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview and explanation of the various government amendments. I look forward to his response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: why now? These are mainly technical and tidying-up amendments and we are in broad agreement with most of them in this group.
Amendment 217 makes it clear that any imposed or conferred duties to process information do not contravene data protection legislation. That is welcome. Amendment 213 ensures the disclosure of information under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill, which allows UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators. This is in line with the restrictions on the disclosure of certain kinds of information found in the Enterprise Act 2002, which is fine. I ask the Minister what assessments are in place to safeguard the sharing of such details with autocratic regimes, which may not have robust governance and accountability systems in place and whose values we do not share? On Amendment 218, I ask the Minister whether the intent is similar to that of Amendment 1, as set out so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch on the first day of Committee?
Finally, I refer to Amendment 216, which replaces the definition of data protection legislation for the whole of the Bill, so the definition in Amendments 73 and 208 are removed. Can the Minister confirm that such a definition is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Enterprise Act 2002? I look forward to the Minister’s response and comments.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lords for their questions. I will first address the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not see the shadows that he sees within the amendments. Unlike in the first part of the Bill, which introduces new bodies, units and legislation, we are here looking back consequentially at the Enterprise Act and Consumer Protection Act and building on them. The amendments simply improve the Bill while maintaining the overall policy intent and approach and the procedure, which is technical in nature. For example, we will go through the whole list of consequential Bills to which data protection applies to make sure that we have got a single concept of data protection across all the various Bills that consequentially apply.
The data protection amendment does not change but merely clarifies the application of existing data protection legislation across the Bill, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leong. Information of relevance will mostly be commercially sensitive information, as the noble Lord suggested. In answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, about international information disclosure, it will be governed by Part 9 of the Enterprise Act, which ensures appropriate safeguards.
I look forward to discussing more of these substantive measures later today and in future sessions. However, having answered the questions, I hope that the amendments can now be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“CMA cooperation with work and labour market institutions(1) The CMA must take reasonable steps to consult with—(a) the Office of Labour Market Enforcement,(b) the Health and Safety Executive,(c) the Employment Agency Standards Directorate, and(d) HMRC where the CMA considers that the institution holds or has a right to request information, knowledge or documentation that may be relevant to the exercise of its regulatory functions.(2) The CMA must, following consultation under subsection (1), undertake a regulatory function analysis and make recommendations regarding the following additional questions—(a) whether action should be taken by the institution or others to materially affect competition in line with the CMA’s objectives, and(b) if so, what action should be taken.(3) The institutions named in subsection (1) may make a recommendation or other requests to the CMA where they consider that the CMA may exercise a regulatory function.(4) A recommendation or other request under subsection (3) must be accompanied by a statement of reasons which sets out the rationale and any substantial legal or evidential questions identified by the institution for consideration by the CMA.(5) In this section, a material effect on competition is deemed to include a significant impact on the creation, displacement or alteration in the conditions or quality of work and environment for work in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables cooperation between the CMA and work and labour market regulators.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this group contains a range of amendments on competition reforms. They are fairly wide-ranging and I will leave it to the proposers of the other amendments to summarise them.
Amendment 73A, in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, returns us to an issue that we debated last Monday and on which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, moved an amendment. It is the issue of good work and the CMA. I apologise for returning to the issue, but that was stimulated by the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, saying that
“the CMA may identify actions that other regulators or public bodies would be better placed to act upon. This may include the DMU referring issues such as workplace conditions to a relevant regulator”.—[Official Report, 22/1/24; col. GC 132.]
I reflected on it and thought that there may be some merit in seeing whether or not we can empower it in the Bill. Subsequent reading and events have reinforced that view. The purpose of these amendments is to promote cross regulator co-operation and information sharing.
Our current approach to regulation rests on domain or sector-specific action, which demands a high level of co-operation and co-ordination. This means sharing information and knowledge, as well as technical and non-technical skills and resources, exactly as was publicly requested by the director of labour market enforcement, Margaret Beels, in her letter of April 2023, to the BEIS Committee in the other place, on AI and the labour market. I remind the Committee that the director of labour market enforcement is effectively an arm’s-length body of the Minister’s department. Her letter said:
“There is a need for cross-cutting collaboration with regulation in this space … There is no vehicle or champion for doing this”
at present.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, has said so much of my speech that I will be very rapid. There are two points to make here. One is that regulatory co-operation is a theme in every digital Bill. We spent a long time on it during the passage of the Online Safety Act, we will do it again in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and here it is again. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, if the wording or the approach is not right, that does not matter, but any move to bring regulators together is a good thing.
The second point, which may come up again in amendments in a later group that looks at citizens, is that it is increasingly hard to understand what a user, a worker or a citizen is in this complicated digital system. As digital companies have both responsibilities and powers across these different themes, it is important, as I argued last week, to ensure that workers are not forgotten in this picture.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is with great trepidation that I rise to speak to these amendments because, I think for the first time in my brief parliamentary career, I am not complete ad idem with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on digital issues where normally we work together. I hope they will forgive me for not having shared some of my concerns with them in advance.
I kicked myself for not saying this last week, so I am extremely grateful that they have brought the issue back this week for a second run round. My slight concern is that history is littered with countries trying to stop innovation, whether we go back to the Elizabethans trying to stop looms for hand knitters or to German boatmen sinking the first steamboat as it went down the Rhine. We must be very careful that in the Bill we do not encourage the CMA to act in such a way that it stops the rude competition that will drive the innovation that will lead to growth and technology. I do not for a moment think that the noble Lord or the noble Baroness think that, but we have to be very cautious about it.
We also learn from history that innovation does not affect or benefit everybody equally. As we go through this enormous technology transformation, it is important that as a society we support people who do not necessarily immediately benefit or who might be considerably worse off, but I do not think that responsibility should lie with the CMA. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, challenged with, “If not in this Bill, where?” and I feel similarly about this amendment. It is right that we want regulators to co-operate more, but it is important that our regulators have very clear accountabilities. Having been a member of the Court of the Bank of England for eight years in my past life, I hate the fact that there are so many that the Bank of England must take note of in its responsibilities. We have to be very careful that we do not create a regime for the CMA whereby it has to take note of a whole set of issues that are really the broad responsibility of government. Where I come back into alignment with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is that I think it is important that the Government address those issues, just probably not in this Bill.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I rise with an equal amount of trepidation to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I am a new Peer in the House with a background in the technology industry and the delivery of digital services. Although we are talking about market competition, we are straying into a complex conversation around labour markets and digital skills—the fundamental, No. 1 topic that drives a lot of thinking in digital organisations. I refer noble Lords to my register of interests.
The complex nature of a global digital skills market is the one thing that is challenging all digital businesses at this point in their ability to deliver and drive innovation. It is so competitive; in fact, the hyper-competitiveness is driving the inability to deliver. People are cannibalising other organisations. The agility and speed at which the market is moving, the hyperinflation in pricing, the investments that people are trying to make—indeed, that international businesses are trying to make globally—and the length and longevity of those investments’ value are becoming increasingly challenging. Therefore, the CMA intervening and having some influence will be challenging. We will have to think hard about how to enable understanding; about the speed at which the market is moving; about where this kind of activity would take place; and about how it would operate, understanding the global size and scale of this challenge.
I view this market with some concern but also with some excitement because of its ongoing development. One thing that I have seen is the move from triage, where outsourcing and moving to international markets for labour skills in digital was a trend, to the emerging nearshore and onshore trend of looking at bringing more skills into local geographies. Why do I say that? I say it because of the speed of the change in the market. If we try to regulate and legislate for that speed, it will be extremely challenging.
Humbly, that is the point I wanted to make at this stage of the debate.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I have tabled a couple of amendments in this group. One concerns cost recovery for mergers while the other is about the need to review whistleblowing. This group is a proper mixed bag; it has all sorts of things in it.
Let me just say that I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said. We are at risk of “take note” and “have regard” confetti with respect to a number of our regulators. The problem is that they deflect attention away from their central function and make it much more difficult to hold regulators to account adequately; in fact, they make it virtually impossible for Select Committees to do their already difficult job. We will come on to discuss this later, but those two issues are more closely related than they might initially appear.
On cost recovery for mergers, it is important that we all know what is going on at the moment. When the CMA examines a merger, for example the Microsoft-Activision deal or the Sainsbury’s-Asda merger, the taxpayer subsidises a considerable part of the costs incurred by the regulator for that investigation. I cannot think of a good reason why the scrutiny and approval of big-ticket mergers should be subsidised. However, there is—it is important for me to say this—a wide divergence of view and practice on this, both domestically and internationally. I discussed this issue over many years with a number of my counterparts when I was the chairman of the CMA, as well as internally within the CMA and with what I suppose one might call the competition community of lawyers, which is pretty large.
Some jurisdictions argue that merger control is an imposition on firms by government and that, therefore, the public sector should pay for all of it—at least, that is their starting position. Germany takes this position; it has something to do with its long history in the treatment of cartels and the creation of the Bundeskartellamt, but we do not need to go into that. The fact is that it is in its bloodstream to pay for this from general taxation. Others argue, like me—it varies from regime to regime—that this public service is a perfectly reasonable, chargeable event. After all, anti-competitive practices, which many mergers might facilitate, are a cost to the economy and welfare.
In 2011, the Government looked at all this in the White Paper that led to the creation of the CMA, when they put together the Competition Commission and OFT. As a result of that White Paper, the Government compromised between the wide variety of views and increased cost recovery for mergers as a whole—that is, the whole task of scrutinising mergers—from 50% to 60%. It is important to bear in mind that, in deciding what to do on merger fees, firms seeking approval for their mergers pay consultants huge sums and that the cost of the CMA scrutinising it is a residual in their calculations. Indeed, it would be a residual of a residual, because these numbers are so very large.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 73A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and will speak to a number of the other amendments in the group.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, made a very interesting and attractive case for both his amendments. On Amendment 93A, the whistleblower review amendment, I was particularly struck by him saying that the budget for compensation for whistleblowers comes from within the CMA’s budget. That seems to be an extraordinary set of circumstances. In the case of both amendments, he clearly spoke from a huge amount of experience, and he has obviously been thinking about these areas for improvement for some considerable time. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response, because the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, made an extremely good case from the point of view of someone who has been inside the system and is well informed about the issues.
On the full cost recovery for mergers, one of the perennial issues that we come across when talking about regulators is the question of resources. Anything that assists them in not having to cheese-pare in the way they regulate is extremely welcome, particularly when this kind of solution can be so easily put into effect.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight—and on what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, said—I do not think we are very far part. A lot of this is making sure that, where something does not fall within the remit of a particular regular, that regulator can co-operate with other regulators and exchange information to make sure that the other regulators, in whose province a particular issue is located, can then take appropriate account.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, said amounted to almost a generic speech about how you regulate the digital sector or digital services. I do not disagree with him, but I would perhaps be slightly more robust in thinking that regulation is not the enemy of innovation. Sometimes, regulation can be the friend of innovation, because it creates a certainty in the context in which people are developing new technology.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will refer first to Amendment 73A, which my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth set out so succinctly. Let us remind ourselves that the digital regulation co-operation forum, the DRCF, was founded by the CMA, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Office of Communications—Ofcom. The FCA subsequently joined as a full member the following year. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the purpose of the DRCF is to ensure coherent, informed and responsive regulation of the UK digital economy. When this is achieved, we can serve citizens and consumers better, reduce regulatory burdens for industry where appropriate and enhance the global impact and position of the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Knight have said that workers are really important in the competition space. The noble Baroness reminded us that workers are also users and citizens; they should be involved in any regulation. Having conversations with them would make a better competitive environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, cautioned us that we should not allow regulators to stifle innovation. We really need to let innovators do their thing and the old saying “Do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg” is so true in this respect. We need to ensure that the right framework is in place so that the regulators are not overburdened with too much regulation that would stifle innovation, so we really support Amendment 73A. It would empower the CMA to co-operate with other government bodies which may have the power to obtain information relevant to its regulatory functions.
I refer now to Amendment 93A, tabled by the former chair of the CMA, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, who has a deep understanding of the relevant issues in this area. Whistleblowers with insider knowledge who provide assistance to the CMA can be a powerful tool in helping to uncover cartels and other anticompetitive practices more swiftly than might otherwise be possible. Since cartels often operate in secrecy, individuals or companies with insider or market knowledge can play a crucial role. They can bring issues to the CMA’s attention or gather information that will allow it to start an investigation.
The primary legal protection for whistleblowers in such situations comes from the Public Interest Disclosure Act—PIDA—which won praise when it was first introduced in 1999. More recently, it has been criticised for not protecting the majority of whistleblowers from suffering retaliation with little or no legal recourse. In January 2023, the Minister for Security said that
“what the country needs is an office for whistleblowers, and what we need to do is ensure that we have the updates to the legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/23; col. 1094.]
Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on whether any primary legislation to that effect is forthcoming?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Amendment 73A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, would require the CMA to co-operate with regulators and bodies with responsibility for matters relating to employment and working conditions. I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, for raising the importance of regulatory co-ordination, and for once again highlighting the direct and indirect impacts of digital activities and competition policy on workers.
On the first day of Committee, a number of noble Lords argued that the CMA should take a wider view in considering impacts on work and work environments in its regulatory functions. The CMA can already consider these issues where they relate to competition. Indeed, although competition authorities in the past focused primarily on competition in product markets, we are seeing them take an increased and welcome interest in labour markets. The CMA’s annual plan sets out how it will prioritise investigating businesses engaging in anti-competitive labour market practices. It is already using its powers to take enforcement action against firms that break the law by fixing wages.
However, the amendment would go beyond the scope of the competition remit of the CMA, potentially creating new burdens and additional complexities. It would therefore detract from the aims of the UK competition regime, and it would be inappropriate for the CMA to assess impacts unrelated to competition, which is its area of expertise and jurisdiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned the director of labour market enforcement, who is an independent public appointee with a statutory responsibility to prepare an annual strategy for Home Office and DBT Ministers, setting out their assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market. In this way, there is already an independent assessment of the labour market and enforcement, so this amendment could infringe or duplicate the director of labour market enforcement’s remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the report by the Competition and Market Authority’s microeconomics unit. This takes a deep dive into the trends in the UK labour market, focusing on the impact of competition and employer market power. Where labour market issues are relevant to competition, the CMA already looks at this.
On co-operation between regulators, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this is essential. Part 9 of the Enterprise Act facilitates exactly that. The CMA works closely with bodies, regulatory and otherwise, both when delivering its own regulatory functions and when supporting others in theirs.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Harding that we should not provide the CMA with additional roles and duties that risk undermining the careful balance between effective enforcement and preventing overenforcement and overregulation, which risk stifling innovation. It would further confuse the regulatory landscape to require the CMA to consider labour market issues in this way, beyond its remit and expertise. Nothing in legislation prevents the CMA and other regulators from co-operating on these important issues, subject to necessary information-sharing safeguards. We do not need to legislate to achieve this.
The DMU specifically will be required to consult the regulators whose remits have the most interaction with the digital markets regime. It can, and will, engage with other authorities, including labour market regulators, where appropriate.
I will touch briefly on regulatory functions analysis. While the CMA works closely with other regulators and authorities, it would not be appropriate for it to conduct an analysis of other regulators’ functions as a regulator itself. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
On this point, can the Minister say whether he supports the cross-subsidy that currently exists? Given the fact that a lot of mergers of a very large size will be coming through, as he has pointed out, does he think that a logical way of dealing with the problem to which he has alluded—that of the small dynamic mergers that do not want to be discouraged by excusive scrutiny costs—would be to extend that cross-subsidy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The noble Lord will know that, on the current pie chart of activity undertaken by the CMA, 80% is for mergers with companies with a turnover north of £100 million, while 20% of it is for companies with turnovers below that. The 80:20 rule always works in life, so there is obviously scope to charge the larger companies more if that is the decision taken. I refer to the reassurance given that this can be amended in secondary legislation if that is deemed appropriate.
Let me move on to media merger public interest interventions. Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would expand the list of public interest grounds for the Secretary of State to intervene in a merger case to include the need for free expression of opinion and plurality of ownership of media enterprises in user-to-user and search services. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. Media mergers are particularly sensitive, as they could have an impact on how the UK public access and consume information.
The Government are currently reviewing the recommendations on changes to the media public interest test in Ofcom’s 2021 statement on media plurality. Ofcom did not recommend that online intermediaries or video and audio on-demand services should fall within the scope of the media mergers regime, which this amendment would provide for. We are considering Ofcom’s recommendations carefully and, as we do that, we will look closely at the wider implications on the industry. The Government have not proposed pursuing substantive changes to the grounds for public interest interventions in mergers in this Bill. The changes recommended in Ofcom’s review can be addressed directly via secondary legislation under the made affirmative procedure, if appropriate.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not press this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
What is the timescale within which all this will be decided?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I do not have a detailed timetable. I understand this is being looked at currently. I am happy to confirm in writing when we have a detailed timetable.
I move now to Amendment 93A and protection for whistleblowers. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, for his informed contribution to the scrutiny of this Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Leong, for their contributions on this topic. Amendment 93A would introduce a new requirement for the CMA to carry out a review of protections and support available for whistleblowers under the UK’s competition and consumer law.
The noble Lord will know that the Government consulted on the important issue of incentives and protections for whistleblowers in the competition regime. However, no clear evidence or support was put forward by respondents that would support making changes to the existing framework. Therefore, the Government do not propose to introduce reforms to whistleblowing protections. In taking this decision, we also considered that the courts can already give due weight to the importance of anonymous whistleblowing in competition law enforcement. This could, for example, justify a court restricting how the identity of a whistleblower is disclosed depending on the circumstances of the case.
As the noble Lord mentioned, in 2023 the CMA increased the compensation cap for informants in cartel cases from £100,000 to £250,000. This will support the CMA to investigate effectively and, where appropriate, enforce against criminal cartels, which can cause serious harm to consumers and businesses within the UK.
Any whistleblower worker who faces victimisation in the UK can also seek additional compensation from their employer in an employment rights tribunal. This compensation can be awarded uncapped and can reflect the costs of some whistleblowers being unable to work in their chosen profession again.
The Government, therefore, have not proposed reforms to the compensation for whistleblowers in the Bill. However, I stress that we recognise the importance of whistleblowing in uncovering wrongdoing and will continue to ensure whistleblowers are not discouraged from coming forward under the current framework.
At this time, we do not think that a review in the form that the noble Lord’s amendment calls for would be merited, nor that it would be appropriate to place a new and binding obligation on the CMA requiring it to conduct such a review within a specific timeframe. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord does not push this amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Can the Minister share whether there is any update on the office for whistleblowers, as mentioned by the Secretary of State?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I need to write to the noble Lord on that.
I now speak briefly to the government amendments in this group, all of which are minor and technical in nature. First, Amendments 90, 91 and 92 ensure that extensions to the statutory deadlines for phase 2 merger investigations under the new fast track procedure for mergers operate correctly within the existing legal framework for deadline extensions under the Enterprise Act 2002.
Secondly, government Amendments 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 102, will clarify that, in the civil penalty provisions introduced and amended by Schedules 9 and 10 to the Bill, references to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day and not in total.
Thirdly, Amendments 96 and 101 update cross-references in Section 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002, so that decisions made under the civil penalty provisions in Part 3 of that Act, as amended by the Bill, are carved out from that provision. Section 120 allows persons to seek a review of a CMA decision in the CAT on judicial review principles. Such a review is not required because penalty decisions are appealable on a merits basis.
Fourthly, Amendment 103 makes the equivalent amendment to Section 179 in relation to civil penalty decisions made under Part 4 of the Enterprise Act.
Finally, Amendments 104 and 105 have been introduced to take account of an amendment made by the Energy Act 2023 to Section 124(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002, which is also amended by the Bill.
I hope noble Lords will support these government amendments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a useful debate. I was very much persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie—far more so than the Minister was—and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made some useful points around asymmetry in respect of search and media.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who responded to my amendments. I kind of feel that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, were in many ways responding to last week’s debate—I think as the noble Baroness admitted. It is perfectly possible to argue that it is an encumbrance to extend the remit as we were arguing last week; that is a perfectly reasonable position. Indeed, just yesterday in the Observer, I read Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation responding to the CMA chief executive’s speech around the labour market and competition, saying that this is not a case for minimum labour standards nor a case for extending regulatory reach. They have friends in all sorts of places.
The EU announced a fine of £27 million against Amazon for oversurveillance of workers. These are real problems, and there is a regulatory gap that would be best addressed, I am sure, by having a single powerful labour market regulator. At the moment, we have a multiplicity of relatively weak regulators. That might solve some of the regulatory gap problem.
The debate this week was much more about collaboration between regulators. I feel that the Minister failed to really address and respond to the point. He might want to follow up by having a meeting just to sort out whether, in essence, Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, is wrong. In her letter to the BEIS Select Committee on 6 April 2023, under the bullet point on regulation, she said that:
“There is a need for cross-cutting collaboration with regulation in this space to bring different aspects together both within the UK and across the international playing field. There is also a need to learn from each other. There is no vehicle or champion for doing this”.
If the Minister had been listening, I said that earlier. He performs his notes brilliantly, but one of these regulators is saying that there is “no vehicle or champion” for regulatory co-operation in respect of AI. We need to fill that regulatory gap, and this Bill is an opportunity for us to do so. It is urgent because of the exploitation of some workers. We need to get on with it and I hope that, as this Bill proceeds, we find an opportunity to do so. I would be delighted to do so in collaboration and co-operation with the Government Front Bench.
On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the levy rules must include provision about how the levy is to be paid.
“(4A) The levy rules may make provision for interest to be charged, at the rate specified for the time being in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838, on any amount of levy not paid by the date on which it is due.(4B) References in subsection (4) to an amount payable by an undertaking do not include interest charged in accordance with provision made under subsection (4A).(4C) The CMA must pay any amount that it receives in accordance with provision made under subsection (4A) into the Consolidated Fund.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the charging of interest on amounts of levy that are not paid by the due date.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement for the CMA to obtain approval from the Secretary of State before publishing its guidance outlining how it will exercise its functions.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have asked for my Amendment 76 to Clause 114 to be decoupled, because I think it goes to the centre of the operation of Part 1 and I want noble Lords to focus on debating the issues raised by this clause as it stands. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Holmes, for putting their names to this amendment. I am glad that Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is also in this group; I support its aims. Clause 114 seems to be a small section hidden away on page 70 of the Bill, yet the guidance process that it outlines is fundamental to the operation of the regime set out in Part 1 of the Bill.
This is a high-level Bill, which leaves a lot of fine-tuning and detail to the CMA. It will be the first part of the process to become operational after Royal Assent has been granted. Without these guidelines, the CMA will not be able to start its urgently needed investigations into the activities of large tech companies and their domination of many digital markets.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 77 in this group. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tyrie and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for adding their names to it.
I do not support what the Government did in the Commons, which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, described and which his amendment seeks to overturn. However, I think that I understand why they did it, and I have some sympathy with their reasoning, if it is, as I assume, about increasing oversight of the CMA. Where I differ is that I do not believe that this is a job for the Secretary of State. In saying that, it is important to add that this is not just about a turf battle, for want of a better expression, between the Executive and Parliament. It is quite dangerous for the Secretary of State to position herself in this way, because she will become the subject of intense lobbying if she has the power to approve the CMA guidance on how Part 1 of the Bill will operate. That lobbying will be done in private—it could go on for weeks, as the noble Viscount said—and any change made as a result of that activity would be subject to massive rows, if not legal challenge. For me, nothing makes sense about the solution to the problem with which I have some sympathy.
As I have said on several occasions, the need for regulators to be independent can sometimes be over-argued. I very much believe that their regulatory decisions should be made independently without fear or favour or any kind of political interference. What I am most concerned about is that they must be accountable, even though they are independent. We are giving the CMA substantial new powers, so we must also ensure that we—Parliament—oversee its use of them properly.
I will come to parliamentary accountability and how we might improve on that in another amendment in my name, which relates to this group but is in another, for the reasons that the noble Viscount set out. But here, my Amendment 77 proposes that, instead of the Secretary of State approving the CMA guidance, the CMA must
“consult the relevant Parliamentary committees … and publish its response to any recommendations”
made by the committee at the same time that it publishes the final version of its guidance. That approach would ensure oversight of the guidance before it is implemented. It would also make sure that there is scrutiny of the CMA, that the CMA is properly accountable to Parliament and that any debate about the guidance happens in the open and not behind closed doors.
I am pleased to say that I have received widespread support for my proposal from many stakeholders and trade bodies, from all angles. I am not exaggerating when I say that what is proposed by way of Amendment 77 serves everyone’s needs and shared objectives, whether that is big tech, challenger tech, Parliament or the Government. I am grateful to my noble friends—both the Ministers—for our meeting to discuss this matter, which we had a couple of weeks ago. When my noble friend comes to respond—having already, I hope, discussed my amendment with colleagues in Whitehall—I hope he is able to express some support for what is proposed here. This is an important amendment to the Bill and I hope very much that he, speaking for the Government, feels able to accept it and make it their own.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I want to support Amendment 76, to which I have added my name, with some brief remarks because the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has put the case with great power and eloquence. I also support Amendment 77 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell, which is a clever solution to the issue of accountability.
I support Amendment 76 in particular, both because I do not believe the requirement is necessary and because—this is a consistent theme in our Committee debates—it builds into the legislation a completely avoidable delay and poses a very real threat to the rapid enforcement of it. Quite apart from the issues of principle, which are significant, this is also intensely practical. The CMA’s guidance on the Bill, published earlier this month, set out the expected timetable for the consultation phase on the Bill’s implementation, running through to October 2024, which could be a very busy month. It is almost certainly when we will have a general election or be in the midst of one.
It seems highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will be able to approve guidance during the purdah of an election campaign and if, after the election—whoever wins it—we have a new Secretary of State, there will inevitably be a further delay while he or she considers the guidance before approving it. The Bill therefore ought to be amended to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State’s approval, or, at the very least, set a strict timetable for it, such as the draft guidance being automatically approved after 30 days unless it is specifically rejected. That would ensure that there is not unnecessary delay, which could run into many months, before the new regime takes effect—especially if there is, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, intense lobbying of the Secretary of State behind the scenes.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. This seems to be fundamentally a question of what happens in private and what happens in public. I was struck by the number of exchanges in the second day in Committee last week in which noble Lords raised the asymmetry of power between the regulator and the companies that may be designated SMS. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said,
“let us get this right so that Davids have a chance amid the Goliaths”.—[Official Report, 24/1/24; col. GC 230.]
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I urge the noble Baroness to stay for the debate on the next group of amendments, in which we will talk about parliamentary accountability. I think she will find that the committee I am proposing is perhaps not quite as modest as she has just described it.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I promise I will speak briefly to associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Stowell and support her Amendment 77 and Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
Despite the fact that there are fewer of us here than there have been in the debates on some of the other quite contentious issues, this is an extremely important amendment and a really important principle that we need to change in the Bill. To be honest, I thought that the power granted to the Secretary of State here was so egregious that it had to have been inserted as part of a cunning concession strategy to distract us from some of the other more subtle increases in powers that were included in the other place. It is extremely dangerous, both politically and technocratically, to put an individual Secretary of State in this position. I challenge any serious parliamentarian or politician to want to put themselves in that place, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said.
On its own, granting the Secretary of State this power will expose them to an enormous amount of lobbying; it is absolutely a lobbyist’s charter. This is about transparency, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, and parliamentary scrutiny, which we will come to properly in our debate on the next group of amendments. However, it is also about reducing the risk of lobbying from the world’s most powerful institutions that are not Governments.
For those reasons, I have a slight concern. In supporting Amendment 77, I do not want the Government or my noble friend the Minister to think that establishing parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the Secretary of State’s powers would be a happy compromise. It would be absolutely the wrong place for us to be. We need to remove the Secretary of State’s powers over guidance and establish better parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been very interesting to listen to noble Lords on this amendment. I am getting a strong sense of déjà vu from our debates on the then Online Safety Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a devastating case for the deletion of the Secretary of State’s power, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made a superb case for the inclusion of parliamentary oversight over the guidance. The fact is that, just as we argued in our debates on the then Online Safety Bill, there is far too much power for the Secretary of State in this Bill. This example is the most egregious, but there are so many other aspects that one could argue with, and have argued with—the noble Viscount reminded us of his earlier amendments—such as the conditions for an undertaking to have an SMS designation; the turnover condition; the permitted types of conduct requirements; the period during which the DMU must decide which terms to include in the final transaction under the final offer mechanism; the amount of penalties imposed by the DMU on individual undertakings; and the DMU’s statement of policy on penalties. That is a heck of a lot of different powers for the Secretary of State and, as I say, power over guidance is the most egregious of them.
The way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, expressed this was exactly right. We will come on to parliamentary scrutiny in our debate on the next group, but the word “accountability” is crucial. Of course the regulator should be independent but, at the same time, it should be accountable. This is not just a licence to roam beyond the bounds; it is the right and duty of Parliament to have oversight of the regulator, which is exactly what this amendment would provide for. You have only to look at the draft that was put together of the Overview of the CMA’s Provisional Approach to Implement the New Digital Markets Competition Regime to see just how broad the Secretary of State’s powers over the way in which the CMA carries out its functions will be. That is why this is such an important amendment.
I very much hope that the Minister will hear our voices. This is a really important area of the Bill. As the Minister can see, it is something about which, having had the experience of the then Online Safety Bill, we feel very exercised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is the beginning of an important couple of debates about accountability. The breadth and the import of what noble Lords have said so far underlines how much we value that. We on the Labour Benches are co-signatories to both amendments in this group—the first, Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the second, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
Put simply, if the CMA is to be a regulator genuinely independent of government and accountable to Parliament, these amendments should stand. As it is, the legislation seems to suggest that, before the CMA can take any initiative on guidance, it first has to receive the approval of the Secretary of State. This is surely not only a time-consuming process but a wholly inefficient way of conducting business. I can well understand and appreciate why the Government desire to understand how the CMA intends to implement its regulatory policy, but do they really require such a firm and strong hand in the process? As it is, the CMA will be in constant consultation, discussion and interaction with government Ministers, and I do not see why, in the final analysis, approval has to come from the Secretary of State.
Can the Minister tell us how the regulatory regime compares with others? Do regulators like the Charity Commission, Ofcom, Ofwat, the Electoral Commission et cetera all require approval from the Secretary of State before issuing guidance? How does this process contrast with these other regulators? Is there a standard practice, or does it vary across regulatory frameworks? We need something that will work for this particular part of our economy, and it has to be built on trust and understanding and not reliant on the heavy hand of the centre of government coming in and ruling things in or out of guidance which the experts, in the form of the CMA and the DMU, have reflected and consulted on.
We obviously support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, which, as I said, we co-signed. Consulting the relevant parliamentary committees seems a wholly sensible solution and step. These committees are powerful entities, as we know, full of expertise and insight, and they provide a layer of accountability that Parliament rightly expects. After all, the CMA is a creature of Parliament and of legislation that we will put through this House.
I am sure there are plenty of examples of where legislation, particularly secondary legislation, has benefited from the input and oversight of Select Committees and other committees of both Houses. The points made about lobbying the Secretary of State were important and powerful. We need maximum transparency, and we need openness in this process; otherwise, suspicion will abound, and we will always have cynics who say that Secretaries of State are very much in the pockets of business and commercial interests. We do not want that in this legislation; we want something that works for the market, for the competitive interests in the digital world, and particularly for consumers.
Ministers would do well to listen carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. She is an experienced parliamentarian, but, more than that, she was the chair of a regulator, so she understands exactly the import of the pressure that can come from central government and how it can best be managed.
These amendments are important for us in order to secure accountability in this market and in the way in which the various institutions work and operate together. I happily lend my support to both of them.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Black, Lady Harding and Lady Stowell, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bassam, for their thoughtful and valuable contributions. I absolutely recognise the seriousness of this part of the debate and look forward to setting out the Government’s position on it. I will address each amendment in turn.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for highlighting the subject of accountability to government and Parliament. As I said, I am aware of the importance of the topic, and I welcome the chance to speak to it now. Amendment 76, from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, would remove the requirement that the Secretary of State must approve guidance produced by the CMA in relation to the digital markets regime. Amendment 77, from my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, would also have this effect. Additionally, Amendment 77 would add a requirement for the CMA to consult certain parliamentary committees about proposed guidance and publish responses to any committee recommendations.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but, if the logic were being followed for what he said, there would be—at the very least—some form of affirmative resolution for the guidance, as with all the other powers in the Bill.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am happy to look into that as a mechanism, but, as currently set out in the Bill, the logic is that the Secretary of State can approve the guidance.
The Government will continue to work closely with the CMA, as they have throughout the drafting of the Bill, to ensure that the timely publication of guidance is not disrupted by this measure. Published guidance is required for the regime to be active, and the Government are committed to ensuring that this happens as soon as possible. Guidance will be published in good time before the regime goes live, to allow affected stakeholders to prepare. The Government hope that, subject to parliamentary time and receipt of Royal Assent, the regime will be in force for the common commencement date in October this year.
In response to my noble friend Lord Black’s question about guidance and purdah, the essential business of government can continue during purdah. The CMA’s guidance relates to the CMA’s intentions towards the operation of the regime, rather than to a highly political matter. However, the position would need to be confirmed with the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office at the appropriate time, should the situation arise that we were in a pre-election period.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady Stowell for their amendments, and I hope that this will go some way towards reassuring them that the Government’s role in the production of guidance is proportionate and appropriate. As I said, I recognise the grave seriousness of the powerful arguments being raised, and I look forward to continuing to speak with them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and ask the Minister to listen to the concerns Members have expressed today. The clause gives extraordinary power to the Secretary of State, and I ask the Minister to listen to his noble friends, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Harding, who called the power dangerous. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said that it was so dangerous and such a big power that it must be a distraction.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that the concern about having this power is that it would create a delay, and that that would especially be a concern over the period of the election, both before and after. He called for draft guidance to be approved within 31 days, which is certainly something that could be considered; after all, no one wants ping-pong to go back and forth do they? They want the CMA’s guidance to be put into action and this process to start as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that the asymmetric power between the regulators and the tech companies means that there will be a drum beat of what she called “participative arrangements”. That is quite a complex thought, but the idea behind it—that the CMA must not be stopped from using its power to deal with some of the most powerful companies in the world—is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is a former regulator and called for Parliament to have a role in overseeing this. We were reminded by both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we had a discussion on Secretary of State powers in the debate on the Online Safety Act, much of which was about whether a joint digital committee could oversee digital regulation. I suspect that that will be discussed in the next group. We have given enormous powers to Ofcom with the Online Safety Act, we are giving big powers to the CMA and I imagine that we are giving big powers to the ICO in the Data Protection Act, so Parliament should have a powerful standing role in dealing with that.
The Minister called for robust oversight of the CMA and said that it must be accountable before Parliament. Already, Parliament looks at its review and annual reporting. I come back to the concern that the Secretary of State still has powers that are far too great over the implementation of this guidance, and that the CMA’s independence will be impinged on. I repeat what I and other noble Lords said on the concern about Clause 114: it stands to reduce the CMA’s independence. I ask the Minister to consider very seriously what we have been saying.
The Minister’s suggestion that he will look at the affirmative resolution for Secretary of State approval of guidance is something that we should certainly push further—at least that is some step towards reducing Secretary of State powers. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Restriction on disclosure orders(1) This section applies for the purposes of—(a) digital markets proceedings, or(b) competition proceedings.(2) A court or the Tribunal must not make a disclosure order requiring the CMA to disclose or produce information where the court or the Tribunal is satisfied that another person would be reasonably able to provide the information.(3) A court or the Tribunal must not make a disclosure order requiring the CMA to disclose or produce digital markets investigation information before the CMA gives notice of the closure or outcome of each investigation to which the information relates.(4) In this section—“competition proceedings” has the meaning given by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 8A to the Competition Act 1998 (further provision about claims in respect of loss or damage before a court or the Tribunal);“digital markets investigation information” means information—(a) prepared by a person other than the CMA for the purpose of a digital markets investigation;(b) sent by the CMA in connection with such an investigation to a person that is the subject of the investigation;“digital markets proceedings” means proceedings under section 101 (rights to enforce requirements of Part 1 of that Act) or proceedings on appeal from such proceedings.(5) Paragraphs 7 and 27 of Schedule 8A to the Competition Act 1998 (other definitions; disclosure orders) apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of Part 6 of that Schedule.(6) In Schedule 8A to the Competition Act 1998—(a) in paragraph 7 (other definitions), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) “Digital markets proceedings” means proceedings under section 101 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 (rights to enforce requirements of this Part).”;(b) in paragraph 28, after “competition proceedings” insert “or digital markets proceedings”;(c) in paragraph 29, after “competition proceedings” insert “or digital markets proceedings”;(d) in paragraph 30(1), after “competition proceedings” insert “or digital markets proceedings”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent a court or the Tribunal from making a disclosure order in respect of certain material held by the CMA.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“Digital Markets Unit and CMA: annual statement to Parliament (1) The Secretary of State must, at least once each year, lay before Parliament a statement containing the Secretary of State’s assessment of the conduct and operation of—(a) the Digital Markets Unit, and(b) the CMA as a whole.(2) The first statement must be laid before 31 October 2024.(3) Each further statement must be laid before 1 February of each subsequent year.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each year a written statement about the conduct and operation of the DMU and CMA.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to the second debate about accountability. We have two amendments in this group—in moving this amendment, I will speak also to the other—relating to the accountability in various forms of the CMA, the Secretary of State and Parliament. With these amendments, we seek to strengthen parliamentary oversight over the CMA by obliging the Secretary of State to bring before Parliament an annual report on the work of the DMU and the CMA. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their support for this amendment.
This is a common device exercised by parliamentarians to try to improve the quality of accountability to Parliament. I have almost lost count of the number of times I have seen similar amendments moved by Members on either side of the House—from a Labour Government and from a Conservative Government—but they are nevertheless important because they remind us all of the value of Parliament and why we are here. They also oblige the Secretary of State to make it clear in their annual reporting how the work of a particular regulator is progressing and the content of that work.
Additionally, we want Parliament to have an opportunity to debate and discuss the workings of the DMU. We also want to ensure that the DMU has sufficient financial support and staff to do that work—that is, the work that Parliament has ultimately asked it to do in protecting the public interest and promoting competition that is beneficial to consumers. There are already some concerns that both the CMA and the DMU might lack the resource and clout to undertake their work in tackling the giants that dominate the digital marketplace. That is why we have tabled Amendment 83: to focus attention on this concern.
The question of resources is important because, unlike many other regulators, the CMA is funded not by a levy on the firms it regulates but by a grant. We are not seeking to change this with our amendment, but does the Minister have any concerns that the CMA and the DMU may lack the certainty enjoyed by other bodies such as Ofcom? Does he have any worries that the CMA’s funding arrangements could have an impact on its ability to scale up certain operations and ensure that investigations take place as quickly and efficiently as possible?
We argue that this must be a primary concern from the outset. The history of regulators is littered with examples of underpowered institutions lacking the ability to tackle the big issues of the day. The water industry is a critical example of what can go badly wrong when an infrastructure regulator cannot cope. Digital infrastructure is key to the nation’s future economic success and prosperity, so this is every bit as important. For those reasons, I beg to move Amendment 79.
While I am on my feet, I would like to address Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. It goes to the heart of the issue in requiring the regulator or regulators to report to the relevant parliamentary committees; this is consistent with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 77 in the previous group. For the reasons argued in our debate on that group, we support Amendment 81.
Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seeks to inquire whether the CMA will be able
“to play a proactive role in promoting international standards of digital market regulation”.
It would be most odd if it were prevented doing so. Although this amendment is of interest for good trade reasons, I would also be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government view the international regulatory field and the CMA’s role, part and place in it.
I look forward to the Minister answering some of those questions and points.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 81 in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Tyrie and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for adding their names. My amendment reflects the increasing power of some of our most important regulators in the context of digital markets and online activity; and the need for greater parliamentary oversight as a result.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 82 in my name. Through the medium of parliamentary reports, it seeks to probe the Government’s position on standards—as was previewed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Why am I interested in standards? My experience of other sectors is that the UK’s approach to engagement in international standards is often—in my case, always—a technical approach. Technical people are sent to the relevant bodies to do the work. This flies in the face of what I have witnessed when other countries, on their own account and that of their national champions, used the process of negotiating new standards to further the strategic aims of their country and its national standards. I want to have this discussion so that I can hear how the Government view this and where the responsibility lies. Without a real handle on standards, competitivity and competition will be playing catch-up.
During the first day in Committee, when I was in the Chamber, your Lordships discussed the importance of interoperability. By my definition, interoperability has to enable both vertical interconnection between systems and horizontal interconnection with the web. The internet is a web of interconnected sites, so interoperability has to be both one to one, for example between servers and systems, and among servers and systems.
During that debate, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said that there was no need to define interoperability and that doing so might unhelpfully narrow the definition. That would be true if, when he was speaking, he had covered all types of interoperability, including web interoperability. Separately, he referred to interoperability and data access. This might be helpful if he meant interoperability generically, covering different subsets. Can the Minister clarify whether his department’s definition covers many-to-many, one-to-many and one-to-one interoperability?
To be more technically clear, this would cover interoperability among and between websites, using JavaScript and web data such as URLs, as well as one-to-many interoperability, such as browser interactions with websites, and one-to-one interoperability, such as covering apps and operating systems. At present, the language of Clause 20(3) is limited only to interoperability with a platform, so it would not address abuse by interfering with web interoperability.
This may sound too detailed, but it is deliberately detailed, because the detail of standards establishes who wins commercially. Somebody has to be inside all this to make sure that we can avoid businesses locking out their competitors, because what has happened over the past 20 years is increasing amounts of locking in.
Microsoft tried to use its operating system to lock in its media player app and its browser. Google is locking in online advertisers to its systems. Apple locks in apps through the payments and App Store terms and conditions. Amazon sought to lock people into its buy box. Facebook does not allow people to cross post, and each company runs messaging platforms that work better when plugged together than when plugged in with one of their rivals. Lock-in reinforces the network effect in communications and increases each platform’s separate monopoly. Standards define which software components work with other components, while definitions help to decide which software can work with which. Definitions of what is in the browser and what is elsewhere right across the internet are critical.
As the Committee knows, there are three principal players setting these definitions. What the browser does is overseen by the World Wide Web Consortium—W3C. Other internet standards are defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force—IETF. Telecoms standards are defined by the International Telecommunication Union—ITU, which is part of the UN in Geneva. All are relevant to interoperability and it is critical that the CMA has a role in policing interoperability, not least to ensure that standards are not rigged for the benefit of the bigger players, as I have just illustrated.
The ITU is a public body, but W3C and IETF are run by private entities for their own benefit. There is a serious risk and current concern that the definitions that are vital to avoid the intermediation of the future web are being rigged for the benefit of the big tech players. Promoting interoperability between browsers and websites means that browsers are not websites and do not operate in a way that prefers the website of the browser owners. They should render websites whoever owns the website. Different functions have to be standardised and policed for this to happen. To promote online competition, businesses need to be able to compete with the dominant browser owners. To be clear, Google and Apple own or control browser engines for all Apple, Google and Microsoft devices sold worldwide—essentially, almost everything apart from Chinese systems.
It is central to digital competition that the CMA promotes open and fair interoperability, thereby ensuring that browser owners do not give themselves discriminatory preferences or otherwise use their control over one part of the system to benefit themselves at the expense of their rivals. As we go forward and technology changes, we have an opportunity to nip this in the bud rather than trying to reclaim it in the opposite direction.
I am in danger of labouring this point, but I am going to: wallets offer storage for online payment cards. Someone running a wallet business would expect that the wallet’s operation would be discrete from the browsers. You would expect a browser to operate in a non-discriminatory way, enabling all types of wallets and cards to be used. Well, in 2022, W3C passed a standard that clearly benefits the two dominant browsers by allowing them to prefer their own wallets, casting a shadow across the whole online wallets and payments business world. This happened because Google and Apple play a considerable role in the development of standards for their own benefit. If we actually want an open market, this all needs to be actively policed; I suggest that the CMA has to be central to that policing process. Without this effort, much of the other work of the DMU will be closing empty stables’ doors while chasing bolting horses.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had some interesting things to say about interoperability and data in the previous debate, so I will be interested in his response and those of other noble Lords to this amendment. I of course will not be moving it, but I want a full reply from the Minister and possibly some further dialogue before Report, just to see the department’s view of how the engagement on this highly technical and important issue is to be done at international level. If it is not the CMA, who and how?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his passionate exposé about the importance of interoperability while reminding us that we should be thinking globally, not just nationally. I did not come expecting to support his amendment but, as a result of that passion, I do.
I rise to support my noble friend Lady Stowell. She set out extremely clearly why stronger parliamentary oversight of the digital regulators is so important. I speak having observed this from all possible angles. I have been the chief executive of a regulated company, I have chaired a regulator, in the form of NHS Improvement, I have been on the board of a regulator, in the form of the Bank of England and I am a member of my noble friend’s committee. I have genuinely seen this from all angles, and it is clear that we need to form a different approach in Parliament to recognise the enormous amounts of power we are passing to the different regulators. Almost all of us in Committee today talked about this when the Online Safety Bill was passing through our House, and it was clear then that we needed to look at this. We have given enormous power to Ofcom in the Online Safety Act; this Bill looks at the CMA and very soon, in this same Room, we will be looking at changing and increasing the powers of the ICO, and if we think that that is it, we have not even begun on what AI is going to do to touch a whole host of regulators. I add my voice to my noble friend’s and congratulate her on the process that she seems to be well advanced in in gathering support not just in this House but in the other place.
I also express some support for Amendment 83. I am concerned that if we are not careful, the easiest way to ensure that the CMA is not bold enough is to not resource it properly. Unlike the passage of the Online Safety Act, where we got to see how far advanced Ofcom was in bringing in genuine experts from the technology and digital sector, it has not yet been so obvious as this Bill has progressed. That may be just because of the stage we are at, but I suspect it is also because the resourcing is not yet done in the CMA. Therefore, I ask the Minister for not so much an annual update as a current update on where the CMA is in resourcing and what support the Government are giving it to ensure it is able to meet a timetable that still looks painfully slow for this Bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise mainly to correct the record that I called the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness modest and also to celebrate the fact that I am once again back on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding; it was very uncomfortable there for a moment.
I was on both committees that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, referred to. We took evidence, and it was clear from all sorts of stakeholders that they would like to see more parliamentary engagement in the new powers we are giving to regulators. They are very broad and sometimes novel powers. However, the point I want to make at this moment is about the sheer volume of what is coming out of regulators. I spent a great deal of my Christmas holiday reading the 1,500 pages of consultation material on illegal harms for the Online Safety Act, and that was only one of three open consultations. We need to understand that we cannot have sufficient oversight unless someone is properly given that job. I challenge the department and Secretary of State to have that level of oversight and interest in things that are already passed. So, the points that the noble Baroness made about resource and capacity are essential.
My other, very particular, point is on the DRCF. I went to a meeting—it was a private meeting, so I do not want to say too much, but fundamentally people were getting together and those attending were very happy with their arrangements. They were going to publish all sorts of things to let the world know how they, in their combination, saw various matters. I asked, “Is there an inbox?” They looked a little quizzical and said, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, are you taking information in, as a group, as well as giving it out?” The answer was no, of course, because it is not a described space or something that has rules but is a collection of very right-minded people. But here in Committee, we make the point that we need good processes, not good people. So I passionately support this group of amendments.
I briefly turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in which there is an unexpected interest in that I work with the IEEE, America’s largest standards organisation, and with CEN-CENELEC, which does standards for the European Union. I also have a seat on the Broadband Commission, which is the ITU’s institute that looks after the SDGs. Creating standards is, as a representative of Google once said to me, soft power. It is truly global, and as we create and move towards standards, there are often people in their pyjamas on the other side of the world contributing because people literally work in all time zones to the same effect. It is a truly consensual, global and important way forward. Everyone who has used the wifi today has used an IEEE standard.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Just a short while ago, I decided that there was so much to say that I would say very little indeed. I completely agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. As politicians, we should all be worried about a serious and growing problem that we are handing over huge powers to regulators on a monthly basis, and they will appear to the public to be accountable to nobody. If there is one book that is worth a good read, it is Unelected Power by Paul Tucker, who addresses exactly this set of issues with respect to finance and central banking. Come to think about it, it is a rather fat book, so, although I have read a large part of it myself, I suggest that the introduction and the conclusion will give noble Lords a good feel.
I will briefly join up a number of the debates we have just heard. On the one hand, we have been saying to ourselves, “We’ve got to empower David because David’s up against Goliath”, and on the other hand, it was said a moment ago that we have these huge overmighty regulators that must be held to account. There is an answer to that apparent clash of thoughts which s that while regulators have the capacity to wield huge power, many of them retreat into a comfort zone in which they do not do all the things they should. Rather, they do what they feel they can do relatively straightforwardly. Specifically, they do not wield the huge soft power they often have available to them.
Since I am going to give a long speech, I will digress momentarily to illustrate that point. When Covid struck, I was the chairman of the CMA. The hand sanitiser market started to be cornered at great speed by a small number of players, who then jacked up the price so that Mrs Wiggins, who wanted to go down to the corner shop to buy some at the only moment she dared go out, found that, instead of paying the correct price, which was probably £1.80, she was going to pay £12, £9 or something like that. I argued vigorously that we should do something about this, using consumer protection powers. I was told, “We don’t have a chance. We’ll be ignored. In any case, we might well lose the case. It’s all very complicated in terms of whether we have the power to intervene in a case like this. We certainly can’t assemble the evidence in time”, and so on. After a fortnight of persistence—I am pleased to say that the current head of the CMA was on the right side of this argument—I persuaded the top of the CMA to send a warning letter out. The practice ended immediately; that is why that big issue for the public agenda, which was leading newspaper coverage for several days, was taken away and a major problem for the Government was removed. Soft power is available to regulators in many ways but they often fail to address it.
The case for better scrutiny of regulators, digital or otherwise, has something to do with the need to hold regulators to account for the way in which they wield—or fail to wield—their power. That case has been made extensively elsewhere. In fact, I have written it down in places and published it, so I will not rehearse any of those arguments now.
I want to touch on two further points. If we are to do this job meaningfully, we need to have in place a number of things that, for example, the banking commission—I chaired it some time ago—found essential when assembling a technically competent team at pace to deal with the Libor scandal. A new body must have significantly greater resources and expertise than we currently provide to Select Committees. That will cost money. It is worth pointing out that the total cost of the work of the top eight regulators, which are meant to scrutinise the businesses on which they keep an eye, is in excess of £2 billion at the moment; that is the bill just to pay for the regulators. A few million pounds spent by Parliament to improve its oversight of those who are meant to be doing that scrutiny work would be money well spent.
The second thing that we must develop in Parliament is institutional memory, which is largely missing at the moment. There is very little institutional memory in our scrutiny bodies. It requires a group of officials who will stay the course for a significant time and are certainly not dispersed every time there is an election, which is what happens to a large number of Select Committee teams in both the Lords and the Commons, including the clerks and deputy clerks.
The third thing that we must do, which may seem obvious but is not always done—indeed, it is often not done—is keep good records. The body must have high-quality record-keeping. It has been a major bugbear of mine that, on the whole, records are not kept by Select Committees across Parliaments—that is, after an election, they start again as if everything is fresh. Incidentally, one of the reasons why the Treasury Committee has done better than other Select Committees in scrutinising across Parliaments is that it has one specialist adviser—I will not embarrass him by naming him—who works on monetary policy and the Bank of England and has been there for about 15 years. He loves his job and does only that job. He used to work in the Bank of England and knows a huge amount about it. That tiny fragment of institutional memory has dramatically improved the performance of the Treasury Committee over the years and does so today.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 81 in this group. I also wanted to speak to Amendment 77 in the previous group; I apologise that I was not here earlier to speak to it then.
I will refer to three notions from political science that may be relevant here. The first is that of the principal-agent theory and principal-agent problem. That is when a Government—namely, the principal—delegates authority to an agency. There is a huge body of work about delegating power to regulators, including the notion of agency slack, where the regulator does not act as was originally intended for a number of different reasons, raising the question of how you hold it accountable for that. Alternatively, it may perform very badly; for example, in some government departments there are concerns about arm’s-length bodies. How do we make sure that a poorly performing regulator is acting as it should have done in the first place?
The second notion is public choice theory. When people call for government intervention, they usually assume that officials and politicians are benign and will act in the public interest. Public choice theory suggests, however, that we must remember that individuals are also motivated by their own incentives and may act in their own self-interest at certain times—not because they are bad people, but because they are human. There are many cases of that; for example, with the housing market, most people agree that we need to build more houses, but many people just do not want their homes anywhere near those new houses. It is therefore very difficult in parts of the country for a candidate to stand up and campaign for more development because, according to public choice theory, they are acting in their own interest about wanting to get elected, even though they know that there should be more homes in the country. One of the fathers of public choice theory, James Buchanan, called it politics without the romance. It is when officials, who are well intentioned when the organisation starts up, just like politicians, suddenly do not act as was intended in the first place, because there are certain interests that conflict with each other. Therefore, how do we address that problem when it happens?
The third notion is the idea of unintended consequences. Given that we do not have complete knowledge, we should ask ourselves sometimes what happens if we are wrong. Are we absolutely sure that the JR appeals will prove a better way to achieve faster and more accurate decisions? We all support them, because many of the small challenger companies are asking us to do that—I have spoken in favour of them, as have many other noble Lords—but what if we find down the line that the appeals are taking longer, or that large companies are winning their appeals and the CMA has to start all over again? What if we find that it in fact takes longer than if we had gone to a time-limited merits appeal?
I considered laying an amendment asking for a review after three or five years, but I was worried about that, in case it became another loophole that large companies would use to undermine the JR appeals process, so I stood back. Another reason I did not do that was because the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I thank him for this—said to me, “You may well be right, but surely this should be about the accountability of the CMA to Parliament, and Parliament can question it on the issue of why some of the cases it is bringing are being lost on appeal”.
The other question that many of us politicians across the spectrum are asking is: who regulates the regulators? This comes from people right across the board. How do we make them accountable? I suggest that my noble friend Lady Stowell’s Amendment 81 addresses those three concerns. I hope that I have laid out the reasons why I support her amendment, notwithstanding some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie.
I speak briefly to Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox; he has raised an important issue. When I was in the European Parliament, we looked at digital regulation as well as financial regulation. I was told by many national European regulators, including those in the European Commission, and other global regulators that they had a huge amount of respect for UK regulators. Quite often, they would use what we did previously. For example, early telecoms regulators basically took what we did in the 1980s and replicated it across many countries in Europe.
I teach students about intergovernmental organisations. We can see that even the more technical intergovernmental organisations, some of which are over 100 years old, have now become more political. Companies and Governments are starting to influence soft power, as another noble Lord said. The EU, for example, wants to be the technical standard for regulation; China also wants to get involved in international bodies and to set the standards in its own interests—look at the debate over CDMA a few years ago. This is not just in the tech sector; we see its officials active in many intergovernmental organisations. I am not sure that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is the right way to address these concerns, but he is certainly on to something and it deserves further consideration.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief as the hour marches on: yes to Amendments 79 and 83. Most of the debate has been around Amendment 81 but I want to mention my noble friend’s Amendment 82 because the concept of lock-in is absolutely crucial. I am a big fan, particularly in the AI field, of trying to get common standards, whether it is NIST, IEEE or a number of them. The CMA’s role could be extremely helpful.
Of course, many other regulators are involved. That brings us into the landscape about which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has—quite rightly—been so persistent over the course of the then Online Safety Bill and this Bill. She is pursuing something that quite a number of Select Committees, particularly her one, have been involved in: espousing the cause of a Joint Committee, as our Joint Committee previously did. It is going to be very interesting. I am a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, which has been looking at the regulatory landscape.
These accountability, independence, resourcing and skills issues in the digital space are crucial, particularly for those of us in this Committee. For instance, the role of the DRCF and its accountability, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, are extremely important. I very much liked what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about us having talked about Ofcom before but that we are now talking about the CMA and will talk about the ICO very shortly; for me, AI brings a lot of that together, as it does for her.
So what is not to like about what I think is a rather cunning amendment? The noble Baroness gets more cunning through every Bill we get on to. The amendment is shaped in a way that is more parliamentary and gets through more eyes of needles than previously. I strongly commend it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can possibly be, I promise.
I thank all noble Lords for their brilliant and stimulating contributions. Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would require the Government to undertake an annual assessment of the operation of the CMA, to include the DMU specifically. The CMA is already required to present and lay its annual report in Parliament. This covers the operation and effectiveness of the CMA, including a review of its performance, governance and finances. The CMA recently published a road map setting out how it will report on the digital markets regime in its annual report. Although I of course appreciate the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, adopting it would run the risk of being duplicative of the CMA’s assessment of its activities, which could lead to concerns regarding its operational independence. The Government set out their priorities for the CMA in their strategic steer and the CMA reports publicly on how it meets these priorities. The Government will also carry out a post-implementation review of the regime to assess how it is delivering on its aims.
Amendment 81 from my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston would require additional reporting by the CMA, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom. It would require these regulators to publish annual reports on the impact of the digital markets regime on their activity and its effectiveness in supporting them in regulating digital markets. The Government agree that it is vital that regulators are held to account for their activities. Each of these regulators already produces annual reports that are laid in Parliament covering their operations and effectiveness. An additional report by each of the sector regulators would again run the risk of being duplicative and creating an unnecessary additional administrative burden. Additionally, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum was established in 2020 to support the co-ordinated regulation of digital markets and includes the regulators named in this amendment; the DRCF also publishes an annual report on its activities and priorities.
In response to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s important point regarding a committee on digital regulation, I agree with her that parliamentary accountability is crucial and thank her for engaging so clearly with me and my noble friend Lord Offord earlier on this topic. I absolutely recognise the problem. Perhaps I can offer to continue to engage with her on how to drive this forward. At the risk of disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, we have a concern that the formation of parliamentary committees is a matter for Parliament, not the Government, but I welcome ongoing work to determine how best to ensure that committee structures can scrutinise the important issue of digital regulation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I, too, intend to be brief. I am grateful to the Minister for his response: there was more detail than I thought we would get. I am also grateful to the other Members of the Committee who supported the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones. We should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her sterling efforts in arguing her case for better regulation through specific committees of both Houses.
I assume we will return to the issue of accountability. There has been sufficient concern expressed this afternoon about the shortcomings of where we currently are. I heard what the Minister said about annual reporting to Parliament, and we all need to think more about how we can make that much more effective.
A number of noble Lords made the killer point that there is a lot coming down the line, including the CMA, online safety and data protection. All those topics demand further scrutiny to make sure that we get the very best from regulation and legislation.
Collectively, our amendments address two issues: the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament, and the accountability of the regulator to Parliament. They are two very important things with important principles behind them.
I was interested and impressed by what the Minister said about the staffing details; it is something we should regularly debate in your Lordships’ House. Have we got it right? Have we got the balance right? Where are the staff coming from? Have they got the right skill set?
It was a very useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Cancer Research: Funding Gap
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the analysis by Cancer Research UK projecting a £1 billion funding gap for cancer research.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
The Government remain fully committed to tackling cancer by investing in cutting-edge cancer research. We invested almost £122 million into cancer research in 2022-23 via the National Institute for Health and Care Research, while UK Research and Innovation invests around £200 million annually. We work closely with research funders, industry, the NHS and charities to drive earlier diagnosis and improved therapies. We are confident that the Government’s unwavering commitment will lead to continued improvements for cancer patients.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly in relation to his final comment about long-term investment. He will be aware that around 62% of all publicly funded research on cancer comes from the charitable sector. The last few years have been incredibly tough for the sector in raising money. As an example, over the past five years Cancer Research UK has seen a 19% drop in real terms in the amount it can invest in cancer research. It argues that we are in danger of losing about £1 billion of investment into cancer research over the next ten years, and has called for a commission on sustainable biomedical research task force to look at how government, the charitable sector and other funders can collectively fill that gap. Are the Government sympathetic to that?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, entirely, and I thank the noble Lord for raising this very important issue. I pay tribute to the very important and good work done by Cancer Research UK. If its analysis—I am familiar with its basic thrust—has a flaw, it is that it makes an assumption about an ongoing linear link between the number of cancer sufferers over the year and direct government and charity sector support. This assumption neglects to bring in, first, the close work done between the Government, businesses—through business co-funding—and others, and, secondly, the growing, extensive, important research that is relevant to cancer but not specifically associated with it. In particular, many of us are familiar with the work done on radiology in AI. It is not cancer-specific but is certainly likely to help the cause of improving cancer outcomes.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, according to Cancer Research UK, the US Government spend five times as much per citizen on cancer research as the UK Government. Why do the Government spend so much less?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not familiar with this analysis, but it is very difficult to understand exactly how much is spent on cancer research, for the reason I gave earlier: so much cancer research is in areas adjacent or relevant to cancer without being specifically tagged as “cancer research”. For instance, in October 2023 the Prime Minister announced a new £100 million fund for the AI life sciences accelerator mission, which will have beneficial outcomes on cancer but is not tagged directly to cancer.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister receives regular representations from potential investors in medical research in the UK about what they need from the Department of Health and Social Care. Will he share with the House, and with his neighbour on the Front Bench, their key asks from the UK medical system and how he ensures a cross-government approach to entice in the maximum amount of investment?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed: it is so important to have not only a cross-government approach but a cross-sectoral approach. The Government work closely with academic, industry, charitable and other stakeholders. The crux of this is the healthcare missions of the Office for Life Sciences. The OLS cancer mission aims to show leadership in oncology innovation by developing further the approach first successfully used in the Vaccine Taskforce. Among other things, it has implemented the UK cancer research strategy forum, which brings together bodies of all kinds that are active in cancer research to ensure that they are effectively co-ordinated in today’s research and in future directions.
Lord Drayson (Lab)
My Lords, UK citizens willingly volunteer to allow excellent initiatives such as UK Biobank, Genomics England and Our Future Health to generate databases of health data that are excellent for cancer research. These databases are a sovereign UK asset funded by taxpayers, yet we allow the IP to leak abroad without any meaningful contribution to Treasury coffers. When will the Government implement an effective commercialisation policy to ensure that this leakage of wealth is stopped and directed to help fund cancer research?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I cannot comment directly on leakage of either information or wealth. I noted with great interest the latest report of the Tony Blair Institute that was publicised over the weekend, which argued that we should put our healthcare data on a commercial setting for this purpose. I am not familiar with any individual allegation of leakage or undue movement of data out of the country, but I am willing to look into it and take it up with ministerial colleagues.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. One of the most important international research partnerships in cancer science is the Cancer Grand Challenges, which bring together CRUK, the US Government, the French Government, the Dutch and the Spanish, but not yet the British Government. I invite the Minister to consider joining the club and using the March Budget as an opportunity to stump up the membership fees.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I once again pay tribute to Cancer Research UK. It is a tremendous organisation doing great work. I will look into the scheme the noble Lord brings up and take it up with ministerial colleagues.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, will know, Cancer Research reported in its 2023 researcher survey that while 98% of respondents said that collaboration with EU-based scientists is important, 79% said that since Brexit it had been harder to begin new collaborations with EU-based researchers and scientists. What steps are the Government taking to prioritise collaboration between the EU and the UK in this area, especially with compatibility with the EU clinical trials regulatory framework?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As we have just rejoined the Horizon programme as an associate, I am pleased to say that our collaboration with friends and colleagues in the EU will pick up considerably. I very much look forward to answering a Question in this House tomorrow on that exact subject.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Lord O’Shaughnessy review concluded that the UK is falling behind its peers in the internationally competitive marketplace for commercial clinical trials. Many in the research and entrepreneurial community are concerned that our most innovative researchers are going abroad. What is being done to persuade them to stay in this country?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The Government and academic institutions countrywide are very focused on making sure that the country remains an attractive place to conduct research. We have four of the world’s top 10 universities in this country—a significant research base. We believe and hope that we are an outstanding place to come to live and work as a researcher. There is no doubt that we will need a significant influx of researchers if we are to meet our scientific ambitions as a nation. We continue to monitor our generous points-based immigration scheme to make sure that we can continue to attract the brightest and best.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, much of the research, including cancer research, is carried out by universities. For that, the university has to spend money to build up infrastructure. That money mainly comes from the quality-related research or QR funding and the CRSF funding, the charity research support fund, both of which have declined, particularly as charity research funding increases and the government support does not. Is it the Government’s intention to increase QR funding in line with inflation and the CRSF?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It is certainly the Government’s intention to maximise the results of conducting cancer research in universities and elsewhere. I think particularly that we do not give enough emphasis to our collaborations with business; in that respect I point to our work with BioNTech, which aims to provide 10,000 patients with immunotherapies by 2030, or the NHS-Galleri trial. As to the specific instance of the QR increase, I will happily write to the noble Lord.
Care of Critically Ill Children
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken, or propose to take, following the publication in September 2023 of the review they commissioned from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Disagreements in the care of critically ill children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The department is working closely with other organisations to ensure that recommendations are taken forward and oversight is maintained. Together, we have taken steps on several recommendations aimed at improving the experience families and healthcare professionals have of navigating disagreements. NHS England has introduced regional conflict champions and launched resources and conflict management training on e-learning for health. The Ministry of Justice will hold a round table on how less adversarial court models could be used.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. This review arose from an amendment to the Health and Care Act 2022, moved by my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that I helped to draft. What steps have the department taken to establish a task force, as was recommended in the report? Secondly, there are a lot of recommendations in the report—far too many for an Oral Question. Will the Minister meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and me to review where we have got to with this most necessary look at administrative procedures?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I thank my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for their work in this field. Of course I will very happily meet to talk about progress. Minister Caulfield has agreed to chair the task force itself, and we have agreed the constituent parties; we are including the Ministry of Justice, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and health qualification providers, which will all take part in the task force.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the compliment paid; it was a privilege to be involved. I declare my interests in palliative care. Given that the number of children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions has more than doubled in the last 20 years, particularly in the nought-to-19 age group and especially in the under-ones, do the Government recognise the importance of early involvement of multiprofessional specialist palliative care teams, which can support families to come to terms with what they have to come to terms with, help other clinicians to understand the families’ perspectives and avoid some of these disputes happening in the first place? Can the Minister tell us how many of the integrated care boards have commissioned specialist palliative care services that work between hospitals, ICUs and wards, out into the community and into hospices?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct: the number of young people with life-limiting conditions has gone up, from about 33,000 around 2001-02 to about 87,000 more recently. A lot of that is, conversely, good news in that we have more and more treatments that can keep these children alive for longer. Clearly, that requires the wraparound-type service that the noble Baroness is talking about. It is the responsibility of the ICBs to provide that; I will provide details of the progress of individual ones when we meet.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I emphasise that the task force recommended by Nuffield to oversee its key recommendations needs to get to work urgently. The family-focused research work with parents, including parent carers, about their experiences of shared decision-making with healthcare professionals on care and treatment, is vital, as is the comprehensive information and guidance for parents and staff that is called for across the 16 Nuffield recommendations. What timescales are the Government envisaging for this crucial work to commence and become operational, including guidance to clinical and ethical committees?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding, now that the task force composition has been set up, is that this will be arranged shortly. I completely agree with the noble Baroness that these are important, as well as often heart-wrenching, matters, so urgency is required. As I have said, good progress has been made in a number of areas. Already, the MoJ is setting up a round table on this. The regional conflict managers have been established. We have training courses online so that communication can improve. A lot is being done, and the task force will push that forward further.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there is currently an imbalance between the resources available to the parents and guardians of children involved in end-of-life care—particularly time, money and legal advice—and that of public bodies such as NHS trusts. Compounding that issue is the routine use of secret transparency orders, which prevent scrutiny and oversight of court proceedings, particularly in the family court. Does the Minister agree with me in that respect: that secret justice is no justice at all?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clearly, the processes on these terrible cases have got to be as transparent as possible. As noble Lords probably know, legal aid is automatically available in all these types of cases to make sure that there is a level playing field. I also think we all believe that there is a case for seeing whether we can use mediation more as, obviously, courts should only ever be a last resort.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has already flagged communication as one of the key areas that comes through in the report, around both palliative care and care more generally. Can the Minister assure us that the task force will have the skills it needs to ensure that that communication can take place with parents from a variety of different backgrounds—educational, with different levels of medical knowledge and in different linguistic and cultural contexts?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, the noble Lord is quite correct. We know that, in many walks of life, so to speak, there are certain sectors of society that do not get the same level of provision and sometimes miss out. We had the debate last week on maternity provision and saw instances in relation to ethnic minorities as well as people with learning difficulties. We need to make sure that all the communications are there and that everyone is armed to provide the right levels of interface and communication in what are some really difficult cases.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many families with critically ill children find it very difficult to access treatment because often specialist treatment is only available hundreds of miles away from where they live. That puts tremendous pressure on the family financially. Do the Government intend to do any more to help those families?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clearly, we would all agree that the families need to be the priority in these terrible cases. What we have tried to do—and I have also done my own research into this—is make available what I call independent funding requests for when there is a new course of treatment which might not be allowed generally by NICE to give opportunities in those instances as well. I will come back to the noble Lord on things such as travel support and other expenses.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in and my work with the Teenage Cancer Trust. In connection with the task force, will my noble friend let the House know what input charities that specialise in this kind of work with children and teenagers who, sadly, are in this position and their families will have into the task force? Will he join with me in commending the tremendous work done by this charity and the other charities which specialise in helping children and families going through this traumatic time?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I am very happy to add my thanks for everything they do in this. It is clear in these circumstances that the more support we can give families, the better. I will speak to Minister Caulfield to make sure that input is properly there because my noble friend is correct that it should be there.
Emergency Services Network: Critical Communications System
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect the new Emergency Services Network critical communications system to be fully operational; and what is the latest estimate of the cost.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I draw attention to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office is procuring a new supplier for mobile radio and data services following Motorola’s withdrawal from ESN. This means the expected transition to ESN in 2024 and Airwave shutdown in 2026 cannot now be achieved. A revised business case will be published this year. This will reflect the impact of procurement activity and the charge control imposed by the Competition and Markets Authority on Motorola in 2023.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is pretty poor, is it not? The programme was originally announced a decade ago. The switchover was supposed to start in 2017 and be completed by 2019. The original cost was a mere £6.2 billion; the last estimate—and that is two years out of date, before Motorola withdrew—was £11.3 billion. Only one network provider was prepared to bid. The National Audit Office warned that this is a technology
“not yet proven in real-world conditions”.
It is a system based on a mobile phone network, creating a single point of failure. Can the Minister tell us—given that the cost has at least doubled, implementation is at least 14 or 15 years late, and there is no guarantee that the existing Airwave system can continue beyond the year after next—if this debacle is not the fault of his department then whose fault it is and who is taking responsibility?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a large number of questions. To reassure all noble Lords, there is no reason at all why Airwave cannot be extended beyond 2030. As for how we got to where we got, it is worth reminding the House that it was the Home Office that referred Motorola to the Competition and Markets Authority in April 2021; that resulted in Motorola leaving the Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme in December 2022. My noble friend the Chief Whip answered a Question back in 2022 which mentioned the £11.3 billion figure referred to by the noble Lord. That was for a programme that was supposed to run between 2015-16 and 2036-37. Unfortunately, any estimates that I give now would not be comparable in duration or end date; the end date is now expected to be 2044. However, the CMA charge control imposed on Motorola will involve a saving to the taxpayer. The numbers are very much up in the air.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will look at the original tendering process to find out exactly why this went wrong, since it clearly has? As an aside, can the Government give us an assurance that no one from Fujitsu or its Horizon programme is let anywhere near it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I suppose this could have been spotted earlier, but the fact is that Motorola’s dual role in it arose as a result of the company acquiring Airwave at the same time as it was awarded the contract for ESN, so the Home Office’s options at that point were limited. We sought to agree measures to protect the delivery of ESN and, when it became clear that those measures were insufficient, the Home Office raised its concerns with the Competition and Markets Authority. As for future suppliers, the contracts will be awarded later this year, and I shall make sure that the noble Lord’s concerns are reflected.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are supposed to be introducing a new emergency services network, but, as my noble friend pointed out, what the Minister has said leaves us all still bewildered about the actual implementation date. Perhaps he can tell us. The original date was 2017, but the implementation date is what everyone wants to know. When is it going to be working? When are we going to know that we have a new emergency services network? From what I could see, the Home Office stated that it would be 2029. Is that still correct? In other words, when can we actually have the new emergency services network promised by the Government?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I obviously cannot answer that question as precisely as the noble Lord would like. Yes, 2029 is an aspiration, partly because of the functionality of Airwave, to which I have already referred. However, some aspects of ESN are already live. Three ESN products have gone live in the past two years: 4G data connectivity for vehicles, which is called Connect; push-to-talk and messaging capability on smartphones, Direct 1 and Direct 2; and a device that can monitor and assess coverage on the move. Significant work has gone into the EAS, which is blanket coverage across the country, while much of the hardware has already been put in place. The noble Lord draws far too bleak a picture.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, including having carried out a review for the Home Office, part of which the Minister has referred to, which is the recommendation to refer to the monopolies commission. As he explained, Motorola purchased the legacy system and was paid around £250 million, while for the new system that it was about to deliver it would be paid £50 million. There was no financial incentive to deliver anything, and, perhaps consequently, it has not.
The only thing that reassures me at the moment is that the Government are going to look smartly at whether to discriminate between the radio system and data production. The big problem is that, nowhere in the world, at pace and at scale, has anyone shifted a radio system on to a telecommunication system. That is the fundamental problem. The transmission of data is not the issue—we do that on our phones all the time—but we probably need to carry on delivering the radio as it was and separate the data off. If we continue to try to combine them, I worry that it will become even more undeliverable than it has been to date.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point and I thank him for his perspective. He is right that the radio supply over the networks remains critical. As I understand it—and this answers one of the earlier questions from the noble Lord, Lord Harris—the technology is more proven than it was when the PAC last commented on it. It is being rolled out in other parts of the world; from memory, Korea is one of the countries where it is being tested. So some of those aspects at least have been dealt with.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for coming back again, but the Minister is essentially implying that this just happened—that Motorola came in and bought Airwave, and these things just happened like that. But is not the reality that the negotiations were conducted between highly sophisticated multinational companies that are used to doing negotiations and a bunch of ingénues on the Home Office side? It is not surprising that the country has been ripped off in this way. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, that is a very unfair characterisation. As I said earlier, Motorola bought Airwave, which could not have been foreseen, and, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just pointed out, it became in effect a monopoly supplier. That is why the Competition and Markets Authority was involved at the behest of the Home Office, which did the right thing.
RAF Aerobatic Team: Historical Allegations
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team Non-Statutory Inquiry Report, and (2) the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team Command, Leadership and Management Report, published on 1 November 2023, relating to historical allegations of unacceptable behaviour within the RAF Aerobatic Team.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the recommendations in both reports, the Royal Air Force aerobatic team non-statutory inquiry report and the command, leadership and management report, have all been accepted and implemented by the RAF. The findings of the investigations led to action being taken against personnel, up to and including dismissal from the service. Behaviours described by the witnesses in the reports are unacceptable and have no place in the RAF—or anywhere else for that matter.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The culture outlined in the reports about the Red Arrows is not limited to the RAF. Last month, 60 women in the MoD Main Building complained about the hostile and toxic working environment they face. The amount paid in compensation by the MoD for bullying and harassment has doubled in the last four years. These facts will inevitably impact recruitment and retention across our Armed Forces. Can the noble Earl tell your Lordships’ House how it has come to this and what he is going to do about this seemingly pervasive toxic culture?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very serious point. I have addressed it on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box and continue to give the commitment that all the forces are absolutely determined to drive out any unacceptable sexual behaviour. There is nothing that goes on in the MoD now that does not address it. The question of zero tolerance has been brought back into focus and no fewer than four measures have been taken to address this.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this shows serious failure of command and leadership at both operational and command level? Is he satisfied that this matter was dealt with at a fast enough pace? It seems that the first complaints were made a very long time before anything happened. I would be grateful if my noble friend could look into that.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes a couple of very good points. On the timelines, because one inquiry led into the next, it was very important that the thoroughness was followed the whole way through. The casework that fell out of the NSI, which then flowed into the chain of command investigation, and the casework and investigations required to follow that, made it appear a relatively slow process. In fact, it was not; it was going at quite a pace. There is an acceptance that there was poor leadership. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but all those responsible have been subject to appropriate action.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, when the inquiry reports were published in November, the air chief marshal said that it was vital to challenge unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour and to
“stop, challenge, educate, and if necessary, report situations”.
What training is there for all military and MoD personnel to understand how to intervene and, in the words of the report, to stop this “bystander culture”?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Those were some extremely good points from the noble Baroness. There is now training regarding endemic and unacceptable behaviour, which also addresses active bystanding. In this case, there is training regarding alcohol as well. A number of administrative sanctions are being put in place. Specifically in the RAF, another 55 positions on the personal support and HR side have been created to ensure that this is stopped.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 45 years ago, I did the study into whether women should serve at sea in the Royal Navy. I said that they should, and I think it has worked very well, although a lot of people were against it at the time. When I did the study, we had 55 destroyers and frigates. We now have 16. Does the Minister feel that that is too few?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Yes, I think it is too few; I think everybody knows that. But however many frigates and destroyers we have, the unacceptable behaviour must finish.
Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Financial Services Act 2021 (Overseas Funds Regime and Recognition of Parts of Schemes) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2024
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 and 11 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 29th January 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 January 2024 - (17 Jan 2024)
21:33 - Division on Lord German’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 206 - Lord German’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by craving the indulgence of the Lord Speaker in your Lordships’ House. I had temporarily stepped outside to collect another piece of paper. With your Lordships’ indulgence I shall now begin to open, and beg that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am speaking to the House today as a member of the Government for the Bill, not in my formal law officer capacity, and my contributions and responses will reflect this.
The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection to those who are most in need, through our provision of safe and legal routes. Since 2015, we have offered over half a million people safe and legal routes into the United Kingdom through our Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong routes. This includes over 28,700 refugees, including over 14,000 children, via our formal refugee resettlement schemes. These established resettlement schemes play a key role in the global response to—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord when he has just got going, but I just wanted him to clarify his opening remarks. Is he saying that he is speaking to this House as a general government Minister and not in his capacity as a law officer—or did I mishear him?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord heard me correctly. I remind the House of the convention that relates to law officers, whereby we do not divulge whether our opinion has been sought or the content of that opinion. It was in order to clarify my position—that I was not trespassing on that convention—that I spoke. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
I was discussing the refugee resettlement schemes that this country has in place. These established resettlement schemes play a key role in the global response to humanitarian crises, saving lives and offering stability to those most in need of protection. However, our willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution must be tied to our capacity to do so, and critical to this is tackling illegal migration. There is nothing generous about allowing the status quo to continue; that would serve only the deplorable people smugglers who facilitate these dangerous crossings. It would only put more lives at risk and continue to strain our communities and public services.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, it is this Government’s priority to stop the boats, and I welcome the fact that this is a shared objective across your Lordships’ House. The Government are making good progress in stopping the boats. Last year, in 2023, small boat arrivals to the United Kingdom fell by around one-third, with Albanian arrivals down by over 90%, while we saw illegal entry rise elsewhere in Europe.
We have ramped up efforts to prevent crossings and disrupt the smugglers, with particular success stemming from increased collaboration with the French authorities. Our joint work with France prevented over 26,000 individual crossings by small boat to the United Kingdom. Since July 2020, the joint intelligence cell and French law enforcement partners have dismantled 82 criminal gangs responsible for people smuggling of migrants via small boat crossings. As of September 2023, immigration enforcement visits were up 68% compared with the same period in 2022. Last year, the Home Office arrested 92 individuals identified as small boat pilots and 253 people smugglers. In addition, during financial year 2022-23, the National Crime Agency conducted what is believed to be the biggest ever international operation targeting criminal networks suspected of using small boats to smuggle thousands to the United Kingdom. The operation saw the seizure of 135 boats and 45 outboard engines.
However, the increase in crossings in recent years means that around 51,000 otherwise destitute migrants are currently being accommodated in hotels, costing the taxpayer in excess of £8 million per day. The small boats problem is part of a global migration crisis. It is a challenge that most of us accept has no single solution, but this Government remain resolute in our commitment to preventing the misuse and evasion of our systems by illegal migrants, stopping these dangerous crossings and addressing the concerns of the British people. Operationalising the Rwanda scheme is a key part of the Government’s efforts to deliver this mission—a partnership which has always been part of the wider programme of work to deal with one of the most significant challenges of our time. It is only by fully implementing the migration and economic development partnership that we will create the strong deterrent necessary to stop these dangerous crossings and break the business model of the criminal gangs. Doing nothing is not an option.
The Supreme Court’s judgment on 15 November 2023 concluded that deficiencies in the Government of Rwanda’s arrangements for determining asylum claims could lead to risks of refoulement. But their Lordships also recognised, explicitly and in terms, that those deficiencies could be addressed in future. In response, the Home Secretary signed a new internationally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda which responds to the concerns raised and resolves those issues.
The Government also introduced this Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which buttresses the treaty, confirming that the Government of the Republic of Rwanda will fulfil their obligations under the treaty and supporting the relocation of a person to Rwanda under the Immigration Acts. The Bill is limited solely to the issue of the safety of Rwanda and relocations to that country and makes it clear that, with the new treaty, Rwanda is a safe country.
The Bill also makes it clear that Parliament is sovereign and that its Acts are valid notwithstanding any interpretation of international law. Let me make clear that the Bill does not “legislate away” our international obligations, nor does it seek to overrule or contradict the view of the Supreme Court. Its purpose is to say that, on the basis of the treaty and the evidence before it, Parliament believes those obligations to have been met and the concerns raised by the court dealt with, not that the Government do not care whether they have been or not.
The Bill creates a conclusive presumption that the Secretary of State, immigration officers and courts and tribunals must make decisions about relocation to Rwanda and review any such decisions on the basis that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of asylum and, in particular, will not send someone on to another country—the practice of refoulement, to which I referred earlier—in breach of the refugee convention.
The Supreme Court’s conclusions were based on the evidence submitted prior to the High Court hearing in September 2022 and did not—indeed, could not—consider subsequent work and efforts by and with the Government of Rwanda to strengthen the readiness of Rwanda to receive and support individuals relocated under the partnership.
Crucially, this has included work to bolster Rwanda’s asylum system in terms of both decision-making and processing by: delivering new operational training to asylum decision-makers; establishing clear standard operating procedures which capture new processes, and guidance in the asylum system on reception and accommodation arrangements, the safeguarding of vulnerable persons and access to healthcare; strengthening the Republic of Rwanda’s asylum system and appeals body; and strengthening procedural oversight of the migration and economic development partnership. When considered together with the legally binding provisions in the treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, this means that Parliament can conclude with confidence that Rwanda is a safe country.
Clause 2 also contains a clear notwithstanding clause, requiring courts to honour the previous clauses notwithstanding all relevant domestic law, the Human Rights Act to the extent disapplied by the Bill, and any interpretation of international law reached by the court or tribunal.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically, and to fulfilling our international obligations. We will always ensure that our laws continue to be fit for purpose and work for the people of the United Kingdom.
We recognise that some of the provisions in the Bill are novel. However, the Government are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with both our domestic law and international obligations.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he tell us his Government’s reflections on the debate on the International Agreements Committee report in your Lordships’ House last week? Will also tell us, clearly, whether the Government intend to send anyone to Rwanda under the Bill before all those concerns are met?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. On whether I deal with it in this part of the speech or it is left to the end, I will consult with colleagues.
As I was saying, the provisions in the Bill will ultimately allow us to deter people from taking unsafe and illegal routes into the country.
It is also clear to us all that people will seek to frustrate their removal through any means and, to prevent people from making claims to prevent their removal, the Bill disapplies elements of the Human Rights Act 1998. It disapplies Section 2 in relation to any systemic challenges to Parliament’s settled view that Rwanda is safe, Section 3 in relation to the whole Bill, and Sections 6 to 9 where the courts and others are considering whether Rwanda is safe and where the test that must be met before removal is whether it will result in serious and irreversible harm. In the context of the Bill, which deems Rwanda a safe country, this will ensure that people cannot frustrate removal by bringing systemic challenges in our domestic courts and, when considering any question relating to the safety of Republic of Rwanda, domestic courts and tribunals are not required to have regard to Strasbourg jurisprudence. It makes it clear that the courts and tribunals should defer to Parliament’s sovereign view that Rwanda is a safe country, as defined.
The Bill allows individuals to bring challenges against removal to Rwanda in exceptionally narrow circumstances, where there is compelling evidence relating specifically to their particular individual circumstances. The basis on which an individual may bring such a challenge is if they can demonstrate that there is a real and imminent risk that they would face serious or irreversible harm related to their particular individual circumstances if they were relocated. If people try to abuse this route by making claims without clear or compelling evidence, or in regard to general claims that they would be unsafe in Rwanda, their claim will be dismissed by the Home Office and they will be relocated from the UK before they can challenge that removal.
It is possible, but not necessarily likely, that those subject to removal may be subject to injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill is clear that it is only for a Minister of the Crown to determine whether to comply with an interim measure of the Strasbourg court. It also makes it clear that domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measure when considering any domestic application flowing from a decision to relocate a person to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty.
The terms of the treaty that we have negotiated with Rwanda address the findings of the United Kingdom domestic courts and make specific provision for the treatment of relocated individuals, guaranteeing their safety and protection. The rule of law partnership that we have signed with Rwanda is a partnership to which both we and Rwanda are completely committed. The Bill, along with the treaty, puts beyond legal doubt the safety of Rwanda. We want to make sure that this legislation works. It is essential that we act now and do whatever it takes to stop people being manipulated into making dangerous crossings of the channel. Illegal migration is one of the most significant challenges of our time and the Government are acting in the national interest. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is the third time in as many years that the Government have asked this House to consider legislation to stop boat journeys and to reform the asylum system—our third year of being presented with increasingly rushed, unworkable and inhumane solutions to the problem of small boats and asylum. There is a very real problem that needs fixing, but this Bill, like its predecessors, will not do so. The Opposition do not support the Bill or the schemes that underpin it. The record of votes cast at Second Reading in this place and Third Reading in the other place will attest to this.
However, the Bill completed all its stages in the House of Commons. Our role is not to undermine the will of the elected House, but nor is it to rush through legislation without due consideration. We must treat this Bill in the usual manner. We must scrutinise the details of these proposals and advise changes where we think the Government have got it wrong. We should not deny ourselves the opportunity to do so or our neighbours the chance to consider our work. In this spirit, we will not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German.
The Bill, as it stands, threatens the UK’s compliance with international law. I know that this point will be spoken on at length in further stages, so I will not dwell on it for too long here, and nor will I speak for very long on what the Bill demands of our domestic courts. When introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State claimed that
“the UK is a country that demonstrates to the whole world the importance of international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/23; col. 748.]
Is this the message that the Bill sends to the world about the UK’s respect for international law? How will the decisions we make now be cited in future when other countries are asked to follow international law or to respect human rights? Is this the contribution we want to make?
What does the Bill say about our respect for our own courts? If the treaty fails, if refoulement happens, if there is a coup or if asylum seekers are shot at or killed, the Government say that British courts cannot consider those facts.
It is a large price to pay for what is ultimately a hugely limited scheme. The Government have stated that the Rwanda Government have made an initial provision to receive a few hundred people. To put this figure in context I say that, over the first nine months of 2023, 63,000 people claimed asylum. Therefore, this Bill and this plan, even if they somehow worked out in exactly the way the Government hope, would relocate only a small proportion of asylum cases. Can the Government confirm whether Rwanda can still receive only a “few hundred people”? Can they outline what is to happen to everyone else?
Given that the Illegal Migration Act—a majority of which has not yet been brought into force—rests on the use of third countries rather than returns to countries of origin, are we right to question what will happen to the 99% of people who will not be sent to Rwanda?
We still do not know the full cost of this scheme. The Government have been reluctant at every stage to divulge the cost of this flagship policy. In December, the Secretary of State appeared to indicate that around £400 million will have been sent to the Rwandan Government by 2027. Can the Minister confirm this figure? It is an extraordinary sum of money, but not the whole picture. According to the treaty, there are additional per-person costs of the scheme.
The economic impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Act was published only after considerable pressure from noble Lords from across this House. In this document, the Home Office was prepared to tell us that the average imagined cost of sending an asylum seeker to a third country would be £169,000. However, the details of the treaty suggest that these costs may be higher for sending someone to Rwanda. Before we begin to fully debate the details of this legislation and its role in the implementation of the Rwanda plan, will the Minister be clear about how much this plan is actually going to cost?
This Bill, whatever its impact, will not address the state that our asylum system is currently in. The UK deserves a managed asylum system that upholds strong border security and that can process claims fairly, accurately and quickly—a system that can return those with no claim to stay and help those who rightfully seek sanctuary. That is not our current asylum system. We have a backlog of 100,000 asylum claims waiting for a decision, 40,000 people who have yet to be removed from the UK, and up to 17,000 people whom the Government cannot account for.
The pace of decision-making is improving, but the backlog that has been permitted to develop will take time to fully clear and more work is needed. Nor will the Bill help us to negotiate returns agreements. Threats to our compliance with international law undermine our ability to establish returns agreements with other countries. Far from helping us, the Bill may greatly harm our ability to reform our asylum system.
The Government have repeatedly said that they are motivated by a desire to see the end of criminal smuggler gangs and to prevent boat crossings in the first place, yet this is now the third Bill that seeks to end small boat crossings without any measures to directly target the gang activity behind them. In fact, the latest police workforce statistics show a fall in the number of National Crime Agency officers, the law enforcement body responsible for fighting back against smuggling gangs. Between March and September 2023, their numbers fell by 343 personnel. Four hundred million pounds is just under half of the total budget this year for the NCA. Would the Government’s money not be better spent increasing the size of operations fighting against human traffickers, working with our European counterparts and going after the supply chains?
This Bill, and the deal behind it, will do nothing to stop boats coming to our shores. The Government’s plan hinges on the idea that the Rwanda scheme presents a deterrent effect, without presenting any evidence that this will be the case.
It is certainly difficult to imagine what deterrent effect a 1% or 2% chance of being sent to Rwanda would have. It is even more difficult to imagine why this would stop criminal traffickers; nor would the Bill present those fleeing conflict and persecution with safe alternatives to channel crossings. Last summer, the Government committed to publishing a report detailing existing and proposed additional safe and legal routes. A report has arrived, but it contains no proposals for creating safe routes for those seeking asylum. Can we assume, then, that the Government’s additional pledge to implement any proposed new routes by the end of this year is to be broken too? This was an issue raised repeatedly in both Houses during the passage of the then Illegal Migration Bill, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the request seriously.
If we are to truly address the challenge of migration, we must accept that we cannot do so alone. The Government are acting as though the challenges here are not related to those in other countries, particularly those of our European friends. The UK lacks the leadership needed to succeed in a world now marked by increasing conflict, the climate emergency, and the erosion of law and order, all of which fuel migration. We need an approach that restores the aid budgets, puts a renewed focus on conflict mitigation and resolution, and seeks international agreements and co-operation—an approach that is workable, strategic, humane and rooted in the conventions that we have signed.
I will conclude shortly, but I want to mention that one colleague—my noble friend Lord Dubs—is unable to join us today. He is in Berlin taking part in events to mark the anniversary of the Kindertransport, which began in late 1938. In June, it will be 85 years since he arrived in Britain, having been put on a train by his mother in Prague. Although we miss his contribution today, we can be reminded of what and whom we gain when we play our part in helping those who flee conflict and persecution, and we look forward to his return.
I hope the House will not be deterred from changing the Bill where it sees fit: it certainly needs our help. I hope too that the Government, rather than trying to communicate through press conference, engage with this House in good faith and through more conventional channels. We are faced with a deeply broken system and layers of bad legislation, which have only made things worse. I hope that the Government rethink this Bill, this plan and this approach to migration, but I fear we will be left without the change we need until we change the Government.
Lord German
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the bill a second reading because it
(1) places the United Kingdom at risk of breaching its international law commitments;
(2) undermines the rule of law by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts;
(3) will lead to substantial costs to the taxpayer;
(4) fails to provide safe and legal routes for refugees; and
(5) fails to include measures to tackle people smuggling gangs.”
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I direct the House’s attention to my interests as laid out in the register.
The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, which this Bill is seeking to affect, is completely contrary to how we should act as a country with a reputation for protecting individuals’ rights and freedoms, where the rule of law is upheld. I do not need to repeat the key points of last week’s debate on the Rwanda treaty, but the decision of this House is significant in respect of the Bill. This House resolved that it could not ratify the treaty that the Government are using to declare that Rwanda is safe. The House determined that the safeguards and protections outlined in the treaty must be fully implemented. Moreover, the House agreed that future assurances of changes in the processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda were not sufficient: the changes needed to be fully operational and effective.
Significantly, the treaty is the instrument by which the Government declare that they can state in this Bill that Rwanda is safe. Clause 1(2)(b) is clear:
“this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.
However, this House of Parliament has not determined that this is the case. The treaty is the platform on which the Bill sits. If this platform is not in place, the Bill sinks. The legs have come off the table, or, to put it another way, the Bill’s foundations have been removed. It was the settled will of this House last week that the treaty cannot yet be ratified. How, therefore, can this House consent to a Bill that relies on that treaty having the approval of this House?
This is critical, because the decision of the Supreme Court was based on its analysis of the facts. The contrary case put forward by the Government in the Bill has not been supported by this House. The Bill before us requires Parliament—which of course includes this House—to agree that, in our judgment, as a House, Rwanda is safe. This House, in this respect, needs to be consistent with itself, and with the decision it took last week.
The Bill places the UK at risk of breaching our commitments under international law. We as a country have signed up to comply with the obligations of international treaties and conventions. Having done that, we need to demonstrate that, as a country, we can be relied upon to uphold international treaties, and that we promote a rules-based international order—because if we do not then we cannot expect others to comply, and are in no position to call out other countries when they fail to comply with international law.
The West is often accused of double standards, and under this legislation this accusation will only increase. Our global leadership and our ability to have a serious voice on the world stage will be severely damaged. We will no longer be a country whose voice is respected and listened to. We simply cannot rely on our historical traditions when our current actions are going in the opposite direction. Global responsibility-sharing is the foundation of the 1951 refugee convention; it relies on us all doing our part. The Government say that this plan is a “partnership” and “burden-sharing”, but, frankly, it is offloading—offloading the most vulnerable people on our planet and offloading our responsibilities under international agreements we are signed up to.
If the Bill is enacted, we will be legislating contrary to our international legal obligations. Our domestic law would be out of step with these obligations. Some might say that is acceptable but I do not believe that is the case; I think this House will stand up for the object and the purpose of these international instruments to which we are signed up. Our courts would have their hands tied by this legislation. There is a strong possibility, particularly without pre-existing safeguards being proved operational and effective in Rwanda, that this would lead to refoulement and breaches of Article 2 and Article 3 rights. That is why it is critical for the steps set out in the treaty to be seen to be working before the Bill can have any effect.
The Bill introduces the option for Ministers to refuse to comply with a Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Ignoring an injunction would be a clear breach of international law, as the president of the court declared last week, and this view is strengthened by the Rule 39 reforms which the court itself has introduced.
Domestically, the Bill undermines the rule of law and, further, ousts the jurisdiction of our courts. The rule of law is a central tenet of our society, expressed by AV Dicey, well-known to all lawyers, who wrote,
“we speak of the ‘rule of law’ as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here, every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals”.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will elaborate on this in his contribution.
The Bill seeks to exclude a group of people from accessing the legal protections we grant to everyone else in our society. It is critical in a democratic society that the law is applied equally and that human rights apply to everyone, not just some in our society. The Government’s Bill prevents the right to access redress, which is afforded to the rest of us.
Further, the Bill is an abuse of Parliament’s role in reversing the Supreme Court’s factual assessment of risk of harm in Rwanda. If the Government believe they have new evidence to show that Rwanda is safe, surely the correct procedure to follow is to let the courts decide it and consider the evidence and come to a judgment. That is the proper way to go. If Rwanda was indeed safe, there would be no need to have the option to ignore interim injunctions from the ECHR or disapply elements of the Human Rights Act. This Bill represents an overreach of Parliament, and it is critical that we retain the balance in our democracy achieved by the separation of powers.
Despite all this, the Bill will not actually achieve its stated aim, and it certainly does not represent good value to the taxpayer—£368 million at the last count, added to which at least £169,000 for each person removed to Rwanda. These are staggering, eyewatering costs, which could pay for 100 million free school meals or nearly 6 million more GP appointments.
Far from being a deterrent, the Bill will promote smuggling—a point which my noble friend Lady Northover will develop in her remarks. It does not address real solutions to prevent people using criminal gangs to take dangerous journeys to the UK. The focus on deterrence is misplaced. Two-thirds of all those who have crossed the channel since the Illegal Migration Act was passed came from six high-grant countries. The push factor for these people is far stronger than any deterrent the UK may dream up. We need safe alternatives to dangerous journeys, and this must be part of the strategy to reduce dangerous crossings. Swift, efficient, accurate and just determination of asylum claims and humane removal of those who do not qualify will be a deterrent in itself to people without a protection claim.
We also need constructive engagement with European neighbours on co-operation on asylum. Addressing the root causes of displacement and onward movement is critical, and a strong international aid and development budget is key to that. Instead, we are presented with a political totem of the Tory right—a device to satisfy its internal party politics and a Bill from which there is no going back. If Rwanda is found to be unsafe then this Bill will act as a block to putting matters right. This legislation was not in the Government’s manifesto; the Addison/Salisbury convention does not apply. I maintain that this is one of the rare occasions—which have been used by both Conservative and Labour parties in this House, and which was foreseen by a report of the Constitution Committee—when this House should vote against a Bill at Second Reading. It is within our powers as described in the Companion.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for giving way. Does he agree that the function of this House, the second Chamber, is as a revising Chamber? It is not a vetoing Chamber; it is a revising Chamber. Can he explain to me the Liberal Democrat’s novel constitutional thinking that, by throwing out this Bill on Second Reading, we should prevent the revising Chamber revising?
Lord German (LD)
The noble Lord is wrong. I think in 2011 he voted against the Health and Social Care Bill at Second Reading, as had happened before, in earlier versions, by Members of the Conservative Party. If our laws and the rules of this House say we can do it then we can do it, and it has been done by both sides here.
I maintain that this Chamber should listen to the real power in what people will be saying this afternoon about the nature of this Bill. It asks us to believe that black is white—that facts are not facts. It breaches conventions and treaties to which we are signed up. It damages our credibility on the world stage and the agreements that we have with other countries. It seeks to damage our relationships with things that we have already signed up to, including the European convention on trafficking, the CTA with the European Union, the United Nations, the ECHR and many more. It damages the separation of powers in this country, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. It offends against the rule of law. Fundamentally, it treats some of the most vulnerable people in the world—people who are facing persecution and torture and fleeing for their lives—as undesirables. For us on these Benches, that is unconscionable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a three-legged stool. Each of the legs—the judiciary, the Government and Parliament—waxes and wanes a bit in its thickness as power shifts in small ways, a subject of much work and comment by my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Judge. However, each leg is required to operate independently to ensure that balance at the core of our democracy. It would not do for one of the legs to instruct another on how to operate or how to look at a particular issue. By way of example, it would be quite wrong if the House of Lords sought to instruct the judiciary on whether to hear a particular case.
I hope that the Prime Minister, sitting atop, as he does, the government leg of the stool, will reflect on those simple thoughts as he thinks back to his words of 18 January at the Downing Street press conference, concerning our role and this Bill. The duties of this House are inextricably linked with a series of conventions by which we, an unelected Chamber, cohabit with our elected neighbour. Among these conventions, the Salisbury/Addison convention is especially pertinent today and to the Bill in general. It has a number of parts but, simplifying matters for reasons of time, one is that a government Bill with manifesto characteristics will be given a Second Reading in this House. One can see that the convention has a number of people concerned about it and, as your Lordships know, I am currently preparing a series of papers on this convention. For my part, I feel that the convention is engaged here. Accordingly, I will not be supporting the amendment to the Second Reading Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord German.
The convention also has elements concerning the speed with which this House will consider things. The House is already assisting the speed of consideration of this Bill. We have changed our business around and freed up today for Second Reading. Three days have been set aside for Committee, which, given the likely number of amendments that will be tabled, will work only if the House sits late—to at least midnight on probably two of those three days. However, I am sure that on those days, and nights, the Benches will be full and the quality of the debate will remain high, with our natural respectful tone. I expect that this House will send back various matters to the other place for its consideration—for it to think again—as is our role. I imagine that we will then enter a ping-pong phase.
Conventions will apply if agreement cannot be reached, but the elected House, at the end of the full due process, has the right to pass law, whether that be good law or bad law. In the meantime, this House will engage in our full processes, uncowed by any creaks and groans in the other legs of the stool.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, in almost every tradition of global faith and humanism around the world, the dignity of the individual is at the heart of what is believed. In the Christian tradition, we are told to welcome the stranger. Jesus said:
“I was a stranger and you invited me in”.
In numerous places in the Old Testament and the New, the commands of God are to care for the alien and stranger. It has already been said, and I agree, that the way that this Bill and its cousin, which we debated in the summer, work is by obscuring the truth that all people, asylum seekers included, are of great value. We can, as a nation, do better than this Bill.
With the Bill, the Government are continuing to seek good objectives in the wrong way, leading the nation down a damaging path. It is damaging for asylum seekers in need of protection and safe and legal routes to be heard. It is damaging for this country’s reputation, which the Government contradicted even as late as last week, when the Prime Minister himself spoke eloquently on the value and importance of international law for this country. It is damaging in respect of constitutional principles and the rule of law.
Most of all, it is damaging for our nation’s unity in a time when the greatest issues of war, peace, defence and security need us to be united. We are united on, I think, almost all Benches, in agreeing that the boats must be stopped. The Government are to be congratulated that the number has come down. We also agree that the people smugglers who trade in human misery must be brought to justice, and it is good news that so many of those groups have been broken up. We need to be united on effective controls on agreed limits to immigration. The right way forward, though, is to enable the unity on ends to be translated into a unity on means. That is not happening in the way that these Bills are successively brought to the House and before the country.
The challenge of migration is, as has been said, long-term and global. So must our response be. We need a wider strategy for refugee policy—I spoke on this at boring length in the summer and will not repeat it—that involves international co-operation and equips us for the far greater migration flows, perhaps 10 times greater, in the coming decades, as a result of conflict, climate change and poverty. Instead, the Bill offers only ad hoc, one-off approaches.
Rwanda is a country that I know well. It is a wonderful country, and my complaint is not with it, nor its people. It has overcome challenges that this House cannot begin to imagine. But, wherever it does it to, the Bill continues to outsource our legal and moral responsibilities to refugees and asylum seekers—when other, far poorer, countries are already supporting multitudes more than we are now—and to cut back on our aid. At the end of 2022, 76% of refugees globally were being hosted in low- and middle-income countries—countries far poorer than our own. The UK should lead internationally, as it has in the past, not stand apart.
Others on these Benches will say more about international and domestic law, human rights and the constitutional impact. I say simply that a pick-and-choose approach to international law undermines our global standing and offends against the principle of universality that is their increasingly threatened foundation.
Finally, my colleagues and I on these Benches take our revising role seriously. When we vote, we seek to improve something. I will—sadly—not be voting with those who want to vote the Bill down today, although I found the speech by the noble Lord, Lord German, convincing and powerful. We must wait until Third Reading and we have done our revising work. We on these Benches have been criticised many times over many decades by those thinking that defence of the Government of the day should be our highest virtue and aspiration. We were accused last week of voting against the Government’s Whip. I am sorry to say we do not take the Government’s Whip. It may be worse news for this House to recognise that on the Labour Benches it is not 95% of times that there has been a vote against the Government’s Whip—that is a false statistic—but 100%. Maybe they should be criticised for that obnoxious behaviour.
We serve on these Benches as independent Members. As recently as last Thursday, we were discussing what had happened in a particular vote and saw that we had cancelled each other out—bishops often cancel each other out in every possible way. We vote because we value deeply the traditions of this country and this House, and the truth we derive from the Bible and our service to Jesus Christ—our first priority. To misquote Luther, slightly: on that we stand. We can do no other.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this Chamber has had to consider many complex and challenging Bills, as has already been observed. This Bill is in that category. Legal experts and experienced hands in the realm of international affairs in your Lordships’ House will have their views—we have already heard some of them—but I look at this issue through a different prism: one based on pragmatism, not party-political tribalism and certainly not ideology.
The exploitation of vulnerable, frightened people by repugnant criminal gangs and extortionists is unacceptable and must be stopped. Watching and listening to the harrowing accounts of overturned boats and drownings in the channel demands that action be taken. There is little dignity in any of that for these poor souls.
What I have gleaned is that, across the gamut of opinions about these perilous channel crossings, one inescapable conclusion is drawn: something must be done. The most reverend Primate referred to that. Paradoxically, with the exception of the Government’s proposals, I have seen no other credible, deliverable solution advanced—and I am afraid to say that, so far in this debate, that lacuna remains. So I have been prompted to speak in this debate in support of the Government not because I consider this measure excellent but because I think it is the only thing to do. I therefore do not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German.
Why are the criminal gangs able to extort money from these vulnerable victims? Regrettably and tragically, it is because their victims, desperate to reach the UK, feel that any risk—even the risk of drowning in the channel—is worth taking, and the gangs ruthlessly exploit that desperation. The gangs could not care less about the safety of the migrants; all they care about is money. So we have to cut off that money supply, which will happen only if migrants seeking to come here illegally realise that they will not be able to stay here. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the examples of Australia and Albania indicate that that approach works.
Recent measures to reduce the flow, which have been referred to, can only ever be a mitigation. The Government are obliged to find a solution, and I believe that this Bill and the accompanying treaty provide it. This solution is not perfect, but I do not believe that a perfect solution exists. Those who believe it does have yet to produce it. I am clear that pragmatism has to usurp perfection. We have to act.
I am in no doubt that the Bill and the treaty place onerous obligations on the Government. I do not agree that the treaty should be delayed for reports to Parliament on how the arrangements are unfolding. We shall know how the treaty and the Bill are working only once the arrangements are being delivered in practice. There is no other way to make a meaningful assessment.
There are explicit safeguards in the treaty and in the Bill, but these require the UK Government to know in detail who has been sent to Rwanda, where they are, what is happening to them, the outcome of the individual’s application, and of course continuing engagement with the Rwandan Government. Without that information, the United Kingdom Government will not be in a position to assess whether these safeguards are being met. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me on these points?
I am clear that parliamentary sovereignty is a uniquely precious attribute. It is fundamental to a nation’s democratic freedoms that, when a grave and extraordinary situation confronts that nation, the Government must be able to act, and act untrammelled. I am sure that it was never intended that the laudable arrangements entered into long ago by different nations would, as clamant challenges emerged, render those nations powerless to deal with them. That would be perverse. Mainland European countries are now wrestling with such challenges. That is why I believe that Clause 2 and the other provisions in the Bill are justified and necessary.
I will make two final points to my noble friend the Minister. In Scotland, we have a worrying skills deficit, incapable of supplement from the indigenous population. Are we clear that, where such deficits exist, we are realistic about the need to meet them, including from immigrant applicants?
In relation to asylum seekers, in my own community many volunteers have supported asylum seekers with language education, provision of clothes and including them in social activity, such as attending my own local church and church events. There now seems to be a Home Office instruction to disperse asylum seekers, separating them from that human contact and support. Is that a sensible approach? Can my noble friend the Minister offer me any reassurance on that point?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, for whom I have great respect, but telling asylum seekers to “suck it and see”—to find themselves in Rwanda and, if we have made a mistake, we might be able to do something about it—is frankly ridiculous.
The Minister clearly has a terrific job in reading out something he did not agree with. When he mentioned resettlement routes, which used to exist, the resettlement was from other dangerous parts of the world to the UK, not from the UK to other countries. This afternoon, in the brief time available, I will address that issue, because others have addressed and will address the questions of convention rights, morality, the reputation of this country and the clash between the different parts of our constitution. I happen to take a Jonathan Sumption view of the balance between Parliament and the courts.
One thing is absolutely clear in the Nationality and Borders Act, in the Illegal Migration Act, and now in this so-called Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill—this is nothing to do with finding solutions. It is everything to do with virtue signalling, with “virtue” in quotes, to a particular part of the electorate and finding scapegoats for government failure. The scapegoats are, of course, the Opposition, the courts themselves and this House.
This House cannot fall into elephant traps by allowing the Government to say that, if only they had been able to process this Bill, they would have shown the British people that this worked, but because this House declined to give a Second Reading, they were not able to. It is a very silly and old elephant trap, and anyone who falls into it needs to take a degree in politics.
I will say this about the issues before us today. It seems that Tory Members of the House of Commons did not understand the issue of the one-way ticket to Rwanda. You can understand the electorate not understanding something that we have never done before. In fact, we have said the opposite—time and again, the Government have said that asylum seekers should have chosen to claim asylum in the last country they were in. This is the last country they will have been in when they are sent to Rwanda and refused by the Illegal Migration Bill the right to claim—only to claim in Rwanda. In his wind-up, will the Minister say what they will be claiming—will they be claiming asylum in Rwanda? What happens if they choose not to claim asylum in Rwanda, having chosen to claim asylum in the United Kingdom under their convention rights? If they do not claim asylum, will they be at risk?
The UK judiciary are in massively short supply, by the way. I met a barrister this weekend who is defending an individual four years on from the alleged crime. Our judiciary, courts and criminal justice system are in meltdown, and we are going to send people over there to try to ensure that this is safe. When someone has their asylum claim processed and is duly accorded refugee status, why are they not allowed to come back to the United Kingdom?
If Giorgia Meloni, who is addressing African leaders today, can say that her offshoring proposals would allow return to Italy, Lord help us: the Brothers of Italy can do it, but our Tory Government in 2024 cannot. What sort of country are we? If they cannot return, then all the risks being debated on this Bill kick in, including what happens to the most vulnerable when they do not get proper treatment and support after their claim has been approved.
When their claim is approved and they are allowed to settle in Rwanda, what would stop them, in time, being able to come to the United Kingdom? Surely, they would have travel rights, or are they imprisoned in Rwanda? These are questions that I hope will be addressed at the end of this debate; but let us make no mistake, we are not dealing here with practical issues.
Yes, the Albanian agreement was a success, quite rightly; it is entirely responsible for the drop in numbers. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the threat to asylum seekers—it is not a threat to traffickers—is not the reason that we have had the drop so far. What will achieve that drop is Britain getting its act together: securing the borders, ensuring the processing and, yes, reaching further agreements with the French. What will not do it is the safety of Rwanda Bill, which is shoddy and less than this country deserves.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I greatly admire the noble Lord, Lord German, but I cannot support his amendment. I dislike the Bill as much as he does. I explained at length in last week’s debate why I dislike it. In the time available today, I just want to add two points.
First, on sequencing, I was struck as a member of the International Agreements Committee by Rwanda’s rejection rate for asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Syria. It is 100%. Rwanda has always rejected them all, out of hand. That was one of the reasons why the IAC recommended, and the House last week resolved, that the new treaty should not be ratified until the reforms prescribed in the treaty have been implemented.
The Government clearly accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling that, without those reforms, their Rwanda scheme would be unsafe. The House agreed, adding that fine words would not be enough; what mattered would be implementation. Until the new systems are up and running, and none of them yet are, Rwanda cannot be deemed safe for those the Government want to send there. Yet that is precisely what Clause 2 of the Bill does. We are asked to deem Rwanda already safe now, today; and we are asked to require everyone—individuals and courts—from the moment the Bill becomes law, to treat Rwanda as safe.
This is Lewis Carroll country. In Alice, the Queen believes six impossible things before breakfast. To make sense of the nonsense, we have to get the sequencing right. It has to be: first, implementation, when Rwanda reforms; secondly, ratification, when Parliament is satisfied that Rwanda has reformed; and third, legislation—a Bill, maybe this Bill, when all are clear that Clause 2, on the determination of safety, is based on real facts and not Trumpian “alternative facts”. If the Government insist on reversing the right sequence, they must surely consider amending Clause 9 to introduce appropriate commencement conditionality, so that our Looking Glass world aligns with reality.
My other point concerns deterrence. Clause 1 of the Bill says that its purpose is to
“prevent and deter unlawful migration”,
and the Government make much play with the deterrent effect. I cannot see it. The Home Office Permanent Secretary could not see it either, or at least he could not quantify it and so justify the Rwanda scheme as providing value for money, just as the lawyers will not let the Home Secretary claim that it is compatible with convention rights.
Those seeking asylum here are fleeing from war, torture, famine and persecution. In the year to last September, 93,000 applied, with 46,000 having arrived on small boats. Much the largest groups came from Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan and Syria. Of those in these groups whose cases were considered—there is still a backlog of 165,000, 75% of whom wait for more than six months—the large majority were granted refugee status, over 99% in the case of Afghans and Syrians.
Our rejection rate verges on zero, while the Rwanda rate is 100%. It is hardly surprising that it verges on zero, as we knew all about the Taliban and the ayatollahs, the atrocities and the bombing. It is absurd to suggest that those people would not have tried to come here, risking the Channel passage, if they had heard about our Rwanda scheme. If you are an Afghan, now in Pakistan and at risk of being sent back, you have already faced far greater dangers than the Channel. Crossing the Mediterranean kills many more than the Channel. If you have made it to Calais, and 9,000 Afghans did last year, would you turn round and go home if we passed this Bill? Of course, you would not.
Let us suppose the Government had been able to send 200 people to Rwanda last year, as they hoped. That is 200 out of 46,000 people who arrived on small boats, so it is less than a 0.5% risk of Rwanda. If you had heard about it in Calais, it certainly would not have deterred you. Of course, there would be some deterrent effect if the Rwanda system stays unreformed, maintaining its 100% rejection rate, but the reforms, if they are implemented, will eliminate that. Any vestigial deterrence disappears as Rwanda reforms; the policy eats the policy. It is a Goya; Saturn is devouring his children.
I profoundly believe that the deterrence argument just does not stack up. The Rwanda scheme will not break the smugglers’ business model. What would put them out of business, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, is new, safe and legal routes, but there are none in the Government’s Section 61 report, despite what we were led to expect. Like the Italians in Albania, we could try offshore processing but instead of offshoring, we are offloading, with a treaty that offloads responsibility in defiance of convention commitments and a Bill to create “alternative facts” in Africa. Next step, shall we legislate the sky green and the grass blue?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, with Rwanda, rather like that venerated old Irishman, I would not have started from this point either. But we do, and so many countries are struggling: Germany, France, Greece, little Malta and even the muscular Turks, who have 3.5 million refugees massed on their southern border. The challenge is felt around the world, not just here.
I wish that we could have realised some years ago the world’s new direction of travel and accepted that the international conventions on human rights and refugees were created for a very different era before jumbo jets, before the criminal gangs and modern slavers, and before the scourge of mutant lawyers whose objective is not to uphold the law but to evade it. I wish we had reached out to others and tried to create new conventions and a new understanding of the challenges of mass migration, but we have not. While that must surely eventually happen, many countries are struggling with the short-term consequences.
This Bill is not our final destination. It is a means to a specific end and the end is clear: to break that sickening trade of the people smugglers, to protect the weak, the children and the vulnerable young women, and to smash the criminal gangs whose trade is human flesh.
I believe that we in Britain have come closer to living out Martin Luther King’s dream of racial togetherness than perhaps any other country in the world. I have spoken before in this House about that. It is work in progress, of course, but this dream, his dream, has taken root here. We are a good and a decent people, yet that is under significant threat. Look elsewhere: “Wir schaffen das”, Angela Merkel said. Oh no, she did not, and look at what is happening today in Germany as a result, and France and elsewhere: extremism and intolerance are on the rise.
No one is pretending that there are easy solutions but the problem is real, growing and a pressing and present danger to us all. Even here, we might find that we so easily fall back into those dark days when race was a dividing line that cut so deeply through our community. Yes, these are all connected issues, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to make them go away. There is no dignity of the individual to be found in a small boat in the hands of people smugglers.
To all those who have their doubts, who say that they do not like this direction and who claim the moral high ground, I simply ask: what is your alternative? How will you smash the evil trade? How long will you wait, watching the suffering and refusing to offer any hint of an alternative solution, content to sleep comfortably in your beds wrapped up in your consciences?
The Opposition, so silent about what they would do, say that we are rushing things through—words from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the Opposition Front Bench. Delay, delay, they insist—or do nothing. It is the silence of the lambs. Ordinary, decent British people want us to do things more rapidly and believe that we have not moved fast enough.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
If I have it wrong, I very much look forward to hearing the specifics of what the Opposition would do instead. We will wait and we will wait.
Weigh a doubt against a certainty—the doubts about the destination to which we are asked to travel against the certainty that if we stand still and do nothing, the consequences for this country are likely to be catastrophic.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, to understand a nation and its people, you need a feel for the inner bundle of practices, characteristics and states of mind that create the image that a country carries of itself, which in turn shapes the way that others see it. For those of us fortunate enough to have been nurtured within the bounds of our cherished archipelago in the cold northern seas, the rule of law has a fair claim to be the most lustrous of our values, almost talismanic in its properties, so anything that threatens, weakens or tarnishes our crucial defining value, the inspirational principle for governing and living well together, is a first-order matter. I regret to say that the Bill before us falls into that category.
This is a moment of immense significance for Parliament, the judiciary, our people and the very quality of our democracy. In no way do I diminish the electric charge of the question that uncontrolled immigration generates, but I fear that the Government have become fixated on their talisman, the Rwanda policy, which Ministers claim will break the economic model of the cruel, evil, heartless people who put the boats and their desperate passengers to sea off the beaches of northern France. For what it is worth, my own view is that it cannot be beyond the capability of Whitehall to work up a scheme for the swift dispatch of asylum claims, with safe and humane shelter provided in the UK for claimants while they await the results of their applications.
By rushing this emergency legislation through Parliament with the intention of getting the deportation flights to Kigali under way by late spring, the Government have already secured for themselves a special place in British political history. The day may not be far off when the Rwanda Bill, having cleared all its parliamentary stages, will be forwarded from the Cabinet Office to Buckingham Palace to receive Royal Assent. In the few minutes that it takes to pass down The Mall and across the tip of St James’s Park on its return journey to Whitehall, our country will change, for the Government will have removed us from the list of rule-of-law nations. We shall be living in a different land, breathing different air in a significantly diminished kingdom. Is that what any of us really wants?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is easy to list the defects in the Rwanda proposal; it is expensive and cumbersome and, as we were told at the beginning of the debate, has taken up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time without any guarantee that it will not yet be challenged in the courts. Let us admit that there is something slightly distasteful; there is an aesthetic objection to shifting the problem half way around the world. I get all that. I have heard all the arguments, including from many of the people in the Chamber now. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, reminded us, we have spent a great deal of time debating this—three times in as many years. I have heard those arguments very eloquently articulated, but I have not heard a plausible and credible alternative.
Politics is often a choice between imperfect outcomes. These days it is almost always such a choice. In an ideal world, there would be no need for a Rwanda scheme. We would have a Rolls-Royce Home Office bureaucracy where all claims were processed swiftly and immediately. In an ideal world, we would have no judges who push the limits in an attempt to overturn deportation orders. We would have a judiciary that rules solely on the basis of what the law says, rather than what it feels the law ought to say. We would have neighbouring countries that played by the rules of the game and took back people who had entered our territory improperly from theirs. In an ideal world, international conventions would have kept up with changing circumstances.
But the world we live in is not ideal; it is gross and sublunary, and we have to make choices that are less than perfect. We are deluding ourselves when we repeat pieties about smashing gangs, as though somehow, if you took away the people offering the supply, the demand would dry up. The demand comes not from gangs but from the fact that people understand what the figures say—that once you have entered this country, it is highly unlikely that you will ever be removed from it.
I also think there is a certain wishful thinking in what seems to be the main argument of the Opposition—I am willing to be corrected—which is that all this can be solved with better collaboration across the channel, as if that is something that nobody has thought of or tried before. I looked up the figures from when we were last subject to EU jurisdiction and covered by the returns agreement. In 2020 we attempted to return to other EU countries 8,502 people who should not have been here—people who had arrived here improperly—and succeeded in removing 105 of them. The rest of the EU tried to remove 2,331 people to the United Kingdom and we accepted 882, which is a significantly higher proportion. It seems very difficult to argue that a returns agreement with the EU would mean anything other than taking more people from the EU than we send there.
I will not argue that the Rwanda scheme alone will be enough to solve the problem; it will not even be the biggest component of it. There is more to be done on individual return agreements. I think there was agreement on all sides about the efficacy of the Albania scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. There is more to be done in speeding up claims and, yes, there is probably more to be done on collaboration. But it is part of a package to have some element of deterrence. The facts of geography mean that people have to pass through several safe countries on their way here. If they think there is a prospect that they will end up in Rwanda, even if it is a percentage chance and not a certainty, that is bound to have some impact on whether they make their final claim here or in another safe country en route.
It is in that spirit, and not in any great mood of joy or enthusiasm—rather in a spirit of grim realism—that I oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and support the legislation.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, speaks with his usual eloquence. One of the problems from our Benches is that he seems to think that it is an acceptable risk to breach the rule of law. It is that fundamental issue that my noble friend Lord German set out in his Motion, and that is why, unusually, this is something that we should vote against at Second Reading.
This weekend, the i newspaper reported:
“Four Rwandans have reportedly been granted refugee status in Britain over ‘well-founded’ fears of persecution … the cases are in addition to the six people who Home Office figures suggest had UK asylum claims approved between April 2022 and September 2023, according to the Observer”.
So how can the Prime Minister say that Kigali is “unequivocally” safe?
I want to raise a couple of issues in the short time that I have available on the details of how this will work. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to access to healthcare, but the British Medical Association raised the important point that:
“The use of offshoring has previously led to asylum seekers being removed to countries where they are unable to access medical care they may need … Medical reviews of 36 people under threat of removal to Rwanda revealed that 26 displayed medical indicators of having been tortured”.
Is it right that people like that should be going elsewhere?
The government website on the agreement with Rwanda talks about age assessment for both accompanied and unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Article 3(4) says that the United Kingdom
“confirms that it shall not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under the age of 18. Any unaccompanied individual who, subsequent to relocation, is deemed by a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom to either be under the age of 18 or to be treated temporarily as being under the age of 18, shall be returned to the United Kingdom”.
How is that going to work if they are assessed in Rwanda? How is the decision made on who are deemed to be under age, given the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the arrangements set out in the Rwanda treaty? Will an unaccompanied child or young person have been entitled to appeal prior to removal to Rwanda—or will, as the latter part of the paragraph implies, they be sent to Rwanda and assessed with all other asylum seekers, and only then returned to the UK? That is against the United Nations rights of the child declaration. Will Rwanda use age assessment, as we debated during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Illegal Migration Bill?
I particularly want to ask about those who are accompanied and remain with their families—and it is good that families are kept together. But Rwanda does not have a secondary school system, so does the arrangement that is being made with Rwanda ensure that these children will have access to education, if they are of secondary age?
Open Democracy reported that:
“LGBTQ+ asylum seekers in Rwanda have previously been given immediate verbal rejections by officials responsible for registering applications, who said it ‘is not the place for them, or Rwanda does not deal with such issues’, according to evidence by the UNHCR submitted to the Home Office”.
So is it appropriate for these vulnerable people to be sent to Rwanda?
Finally, the Illegal Migration Act stipulates that, if someone arrives in the UK irregularly, there will be a duty on the Home Secretary to detain and remove them—even those arriving who are known to be victims of modern slavery. In the passage of that Bill in the Commons, Theresa May, former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, said sending people to Rwanda would
“consign more people to slavery”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/23; col. 219.]
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, asked what opposition parties would do. We would ensure swift and effective assessment of cases. What we will not do is to send people to a country where we do not yet understand how the treaty will work, because what is said in the treaty is that there are arrangements proposed, but they have not yet been sorted. For vulnerable asylum seekers, that is not good enough. It is certainly not good enough for what any British Government and British Parliament should do.
Above all, for vulnerable people, Rwanda is not a safe place. As the treaty says specifically, there is much still to be sorted out. I believe that this House should not agree to the Bill at Second Reading.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the movement of large numbers of people seeking asylum is in danger of overwhelming the international asylum system, as the Government’s policy statement on this Bill suggests, and this requires a different response. There appear to me to be two alternatives: work collaboratively with all countries affected, with a global response to a global problem; or take this Government’s approach, working in the United Kingdom’s sole interests, or, arguably, in the interests of party politics. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in this House on 12 July last year,
“this is a massive, international issue on a generational basis and that tackling it needs profound thinking on a long-term basis ... It is essential that the solutions, as we go forward, bring together the whole of politics, all sides of both Houses, and unite our country instead of using this as a wedge issue to divide things”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1872.]
The most reverend Primate reiterated that this afternoon.
The Government quote figures from last year, when boat arrivals into mainland Europe apparently increased by 80% while boat arrivals into the UK fell by about one-third, according to the Minister in his opening remarks, as if this were some kind of victory. I am sure that for domestic party-political purposes it might look that way, but I doubt our European neighbours see it in the same light: “I’m all right, Jack” does not translate well in continental Europe.
The Government insist that the Rwanda scheme is only one part of their plan to “Stop the boats”, co-operation with our European neighbours arguably being a far more important part of the plan. What will our European neighbours think if, as the Prime Minster seems intent on doing, the United Kingdom ignores so-called pyjama injunctions issued by a so-called foreign court? Of course, what the Government are referring to are Rule 39 indications issued by the European Court of Human Rights, an international court of which the UK is a member. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, last Thursday the President of the ECHR said:
“Where states have in the past failed to comply with rule 39 indications, judges have found that the states have violated their obligations under Article 34 of the convention”.
If the Government decide that, like Russia, they no longer wish to be bound by international law, because, like Russia, they do not agree with the decisions of judges of the ECHR, then they should ask Parliament to remove the United Kingdom from the European Court of Human Rights. Two days on from Holocaust Memorial Day, perhaps we should remember why the UK was instrumental in establishing such a court and consider the impact such a withdrawal would have on the willingness of our European neighbours to co-operate with us on this issue.
What other steps might ease the flow of asylum seekers? A representative of the International Organization for Migration told the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning that what drives people to migrate is that they feel they have no options in their home country, with climate change overtaking conflict as the biggest driver. If the Government were serious about doing whatever it takes to stop the boats, why have they pushed back the deadlines for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers? Why have they announced plans to issue hundreds of new oil and gas licences, and given the go-ahead for a new coal mine that will produce an estimated 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year? Why have they reduced overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income, while spending almost 30% of that budget in 2022 on housing asylum seekers in the UK, rather than spending it overseas? I am not saying that these are not legitimate political decisions, but they are not consistent with the claim that the Government are doing everything they can to stop the boats.
Doing everything the Government can to stop the boats should include doing whatever they can to encourage co-operation with our European neighbours and to improve conditions in asylum seekers’ home countries. They should not ignore or withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights; they should reinstate their previous commitments to combat climate change and their commitment to 0.7% on overseas aid—what one might call a strategic approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the most reverend Primate have said, this Bill is not the answer.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Bill exhibits several characteristics of this Government. Exhibit A is their contempt for the courts, the rule of law and the constitution. They are smarting at the judgment of the Supreme Court, which found conclusive factual evidence that Rwanda was not a safe place to send asylum seekers. The court found “serious and systematic defects” in Rwanda’s procedures for processing asylum claims. The Rwandan authorities practice refoulement and have breached an agreement with another country, Israel, on that issue.
Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, has ruled by dint of rigged elections and contempt for civil rights. He despatches his agents to murder political opponents. He targets journalists who report killings, disappearances and torture. Even as the Government have been insisting that Rwanda is safe, Home Office officials have been giving asylum to Rwandan dissidents, accepting that they have a well-founded risk of persecution. The Government’s policy is morally and practically chaotic. It is a monstrous fantasy to assert that, by hastily negotiating a treaty with the regime and by legislating to declare that it is safe, Rwanda thereby becomes safe.
The Bill is unconstitutional. It usurps the function of our domestic courts. It ousts their jurisdiction in regard to its main provisions. It requires tribunals and courts to treat Rwanda as a safe country, whatever the reality may be and notwithstanding any existing provision of statute, common law or international law. By giving Ministers the power to refuse to comply with the interim rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and preventing a UK court having regard for them, the Government show particular contempt for a court that we were once proud to have been instrumental in establishing.
The Government are also suborning the Civil Service. By obliging civil servants to act on a basis they know to be false, the Bill would legitimise and institutionalise dishonesty in Whitehall and its agencies.
Exhibit B is therefore the Government’s denial of reality. The persecuted of the world will not be deterred from seeking asylum in Britain by this policy—they will not understand the law. The traffickers will not break their own business model by informing their clients that there is no point in them travelling to Britain. The traffickers, who get paid before they launch the small boats, will have no incentive to desist. The former Immigration Minister, Mr Robert Jenrick, who is the biggest enthusiast for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda and deeply informed, says the Bill will not work. Clause 4, which provides limited scope for individual cases to be heard in our courts, intended to provide a veneer of conformity with international law, creates a major loophole.
Exhibit C is the cruelty of the policy the Bill seeks to implement. Desperate people, fleeing from persecution and danger to their lives, instead of being greeted with compassion, respect and help, are to be deported out of hand. To despatch people who may well be suffering the physical after-effects of torture, and whose mental health is highly likely to have been damaged by their experience as asylum seekers, to a country with an underdeveloped health system is horrible.
Exhibit D is political misjudgment. This would-be populist appeal to the worst in human nature is to misread the British people. The great majority of the British people do not want to see their Government acting cruelly; they want to see fair play, competent administration and the rule of law upheld.
Exhibit E is obsession. What the Government would have us believe is a great crisis—an invasion by foreigners in small boats—is a confected crisis, blown out of all proportion. In the peak year of 2022, 46,000 people crossed the channel in small boats, whereas 1.2 million migrated legally into the UK. According to the Migration Observatory, 86% of asylum seekers arriving in small boats whose cases were determined between 2018 and 2023 were granted refugee status or permission to stay. By closing off safe and legal routes, while disingenuously pretending their purpose is to save lives, the Government have forced these people into acting illegally and then scapegoated them.
Instead of cynically buying ourselves out of our obligation, the Government should deal humanely and competently with these arrivals. Instead of the literal displacement activity that the Bill exhibits, the Prime Minister should focus on the real ills and challenges of the country.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, there are so many impermissible aspects to this Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. There is the overarching point that the Rwanda treaty—which underpins the central theme of the Bill that Rwanda is a safe country—has not yet been ratified, and then there are all those aspects of the Bill which contravene our constitutional norms or breach our international obligations.
The Bill seeks to pre-empt any future consideration by the courts on the factual question of whether Rwanda is a safe country. This is a blatant usurpation of the judiciary’s function. Contrary to Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Bill contains no domestic remedy should the courts conclude at any time that the Bill is incompatible with Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. The courts could make a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, but that would not be an effective remedy in the present case, as it is plain that the Government have no intention of complying with their obligations in so far as they conflict with the Bill.
Clause 4, which provides for a decision not to remove based on compelling evidence relating specifically to a person’s particular individual circumstances, is inconsistent with established jurisprudence that, for members of a particular social group within Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention who have a well-founded fear of persecution, it is sufficient merely to establish membership of such a social group. This is of particular importance to LGBT+ people. I was given assurances from the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill by both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that the principles found in the 2010 Supreme Court case HJ (Iran) would continue to apply. They expressly confirmed that, if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them living in a third country without facing persecution, that would constitute a risk of serious and irreversible harm. Rwanda is such a country, as the Government accept and as the current travel advice of the FCDO describes.
Clause 5, which gives Ministers a discretion to ignore interim measures of the ECHR, plainly breaches the convention. It would deny a refugee an effective right to apply to the European court and be in direct conflict with the obligation to comply with decisions of the court. In its latest analysis, the UNHCR has repeated that the Bill represents impermissible burden-shifting in contravention of the refugee convention.
Finally, the proposed Rwanda treaty does not remedy the human rights deficiencies in Rwanda—other than refoulement—mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment. I have already described the hazardous situation there of LGBT+ individuals seeking to live openly, consistent with their sexual orientation.
What conclusion can we draw from all this? The Bill is a travesty of our constitutional and legal norms and our historical moral standards.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who is among those noble Lords who have shown authoritatively and powerfully the moral, constitutional, legal, financial and practical difficulties of this Bill. In the time available, I shall focus on three narrower points: how safe Rwanda is; where public opinion lies; and how alien to us are the laws this Bill proposes to breach.
First, the measures in Clause 3 of the Bill and set out in detail in the treaty, intended to meet the arguments of the Supreme Court that Rwanda is not safe, are not in place. It is therefore just not possible to accept that Parliament can decide, by passing this Bill as it stands, that Rwanda is safe, as was extensively discussed and agreed in the debate on the report of the International Agreements Committee.
At present, Rwandans flee to Britain. Will the Minister tell the House what was the well-founded fear of persecution of each refugee from Rwanda granted asylum here since 2022? How many Rwandans have our police warned to beware of assassination by Rwandan government agents? Is it the case that Rwanda will not take LGBT refugees and that blasphemy is a crime there?
Secondly, the Prime Minister has warned parliamentarians not to defy the will of the people by finding fault with the Bill. In fact, YouGov—widely respected—polled on 17 January that a majority did not support getting the policy through and thought that the proposals were not effective or not very effective. Only 19% thought they were value for money. Members in the other place cited Savanta’s findings that 72% of Britons were dissatisfied with the policy—hardly a ringing endorsement. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has noted, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office told the Select Committee that he could not supply value-for-money figures. I ask the Minister: can we see them now?
Thirdly, as regards the so-called foreign laws—that is, international law, which members of the government party have decried as alien to the processes in the Bill—the clue is in the name: international, or, literally, between nations. These treaties and conventions were hammered out with full, often leading, British participation. They are our laws too. Usually, when a new Government are elected, they undertake to honour the international agreements made by previous Governments. I ask the Minister: did his Government do so?
In conclusion, this Bill would allow contravention of laws we are party to. It abrogates the rule of law to achieve unknown and possibly dangerous results at vast expense to the taxpayer, in order to get rid of a very small proportion—probably less than 1%—of the asylum seekers who arrive in boats. As currently drafted, it looks like a desperate and absurd answer to a real and tragic problem, but I await the Minister’s answers.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the policy of offshoring asylum seekers for assessment and resettlement abroad will indeed be costly, to judge from the down payment already made. Its likely deterrent effect is at best uncertain. However, as a lawyer, I start by acknowledging three things. The policy was given statutory force in the Illegal Migration Act, which we passed last year. It is consistent in principle with the refugee convention, which does not oblige us to settle asylum seekers here, but only to avoid sending them to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. The principle was not called into question by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
The only issue that remains is safety. This Bill, said the Minister in the Commons,
“puts beyond … doubt the safety of Rwanda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/23; col. 751.]
How could it? The Supreme Court has already found that Rwanda operates a profoundly dysfunctional asylum system. We know from our own International Agreements Committee, whose conclusions we supported last Monday, that work still needs to be done to build institutions, change attitudes and monitor compliance. A solution may be within our grasp, but it is not a legal fiction, still less a legal fantasy. A way must be found of determining whether Rwanda is and will remain safe in reality.
When we are concerned about the safety of a country, we often consult the Foreign Office travel advice. Expertly informed and responsive to events, it is a valuable resource. However, in expecting Parliament to come to a judgment, in the words of the Bill,
“that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”,
the Bill makes no provision for expert scrutiny, second thoughts or revision of that judgment. Flattering as it may be for some of us to be treated as infallible, to cast Parliament as decision-maker in this changeable and fact-specific context is fraught with constitutional danger. If we are persuaded to take on that role, we will surely need, at least—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has hinted—an independent body on the ground to tell us when the deficiencies already identified have been remedied, and a mechanism for ensuring that, when conditions change, the verdict can change.
Ouster clauses—even partial ousters such as those in Clause 4—are among the most fundamental attacks on the rule of law because they challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, Dicey’s first principle. Indeed, more impressively still in my book, they challenge the first principle of my noble friend Lord Hennessey that nobody—not even the Government—is above the law. However, the very seriousness of these issues means that we owe the Commons the courtesy of our careful consideration of them. For that reason, I will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, tonight.
Finally, I turn to Clause 5, with its proposed exclusion of the right to seek interim measures from the Strasbourg court. I view with dismay the proposal to defy successive rulings of the court, whose opinion on the matter is decisive under Article 32 of the ECHR, to the effect that these measures are binding on the states party to the convention. As we acknowledge in our own legal systems, and have previously acknowledged in this context too, the effective adjudication of any case can depend on a workable system of interim measures. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether interim measures will be a feature of the new Rwandan asylum law, which, as far as I am aware, no one has yet seen.
We did, it is true, in the end accept Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act, but that was presented as a negotiating ploy—perhaps a productive one, since the court is now in the course of improving its procedures for interim measures. This clause, however, is different. No such conditions are mentioned in it. The crocodile, having devoured the bun offered by the international court, now proposes to kick it into the water with a casual swipe of its tail. Some will say that this pass is sold, but I hope that, if only out of self-respect, your Lordships will push back hard at this casual dismantling of international protections that are as necessary now as they ever were.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I stand in agreement with the arguments already made regarding the domestic constitutional, international standing and human rights concerns surrounding this Bill. I echo the belief that we should not outsource our moral and legal responsibilities to refugees and asylum seekers. However, today I hope to bring some insight to this debate through my own experience of Rwanda.
Rwanda is a country that I love. It is a country that I have travelled to on 20 occasions since 1997. I have observed the amazing transformation of Kigali and some aspects of the whole nation. My visits take me to rural villages, small towns and cities, not simply the glamour of a great international city. I have had the privilege of becoming friends with many local people whom I have met and stayed with there. The conversations I had there last August further led me to conclude that this policy will simply not work.
Under the new UK-Rwanda treaty, Rwanda is required not to remove any person relocated under this partnership. Instead, those sent to Rwanda will remain in the country and live there for the foreseeable future. However, is Rwanda truly capable of delivering the support and opportunities required for each of these refugees and asylum seekers to rebuild their lives? Can Rwanda offer enough employment opportunities for them to provide for themselves, when many of its young people are leaving because there are no jobs? In Rwanda you need Kinyarwanda and English. Will adequate language training be available to enable those sent there to successfully integrate? Locally, also, Kigali residents know where a few hundred might be initially housed—they offered to take me to see it—but seriously wonder how thousands would, or even could, be received with dignity.
From what I have observed during my time spent in Rwanda, there will not be enough in all of these areas. Low incomes in the country require people to rely on their own land to provide crops. However, those removed there from the UK will not have ownership of, or access to, such land. In a country without high levels of social security, who will ensure that these people do not face destitution?
Each time I have travelled to Rwanda, I have been met with great kindness and hospitality. I am aware, though, that this is not the case for every individual who steps foot on Rwandan soil. I note, for example, the arrest of pastors who criticised the Government in 2018, following the closure of churches due to legislation, some of which made sense. How can we ensure that Rwanda is safe for people of all faiths to practise their religion? Courts and decision-makers should not be compelled to treat Rwanda as safe without a commitment to ongoing scrutiny. Simply put, the Bill is not workable either in the UK or in Rwanda.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol regrets that she cannot be in her place today, but I express her concerns that the Bill might also create a greater risk to victims of modern slavery. There is reason to be sceptical that survivors will be as safe in Rwanda as they would be in the UK. According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, prevalence of modern slavery in Rwanda is more than twice as high as in the UK, and Rwanda is not a signatory to ECAT.
I further worry that this legislation will apply to people who have been receiving support through the UK’s national referral mechanism for some time. Could this support be replicated to the same quality in Rwanda, and what would be the impact of removal of any such people on their physical and mental health? My right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol will seek to pursue this issue in Committee.
We are speaking of some of the most vulnerable people, many of whom have experienced the devastation of war and conflict, leaving behind their homes and livelihoods. They are human beings, each with value and deserving of dignity. We need solutions where people are provided with adequate support and opportunities to rebuild their lives. I and many others in this House have made many proposals as to how this can be done better. I am afraid that the Bill will not achieve it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, last year I listened to quite a lot of the debate during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act and contributed to it once or twice. I had difficulty making up my mind as to whether I was going to support that Act. Eventually, although I expressed my reservations about whether Rwanda was a suitable place, I was persuaded that it was a good thing to support and I gave it my backing. Unfortunately, in the light of subsequent events we now have this Bill. At the moment, having considered it carefully, I must say that the details of the Bill, or its main point as in Clause 2, are a step too far for me, so I do not think I could possibly support it unless it is substantially amended as it goes through this House; we should urge the Commons to revise it.
My motive was that, first, it is necessary to have a credible and effective policy on illegal migration. It is a big problem and it is growing. It is small in relation to our total migration but its symbolic effect on public opinion is very important. The public need to be reassured that we have control of immigration into this country; if they think we have lost control, that threatens a very nasty change in public attitudes caused by doubts. We should all be proud of the relatively strong, multicultural and multi-ethnic society we have created in this country, much more successfully than most other European countries. That will be threatened by reactions to illegal immigration if it obviously starts to grow again and gets out of control.
The only policy I have heard in the debates so far, either here or anywhere else, that really resembled a possible working policy was that of using a safe third-party country to consider the refugee status of applicants. I listened to the debates here, most of which were legalisms and arguments about international law—which I last studied for my postgraduate degree and which I have never practised. I thought that the safe third country proposal—if you could find a safe third country—was worth a try, and I continue to back it in principle.
That policy hit a brick wall when it got to the Supreme Court. It failed there not because of any finding of international law that a policy of using a safe third country was in any way contrary to any convention, such as the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government were defeated on an issue of fact. Five Supreme Court judges considered the evidence submitted to the High Court, and all five of them were persuaded that on that evidence, which they had heard arguments testing, Rwanda was not a safe country for this purpose, particularly because of the risk of refoulement. That brought the Rwanda aspect of the policy completely to a stop.
The Government’s reaction, which we are asked to approve, is quite startling to me. They have decided to bring an Act of Parliament to overturn a finding of fact made by the Supreme Court of this country. If we pass this Bill, we are asserting as a matter of law that Rwanda is a safe country for this purpose, that it will always be a safe country for this purpose until the law is changed, and that the courts may not even consider any evidence brought before them to try to demonstrate that it is not a safe country.
That is a very dangerous constitutional provision. I hope it will be challenged properly in the courts, because we have an unwritten constitution, but it gets more and more important that we make sure that the powers in this country are controlled by some constitutional limits and are subject to the rule of law. Somebody has already said in this debate that Parliament, claiming the sovereignty of Parliament, could claim that the colour black is the same as the colour white, that all dogs are cats or, more seriously, that someone who has been acquitted of a criminal charge is guilty of that criminal charge and should be returned to the courts for sentence. Where are the limits?
As time goes by in my career, I always fear echoes of the warnings that Quintin Hailsham used to give us all about the risks of moving towards an elected dictatorship in this country. The sovereignty of Parliament has its limits, which are the limits of the rule of law, the separation of powers and what ought to be the constitutional limits on any branch of government in a liberal democratic society such as ours.
The way this should be resolved is for the Government to say that the facts have changed. We are not hearing or testing arguments. I am meant to cast a vote as to whether Rwanda is safe, and I have received an email, the text of the Government’s treaty and the Explanatory Notes. I do not have the expertise on Rwanda that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has just demonstrated. I have never been there. I know that it has been a one-man dictatorship for more than 20 years, that we sometimes give refugee status here to people fleeing persecution in Rwanda and, indeed, that it has a rather dodgy record—not as bad as some African countries—on human rights in various respects. I am not surprised by the judgment.
The Government say that things have changed, but I have no means of testing that, and I agree with all those who have said that change is subject to the Rwandans actually complying with the treaty, to the training being effective, to change on the ground reaching the required standard and to periodic checks being made of that. That is not what Clause 2, which we are asked to approve, sets out.
I hope we consider this Bill with very particular care. I will probably be attracted to support some pretty startling amendments that go to some of the main purposes in the Bill. If the Government wish to demonstrate that the facts have changed, some means should be found of going back to the court, facing another challenge, having a proper hearing of up-to-date evidence in the light of demonstrated improvement in the situation of Rwanda and getting a fresh judgment, if necessary, from the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, search for other safe countries. Do not vote for the Liberal amendment today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, although I would love to see the Conservative Party got out of this particular mess, the main effect of the amendment would be to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug for themselves. They have based far too much on this Rwanda policy, putting it at the heart of their political ambitions for the election. To be able to turn around and say that they would have stopped the boats but the unelected House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats and the metropolitan elite stopped them would save this Government from what I think are their follies in crashing on with this policy in this way, and I hope we will not fall into that trap, at least, in our proceedings.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, since he sets the foundations of what I am about to say. I agreed with everything that he said except his conclusion.
This Bill does two things. It creates a legal fiction that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers and it purports to exclude the courts of this country from examining that fiction. Let us first consider the morality of creating a legal fiction that a country is a safe haven for an asylum seeker when in fact, as the Supreme Court has found and this House has agreed, it is not. Is it in accordance with the ethical standards which the British people were once proud to carry across the world to deal with refugees from oppression, or indeed, any person within this jurisdiction, on the basis of a lie—a lie which may put their very lives in danger, not least for the reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham?
How is that legal fiction, this lie, to be created? By the “judgement of Parliament”. This is a new constitutional concept. It is certainly not a judgment in the legal sense, which requires an impartial tribunal, weighing the evidence and arguments on both sides of an issue and coming to a considered conclusion. How then is the “judgement of Parliament” to be ascertained? By a majority vote? In which case, the upper House of Parliament has determined that, for the moment, Rwanda is not safe. It seems that the Government construe the “judgement of Parliament” as a majority vote in the House of Commons only.
Your Lordships will quickly appreciate that the so-called “judgement of Parliament” is a very different animal from a legal judgment of the Supreme Court. “Judgement” is even spelled differently in the Bill from the conventional spelling of a court judgment. It cannot subsume or supplant the legal judgment of the Supreme Court. In our constitution, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, it cannot usurp the Supreme Court’s function.
Sir Winston Churchill championed the ultimate sovereignty of law in his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, where he wrote, in volume 2, page 169:
“The underlying idea of the sovereignty of law, long in existence in feudal custom, was raised into a doctrine for the national state. When in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success”.
Finally on this point, this legal fiction could exist only in domestic law. It has no effect on international law, international courts and United Nations institutions, not least the European Court of Human Rights. “International law? Poof!” say the uber Tories. I remind them that we are currently relying on the doctrine of self-defence in international law in bombing the Houthis.
Turning to the second issue, the denial of access to our courts:
“To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay justice and right”.
That is just Magna Carta, chapter 40.
In 1769, James Somerset, born in Benin, was brought to England by a customs officer who had purchased him in a Virginian slave market. Two years later he escaped his master, who pursued him and imprisoned him on a ship bound for Jamaica. He was to be sold there to labour in a plantation. He was not denied access to the court of King’s Bench in habeas corpus proceedings. Lord Mansfield ordered his release. Slavery was odious, not recognised in the pure air of England. That was a judicial decision; it was another 60 years before Parliament abolished slavery in the British colonies.
The “judgement of Parliament” is a novel concept, introduced into the Bill, I suggest, to avoid judicial review. After all, how would you judicially review Parliament as a body? Whose clever, tricksy idea was that? Habeas corpus disappears as the major protector of the liberties of all within the jurisdiction of this country, whether foreign-born slave like Mr Somerset, or an asylum seeker. Trashing our legal obligations in international law, the Bill is odious and an affront to the 800 years of the common law of these islands, its values and traditions. The Bill must go no further.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the flow of migration, unless obstructed, is rather like the flow of water—it finds its own level. The Bill is, of course, intended as an obstruction to that level. To take my water analogy, the Thames Barrier is a necessary obstruction to prevent the flooding of the City of London. We read in many assessments that the number of people who will potentially come to this country is now over 100 million. The number who can come is obviously limited by the capacity of the country to absorb them, either temporarily or permanently. The natural level at which migration will find itself, if not impeded to a level that meets the capacity of a country, is when the standard of living that a country can provide has been diluted to a level so close to the country from which people want to come that the journey is no longer worth the risks, hazards and costs of undertaking it.
That being said, what is absolutely clear is that the Government have made a huge mistake in choosing Rwanda. Why Rwanda? We have heard from the right reverend Prelate what a good place it is, and I absolutely accept that. But Rwanda is a small, landlocked country in Africa which is a tenth of the size of the United Kingdom and has a population density that is double ours. The United Kingdom has 278 people per square kilometre and Rwanda has 569. Can the Minister reveal to us the process of thought by which the Government came to the conclusion that they would even suggest Rwanda as a suitable obstacle to try to get to the right number of people whom we can absorb.
Some of your Lordships may remember that, in 2015 and 2016, I put forward an alternative plan, again to address the obstacle of finding another country. I said that we needed a very big country that had a desert and was very underpopulated. I suggested that the migration problem was a global problem that must be dealt with by the United Nations. I suggested that—and bear in mind this was several years ago—perhaps Libya might meet that aim. I thought that an area of desert could be negotiated by the UN to which everyone would go and there it would be determined whether they went where they wanted to, or went back where they came from, or whatever. The population of Libya is four people per square kilometre. I do not say that Libya is suitable now, but I cannot understand why the Government are persisting with Rwanda, since it is obviously wholly impractical. I hope the Minister will address that point.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege for this daughter of migrants to share your Lordships’ House, but today in particular it is a huge responsibility.
People were once imprisoned for being in debt and transported across oceans as punishment for the smallest crimes of hunger and desperation. I believe that future generations will come to look at this Government’s flagship policy with an incredulity similar to our feelings about those past inhumanities. But that is just my opinion.
It is also just my opinion that this Bill is repugnant to each tradition represented in your Lordships’ House. It is discriminatory, undermining the dignity of our fellow human beings, which is what asylum seekers and refugees are. It is illiberal and unconservative in its attack on a hard-won international rules-based order, the creation of which a previous generation of British statesmen was so proud. It is unchristian—indeed, contrary to the better instincts of all the great world faiths in its cruelty and dehumanisation. People are not sacks of carrots or widgets to be shunted around the globe for “processing”. To offshore one’s humanitarian responsibilities is as immoral as it is to offshore personal wealth as a means of evading public duty. But, as I say, that is just my view.
However, that the Republic of Rwanda is not currently or yet a safe place for those seeking asylum is not mere opinion; it is, as we have heard, fact. Furthermore, these are the facts found by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: not an international or “foreign” court, as the Prime Minister—another child of migrants—likes to caricature referees whenever he concedes a penalty or misses a goal, but the highest court in a land that has contributed so much to the development of the rule of law across the world. Your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee has ably reported on the factual conditions that must be met before the Rwanda treaty—the trigger for the commencement of this proposed Bill—can even begin to assuage the concerns of the Supreme Court.
Wisdom counsels changing our minds when the facts change, not doctoring the facts when our minds are made up. In attempting to change facts with a draftsman’s pen while simultaneously ousting the jurisdiction of our courts, the Bill is repugnant to the rule of law in general and the separation of powers in particular. In purporting to take ministerial powers to ignore interim rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, a permanent member of the Security Council will lose any moral authority to lecture other states on their international rule of law obligations in dangerous times.
It is hard to justify unelected legislators in a democracy. Noble Lords no doubt have their own arguments to offer their children and grandchildren, such as the expertise, experience and wisdom of a scrutinising and revising Chamber. For me, the most important argument, in an unwritten constitution that lacks entrenched protections even for the independent courts themselves, is that independent parliamentarians will stand with judges against executive abuse, because before democracy—before even our modem notion of rights and freedoms—the bedrock of any civilised society is the rule of law.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the international system for dealing with refugees is breaking. That is hardly a surprise given that in 1951, when the refugee convention was approved, there were about 2 million refugees, whereas now the UN estimates there are 110 million forcibly displaced persons. We need a new system, but that would take years of painstaking multilateral negotiation.
His Majesty’s Government have reached instead for unilateral solutions. To be fair, so have other countries which normally welcome refugees, including Denmark and Sweden. But unilateral approaches to complex international problems generally fail. This policy has little chance of success.
When considering any new policy, civil servants always ask the key question: “Does it represent value for money for taxpayers?” On 13 April 2022, in the early days of the Rwanda scheme, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office sought a ministerial instruction on value for money grounds. Two years and at least £260 million later, without a single refugee sent to Rwanda, evidently Sir Matthew was right. The Government persist in wanting to dump our problem on a fragile central African country, which is only now beginning to put in place systems to cope with traumatised refugees.
Other noble Lords have pointed out the constitutional, legal and moral problems of the Bill. I add my voice to those questioning the Bill’s most basic contention—that Rwanda is safe. Rwanda is safe, but only for people on the right side of the regime. It is not safe for others—not at all safe for its political opponents. It is not safe for the LGBT+ community.
Rwanda is a well-run country in its neighbourhood, but it is a dictatorship; no one can safely challenge President Kagame. No one doubts the outcome of the next presidential election on 15 July; after 24 years in office, he will be elected to a fourth term, this time for five years. Rwandan institutions depend on Paul Kagame; what happens when he goes is uncertain. A country whose institutions are only 30 years old and one man deep cannot be said to be safe for vulnerable refugees simply because it signs a treaty promising to treat those asylum seekers well. But such a country can provide reassurance by proven good performance over time. That is the position taken by the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Listening to today’s debate, we can all foresee that many amendments will be proposed in Committee. We can be sure that the Government will reject them, so Report will be fractious. Whatever we then send to the Commons will no doubt also be rejected. As the Prime Minister points out, we are merely an appointed House; he expects us to accept the Commons draft in toto.
After the Commons rejects Lords amendments, we will face a choice—either to cave, or to insist on, say, one essential change. That single change might relate to when the Bill’s provisions can be implemented. The International Agreements Committee set out 10 changes or tests related to structures, recruitment and training needed before the UK can safely proceed. We could insist that the Commons pays attention to that single, deep concern.
In the end, what is the point of a revising Chamber if it does not do all it can to improve fundamentally flawed legislation? I hope we do just that.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I will support the Bill tonight, not because my Whips are suggesting I should do it but because I was the Home Secretary in 1990, the first to have to deal with a huge surge of illegal asylum seekers. In the previous 40 years from the refugee convention, there had been only a modest number of applications from people genuinely suffering persecution, and many were allowed in.
However, in 1990, the number surged to 45,000 in Britain and 90,000 in Germany. We soon moved on to 70,000 and then 90,000. What had happened was that the world’s human traffickers had realised that there was a wonderful loophole in the convention: it gave every citizen in any country of the world the right to go to another country if they were facing persecution—so redefine persecution. A lot of people who were not suffering persecution but suffering destitution, poverty and hunger in their own countries were sold the chance to go to another country. Who could blame them for paying out money if it would improve their lives? No one could possibly do so. The traffickers said, “When you go there, try to persuade them that persecution covers destitution—if the Government refuse to employ you or something; whatever it may be. If you don’t succeed, appeal, stay on. You will never be deported”.
That is the position that now exists. Where are the safe countries to which people can be deported? The only country we are deporting people to is, in the case of Albanian refugees, Albania. Albania will not take refugees from Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, or any of the sub-Saharan African countries.
What the then Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd and I tried to do in 1990 was not to stop immigration—we all need immigration; every country needs it; last year, Britain approved 745,000 people to come to this country. We welcomed them in a friendly way, which was much better than what most European countries do. Immigration is a fact of life—controlled state immigration.
Regarding illegal immigration, from 1990, human traffickers could say, “Once you get in, you will be there for good”. My noble friend Lord Clarke said that we must search for safe countries, but can anybody mention a safe country that would take refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or any of the sub-Saharan African countries? Can anyone name a safe country? Is there a cry of even one country? Your Lordships ought to know; you are highly intelligent and informed people. Where are these safe countries? There are none left; those human traffickers know that, once they can get a refugee into any country, they will stay there.
This presents huge political problems. I do not know whether any of your Lordships heard the speech by the President of Germany at the weekend about the AfD. The AfD is now the official opposition in west Germany. It is a right-wing, vicious party which supports violence and huge repatriation. The President said that it is likely to win three states in west Germany in elections this year. That is a problem for Germany because they have had 400,000 applications for asylum this year. In the case of Holland, its very popular and successful Prime Minister of 10 years was thrust out because Holland was going to abandon its policy of open borders. It is now following closed borders.
Many European countries are already transgressing international law. Hungary does not care a fig for it. It has created fences all around. If anybody gets over them, it provides the refugees with coaches to take them to the borders of Slovenia and Austria. In France, Macron has just appointed a right-wing Prime Minister to try to hold off the growth of the right-wing party in France, which is now ahead in the opinion polls.
This is happening right across Europe. We have a problem. As I have said, once a refugee gets into any country now, they are likely to stay there. I believe the Prime Minister’s policy of trying to stop them entering the march to migration is the right one. It is an immensely difficult policy to achieve. It will inevitably involve applications, from the individual countries themselves, by individual migrants. Some will be approved and some will not. We have that pattern now; 745,000 came in on that basis.
America is close to doing that, but the whole policy will be turned upside down by Trump. He has decided that he can win the next election this year by focusing on migration. The governors in the southern states have now loaded busload after busload of immigrants and sent them off to Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. The most liberal part of America is Brooklyn. Brooklyn has been invaded by immigrants, and even it is now saying, “Go home, go home”. I am quite sure that, if Trump does win, which I think is likely, he will not give a fig for international law or the views of other countries. He has a slight problem with inflatable boats, which are now taking refugees across from Mexico. He will deal with inflatable boats in rather differently than we are.
One has to realise that there has to be international agreement. We cannot do this policy by ourselves. I hope that our leaders will co-operate with Europe to find a way to tame mass migration. Human nature being what it is, if it becomes a conflict between humanitarian zeal and national politics, national politics will win over; and that has very ugly prospects.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by urging noble Lords interested in the circumstances in Rwanda to pay close attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford. Members of the Rwandan Green Party have been at the forefront of opposition to President Kagame. They have paid dearly for it, including with their lives. I want to acknowledge that today.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will later concentrate on the contents of this Bill: its hideous human impacts and the indefensible politics behind its existence. I will focus chiefly on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German, which he so powerfully and effectively introduced to us. I will set out why the Green Party believes we should vote down this Bill today.
In that, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who, making arguments with which we are all too familiar, suggested that “We’re the unelected House; we cannot overrule the elected House”. Can we really claim to have a functioning government majority in the House of Commons, a fast-shrinking majority, put in place with the backing—four years ago and three Prime Ministers back—of little more than a third of registered voters, the majority of voters choosing opposition parties?
It is not working, our constitution accreted over centuries of historical accident. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, set out powerfully, the Government are seeking to overrule on a matter of fact a judgment of the Supreme Court. I ask those who have been in this House for decades to mull on that reality and consider how shocking, how unbelievable, how banana republic you would a decade or two ago have considered even a suggestion that that might happen.
So what do we do? We often hear praise for the independence of your Lordships’ House and the relative weakness of the party Whip in those old-fashioned parties that do still whip. How about we apply independent judgment, independent thought, to this Bill, as your Lordships’ House did last week in scrutinising the Rwanda treaty—scrutiny that the Government have said they are going to dismiss without any consideration?
If the House cannot stop this Bill that the UNHCR tell us is in breach of the basic principles of international law, what is this House for? What defence is there for its existence and for its very curious composition? Sure, we can scrutinise, tidy up the Government’s mistakes in legislation, straighten out some of the worst elements and loosen things a little, and that is a job worth doing, but what use is that if we are within a deeply broken system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred. I think the noble Lord meant the asylum system, but it fits perfectly too as a description of our constitutional system, which is unable, it would seem, to defend the basics of the rule of law.
There is one point on which I somewhat disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German. He said that the West is often accused of double standards. I say that the West is often guilty of double standards—something that has all too often been hidden in the past behind gunboat diplomacy and economic might. The balance of the world is changing and we are no longer in a position to suggest that other nations should follow the rules while we do not. We desperately need the norms that have been established—very often by British campaigners, civil society and lawyers over decades—to be upheld, and that means that we need to uphold them ourselves. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, to pass this Bill would be to undermine our global standing and the principle of universality, however often in the past the West has ignored it in its own interests.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for whom I have the highest respect, said that the Commons has the right to pass bad law. The question I am going to leave noble Lords with is this. How far would your Lordships go in accepting that precept? How bad does the law have to be? I have asked this question before, when we passed the policing Bill which explicitly targeted Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. I asked it during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, when we declared millions of Britons to be second-class citizens, capable of having their citizenship taken away by the stroke of the Home Secretary’s pen. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, asked where the limits are. That is the question I put to your Lordships’ House today.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, along with many other noble Lords, I am, frankly, distressed and shocked to see this proposed legislation in front of the British Parliament. To me, it is hardly credible that a British Government should ask Parliament to pass a Bill that insists on denying established facts, almost certainly breaks international agreements, lowers our reputation in the world sharply, takes away judicial powers and hands them to the Executive, and treats other human beings—including genuine refugees—in an outrageous, cavalier and reckless manner. And all this in some desperate and false attempt to fool the electorate that the Government are serious about immigration.
Yet the Bill is in front of us, and we have been warned—if not threatened by the Prime Minister, at perhaps the most ludicrous press conference ever heard at No. 10—to pass it speedily and without amendment, or else. This was surely the wrong approach and only encourages those of us who believe the Bill to be unconstitutional and not worthy of this country to be more determined.
I want to concentrate briefly on Clause 1(2)(b). I agree exactly with what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, told the House a few minutes ago. That clause is a bold statement of fact, not of opinion—although there is an attempt at Clause 1(5) to give a ridiculously inadequate definition of a “safe country”. As a statement of fact, it is false. All the best regarded opinion is that Rwanda is, alas, not a safe country. That is what the Supreme Court unanimously found, and anyone who saw yesterday’s Observer newspaper, for example, will know that there is striking evidence that any opposition to the Government there is just not tolerated.
Again by way of example, how does the Minister begin to explain how four Rwandan citizens, all supporting the opposition party, have in the last four months all been given refugee status in this country—one of them, ironically, at the time the Supreme Court was considering the case? Does that not perfectly describe how absurd it is, in the face of so much evidence, to say that our courts and our judges have to assume that Rwanda is a safe country?
Like many others in this House, I was privileged to be at the memorial service last week for our late and much missed colleague Lord Judge. The reading was from Deuteronomy and concerned the obligations on those asked to do justice. One phrase struck me as being really relevant to this Bill. It is the direction given in the Bible—and this is the modern translation—that:
“You must not distort justice”.
If this Bill becomes law, with a plainly false proposition at its heart, how will it be possible not to distort justice? I agree with those who say that this Bill is not worthy of our country, neither its traditions nor its present, and certainly not its future.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to add to what has been said about the content of the Bill but want to make one or two observations on the role of your Lordships’ House in dealing with it.
As has been said, this is not a manifesto Bill, so it is not covered by the Salisbury/Addison convention and there is no constitutional bar to the House’s refusing to give it a Second Reading. On the other hand, when the elected House, having heard the arguments, has passed the Bill, even under the duress of the majority, and without amendment, I agree respectfully with the convenor that that gives it some of the aspects of a Bill covered by the Salisbury/Addison convention. I think the House would be wrong to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading and wrong, therefore, to vote for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German.
The role left for this House to exercise is as a revising Chamber—to amend the Bill and send it back for further consideration. However, we need to be realistic about what, in these circumstances, is meant by a revising Chamber. I do not believe that amendments are possible which would make the Bill unobjectionable and yet meet the Government’s objectives. Amendments passed by this House are likely to be regarded by the Government as wrecking amendments, and I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said, the Government will use their majority to reverse them in the House of Commons.
Will we be wasting our time in debating and amending this Bill? In one sense, we will. Debates will take place and amendments will be passed, and in the end we will surrender after ping-pong and the Bill will go through. However, in another sense I believe that we will not be wasting our time. In our democracy, political parties and Members in this House have a right and a duty to assert their positions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said. If we did not do so, we would be adding to the damage that will be done to our democracy by the Bill itself.
In my view, the No. 10 spokesman was profoundly wrong in saying that this unelected House has no right to pass amendments removing what we regard as objectionable and dangerous features of the Bill. This House has a right and a duty to do so, even though we must recognise that such amendments will in practice be no more than a kamikaze operation.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I share many concerns about the Bill that have been expressed by many other noble Lords, but I will focus on human rights. What underpins my contribution to the House is a fundamental belief that all people are made in the image of God. It is a belief that is the foundation not just of the Christian faith but of many other faiths and religions. People have an inherent immeasurable value and deserve dignity and respect. In the Bill, unfortunately, the value of people is consistently maligned. For example, the Bill decides who is and is not entitled to human rights. Has history not taught us the risk of that?
It is an odd situation that we find ourselves in when it feels necessary to state in your Lordships’ House that the Government should obey the law, yet the Minister has stated on the face of the Bill that he is unable to say that the measures within it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 3 disapplies sections of our Human Rights Act and Clause 1(6) lists great swathes of international law that will be contravened to pass the Bill. As many noble Lords have said, it is illogical that the Government are disregarding international law while relying on Rwanda’s compliance with it to assure us it is safe. That is not a mark of global leadership.
Clause 5(2) states that compliance with interim measures made by the European Court of Human Rights will be decided by a Minister of the Crown. Disregarding these orders will cause legal uncertainty, with a profound impact on how we expect others to abide by international law. We have a respected place on the world stage, with very few injunctions in comparison to other European countries, because human rights legislation is so well embedded in our law. As a number of noble Lords have said, the Bill marks a change. We cannot afford to forfeit our place in the international community in the face of the significant global challenges that must urgently be navigated. Global conflict remains a serious issue, and we must not lose our focus or our leadership on it.
Passing the Bill will mean that other countries will be tentative in reaching forward to us on other international agreements. In addition, it is troubling that the vulnerable are not being protected in the Bill, with no exceptions made for victims of trafficking or children who either are in families or are suspected to be adults. The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of Bristol are not able to be in their places today but hope to explore amendments to further protect these vulnerable groups, to which I hope the Government will give due consideration.
The Bill disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act with respect to asylum seekers, and the Government are doing the same in respect of certain prisoners in other legislation before this House. This is a slippery slope. Making a minority group unprotected from the actions of the Government undermines everyone’s collective access to justice.
If our courts find that this legislation is indeed incompatible with rights under the ECHR and issue a declaration pursuant to Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, will the Minister confirm that the Government will make a Statement to Parliament and bring forward regulations to remedy the incompatibility?
I underline that my overriding concern is that in this legislation we are deciding to whom human rights apply and to whom they do not. Again I say: has history not taught us the risk of that? I hope the Government will consider that question before proceeding any further. As the House has heard, we on these Benches will continue to engage with the Bill to develop better legislation that will recognise the value of each human being.
The House may not be surprised to hear that I also support the most reverend Primate in his call for a long-term strategy for immigration that is cross-government and worked out with our international partners.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of an immediate returns agreement with France, for which there seems little appetite, it is only by delivering the Rwanda scheme that the Government can achieve the deterrent effect necessary to prevent migrants from attempting to enter the United Kingdom by dangerous and illegal means.
In the brief time available to me, I shall focus on two matters that have been the subject of much misperception in your Lordships’ House. The first is the effect of the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the face of the Bill. As a person who has previously signed such a statement, I have carefully considered its significance. Contrary to a common misunderstanding among opponents of the Bill in your Lordships’ House and the other place, and as we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the statement does not mean that the Minister is certifying that the measures in the Bill are incompatible with the human rights convention. Following a practice introduced under the last Labour Administration, a Minister will not make a Section 19(1)(a) statement of compatibility unless they are satisfied that, if there was a legal challenge to the new law or a decision taken under it, there is a greater than 50% probability that the court will find the measure to be compliant with the convention commitments of the United Kingdom. In all other circumstances, the Minister will issue a Section 19(l)(b) statement. That is what has happened here.
Therefore, the placing of a declaration of this kind on the front of the Bill cannot, and must not, be characterised as a statement that the Government believe that the measures in the Bill are incompatible with the UK’s convention commitments. The point is that in making such a declaration the Government do not concede any breach of the convention, and indeed there is every prospect that the Government will prevail in any litigation, as occurred in the 2013 Animal Defenders case, which upheld the compatibility of a provision in the Communications Act 2003 that had, when before Parliament, been accompanied by a Section 19(1)(b) statement.
In any case, it is for Parliament to decide whether it thinks the Bill is compatible with convention rights, and it should not be misled by the way in which Section 19(1)(b) statements are phrased, because that would be to misunderstand the substance. Given the treaty and the commitments underpinning the Bill, it is evident that the Bill does not expose anyone to a real risk of removal to conditions under which they would be tortured or exposed to any other convention violation.
The second misperception was exemplified in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord German, today, and the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, today and in last week’s debate on the ratification of the Rwanda treaty. It is that the outsourcing of asylum claims made in the UK to a third country is unlawful or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, “dishonours our convention commitments”. This is not so. In the recent Rwanda litigation, this was rejected by the Divisional Court, which held that third-country processing was not unlawful or contrary to the refugee convention. The claimants unsuccessfully sought to appeal that finding. The Court of Appeal, unanimously on this point, agreed with the Divisional Court. The Supreme Court did not even grant permission for any further appeal on that and therefore the law is clear. Third-country processing of asylum claims is lawful.
Having clarified these two matters, I make one final point. This Bill will save lives and protect our borders. It warrants the support of this House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, although it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I would urge him to stop his tango on the head of a pin.
It is a remarkable but welcome thing that an issue, the outcome of which will apparently affect fewer than 200 people, should be debated twice within one week in your Lordships’ House. I agree with the comments made by noble friends and other noble Lords on the rule of law, including the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, my noble friend Lord Anderson and my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton.
This Bill and the treaty said to underpin it have attracted both headline and detailed criticism. The headline part has included the unusual press conference at which the Prime Minister, who in the past has been generally accepting of the role of your Lordships’ House, took time out of his busy schedule to wag his finger at us. I suggest that those who look after the Prime Minister, when he is on his much-publicised exercise bike tomorrow morning, should place before him the magnificent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. It was three and a half minutes of sheer eloquent wisdom from this House. The Prime Minister was just wrong, and this House will not be influenced by finger-wagging.
That episode reminded me of a brief remark by one of the heroes of my generation, Desmond Tutu. He said of such debates:
“Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument”.
I have been waiting for the Government to improve their arguments against those presented by most Peers who spoke in last week’s debate. So far, at least in this debate, the improvement has not occurred.
I agree with those noble Lords who have said that the fundamental question is if Rwanda is a safe country. At best, the Government’s position on Rwanda’s safety is ambiguous. For example, as one noble friend said privately to me earlier, Clauses 5(2) and (4) of this Bill are plainly in breach of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2005, but the Government seem to have overlooked that completely. There is plenty of evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country. The Government have said, in or out of court in a number of cases, that individuals applying for asylum in this country could stay here because Rwanda is not a safe country.
Last Saturday, an article in the Guardian referred to an investigation, which has not been refuted by the Government, by the Observer and the colourfully named campaign group Led by Donkeys. They found that, in the last four months, six Rwandans have been given asylum on the grounds that they would not be safe if they were sent back to Rwanda. Those decisions were on various grounds. In one case, the person was connected to an opposition party. In another case, the Home Office simply said:
“We accept that you have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country Rwanda”.
How can a country, in which opposition to the President makes it unsafe for a refugee to return—simply by expressing his or her political views—be safe? We have the spectacle in the teeth of the evidence of His Majesty’s Government telling us that Rwanda is safe. They are asking us to legislate a lie. I hope that we will not legislate that lie.
An admired teacher of mine had the habit of quoting Plato at bemused 15 year-olds. I stuck it out with him to the end of my schooling, and I remember him later reminding us of Plato’s advice. “To present arguments at a time when one is in doubt and seeking … is a thing both frightening and slippery”. This debate is about a proposal both frightening and slippery and, indeed, duplicitous.
If this Bill is to be passed, it must only be brought into force once the misgivings contained within paragraph 45 of the International Agreements Committee’s report are resolved and certified by this Parliament as properly resolved. Only then will I support this Bill.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, whom I worked with on the Illegal Migration Act. It seems as though we will be working together on this. I do not, as some have suggested on these Benches, come to this issue with party-political motives.
I approach this from a personal perspective. How would I want to be treated? How would I want my family to be treated? Therefore, I must stand in the shoes of others and imagine, as Shakespeare asked us to imagine in a brilliant speech in “Sir Thomas More”. The strangers have made their way from Calais to Dover. The threat of them is whipped up and the strangers are politicised. To paraphrase, to a voice among the crowd that says, “Remove them!”, Sir Thomas More replies: “You bid that they be removed, the stranger with their children upon their back, their families at their side, their belongings at their feet. You bid that they be removed. Imagine you are the stranger, with your children upon your back, your family at your side, your belongings at your feet. Bid that they be removed and show your mountanish inhumanity”. Four hundred years later, I beg the same question.
This Bill is outsourcing legal and moral obligations, and I consider it not only unacceptable but repugnant. It will have long-term profound consequences for the United Kingdom and in Rwanda, as outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. The Bill is unacceptable, as we have heard, for many reasons—on legal, constitutional and moral grounds. In essence, I believe it is entirely unacceptable in any country that considers itself civilised or allied to the rule of law.
The Government have continually stressed that relocation to Rwanda, coupled with detention and the removal of rights within the Illegal Migration Act, are the deterrents that will end small boats crossing the channel and so-called illegal migration. It is one thing for the Government to try to fool their critics, but when they fool themselves, we are all the losers and democracy is the greater loser. Not in my name and not with my silence will this Bill pass.
It puts at risk the most vulnerable minorities and individuals. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that LGBT+ people will not be safe in Rwanda. Like him, I was given the same assurances during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act. I seek the assurances of HJ (Iran) again.
In conclusion, this is the heart of my concern: this drawback mentality offered by the Government will achieve nothing except diversion, division and greater degrees of inhumane treatment against those who are among the most vulnerable and in need. I hang my head in shame when I see what my country has fallen to, when all we can offer is a legislative lie.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am honoured, as ever, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who has made a very passionate case. Many speakers today have focused on the legality and morality, or otherwise, of the Rwanda scheme, and the astonishing claim that this Parliament has the overriding ability to decide whether Rwanda is safe. I will focus on another astonishing aspect: the simple unsuitability of this scheme.
Last July, I was in Rwanda for a major conference on women’s rights. While I was there, I visited, with the UNFPA, the Mahama refugee camp in eastern Rwanda. Overseen by the UNHCR, this houses 60,000 refugees, largely from Burundi, but also from other countries in the region which have been suffering conflict. There are strong cultural similarities between the refugees and their hosts. Full provision is made for housing, schools, and training. There are villages led by local leaders, markets for stallholders, and a bus service to enable travel to work. We visited impressive health clinics, which covered a range of care, including minor operations, vaccinations, malnutrition care and mental health services. What is more, the local population can access these facilities, so they can see a benefit from having refugees among them.
Let us contrast this with what the UK plans to do for those seeking assistance at our borders. None of these elements is in place. It is no surprise that the Government do not want parliamentarians to visit the site, as we found. It is beyond amateur. It is in Kigali, in an unused housing development, surrounded by other housing developments for the local population. Its capacity is extremely limited, for merely a few hundred, and these will supposedly be men from diverse countries, backgrounds, languages, religions and experience—people who will have been uprooted from their countries, communities and families. How is that supposed to work? Of course, the site is not big enough to provide specialised healthcare, training, or language or cultural support—any of the facilities that such asylum seekers potentially need. It is right in the middle of the local population, with the strong possibility of mutual fear—a potential recipe for conflict and exploitation.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee refrained from speaking today because of the number of speakers, but she has mentioned to me points made by various organisations. Removing asylum seekers to a country where they do not want to be, with little prospect of work, not understanding the language, with inadequate support, increases the likelihood that they will seek to leave, or be open to offers to help them do so. Israel had an agreement with Rwanda, but no one knows what happened to that cohort. They are not there now; it is very likely that they were smuggled onwards or trafficked and exploited. The Minister says that he seeks to reduce trafficking, yet this policy opens up a new market for traffickers. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has advised that the Bill will put the UK in breach of the convention on trafficking in human beings.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have rightly said, Rwanda has made great strides since the terrible years of its genocide. Nevertheless, the UK Supreme Court has deemed it still an unsafe country—and we have heard a number of reasons why that is the case, not least from the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. We have recently granted asylum to Rwandan refugees, as my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out. Of course, it appears to be part of the Government’s narrative for the right-wing press that Rwanda is a desperate place in which to end up—acting as an apparent disincentive to those who may seek asylum in the UK. It is ironic that they then deem the country safe.
Conflict and climate change will doubtless increase migration. Working on global strategies to tackle this, as the most reverend Primate Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out, is clearly vital. Right now in central America, they are facing a massive traffic in migration. Costa Rica, with a population of 5 million, is housing a further 1 million from Nicaragua. One of the first things must be to invest in conflict prevention and development. The assistance that has been channelled to Rwanda since its terrible conflict has clearly improved the lives of many of its citizens, so there is less migration from Rwanda itself, despite the clear limits to freedom there. Yet we cut our aid budget—how short-sighted.
Others have argued with overwhelming force that the Bill offends against both morality and legality. From what I have seen of the UK’s plan on the ground in Rwanda, compared with more effective ways of supporting refugees in that very country, it seems to me that we are pouring huge amounts of money into what is almost an amateur scheme. That hardly reflects well on the United Kingdom.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, many moons ago I was a staff writer on the Financial Times and occasionally involved in writing leaders. Those of us who wrote leaders for national newspapers were well aware that they were not exactly the first point of interest. I do not know how noble Lords read their newspapers, but I start with the back pages, which were particularly pleasant today, with the reports of the win in India in the first test match. Then I went to the news on the front pages, then to the features and then finally the leaders. However, as a leader writer, I was aware that the opinion expressed in the leaders is the collective view of at least the senior people on the newspaper in question. Therefore, I was very interested to read the views of the Times on 15 January, where it said, under the headline, “Return of Rwanda”:
“The legislation would prevent a general claim that Rwanda is an unsafe destination but not rule out a specific case of an individual being at risk for some reason. That is in principle a sensible balance, respecting the will of parliament and the rights of the individual”.
That is precisely the view taken by our colleagues in the other place, without any further amendment.
Of course, we are here because the Supreme Court concluded that the Government’s policy was unlawful. I therefore took the trouble to read the Supreme Court evidence—57 pages of it. I understand from its procedures that it has to take a view on the hard evidence; that point has been made. The hard evidence that it took was from the UNHCR before September 2022.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, pointed out in his opening remarks, the problem with this approach is that it does not look at the evidence today or as it may be in the future. It did not go to Rwanda and took no evidence of that kind. The fact is, as has been pointed out many times, that Rwanda is a rapidly developing situation. It is helping the UK with its illegal immigration and, in return, getting a significant chunk of development aid. It hopes this will be a model for other European countries—and other European countries are following this closely—which will work for the future. Therefore, Rwanda has every incentive to make this policy work.
This raises the question, incidentally, of whether this sort of decision—as to whether Rwanda can be trusted—is one that should be made by Governments or by courts. The Supreme Court raised this question, but it did not, in the end, give a view.
We are where we are. I believe the Government have made a big effort to meet the Supreme Court’s points. In particular, they have put a lot of work into capacity building, which is what the Australians did when they faced a similar problem over outsourcing to Nauru, near the Solomon Islands. The Australians provided training, support and expertise, and had a permanent presence on the ground, and the UNHCR was kept in touch. This trilateral approach has worked and now has all-party support. That is the opportunity we may face here. I think it should be put to the test.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we can all agree that the Bill is contentious. I think we can also agree about what it is actually about: controlling permitted migration and ending illegal entry. That is a good thing, but I suspect that is where the agreement ends.
This evening, we are discussing something that is part of a much greater problem facing the western world. History, it seems to me, tells us that there is only one way to respond to existential threats to western Europe and tsunamis of migration, and that is by coming together and standing shoulder to shoulder. For example, when Jan Sobieski led a European army to defeat the Turks at the Battle of Vienna, it was a composite army. When Wellington was victorious at Waterloo, the majority of the troops he was commanding were not British, and the day was saved by the Prussians, under Blücher. In the Second World War, when we played a crucial part, eventual victory is in fact owed to Russia and the United States. We are approaching this as though we can try to do it by ourselves, and I believe that that must be doomed to fail. We are all in it together.
We were told earlier in the debate that collective action has failed in the past, but we have to remember what financial advisers tell us: that the past is no guide to the future. We have simply got to make it work in some way or other, even if we end up with a collection of disjointed unilateral actions that have only some degree of coherence across them.
As long as there are boats and migrants on the other side of the English Channel, and as long as the view from there is that there is a better life in this country, there will be those trying to break into this country, thinking it is a Shangri-La—it is certainly an improvement on life in the camps at Calais. That is the reality. Sometimes, we seem to be using the same political advisers as King Canute did on that beach at Hunstanton, over 1,000 years ago. On that occasion, the king appreciated that they were talking nonsense.
I am not a good lawyer, and in the presence of so many distinguished lawyers I shall keep my opinions private. I simply say that the Bill as it stands is an attack on the rule of law. If Parliament, led by the Executive, excludes the proper and constitutional role of the judiciary and the system of checks and balances in the system, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We are being asked to go into a world of Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland, as was explained earlier, where Humpty Dumpty expounds the doctrine that a word means
“just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
Much of this is fuelled by what is a fashionable, at least in some circles, antipathy to the European Convention on Human Rights. It may commend the convention to some at least in this Chamber that, let us not forget, it was devised by British Conservative lawyers. We should also recall that the reason it came into being—I think this was mentioned earlier in the debate—was to deal with exactly the Humpty Dumpty school of legal interpretation which, once adopted, spread widely in the 20th century to become the basis of horrifying totalitarianism and all that that led to. I believe we should not and must not allow this approach to the law to enter our system.
Let us have some leadership from our leaders in the great British tradition of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and not put our long-established traditions up for sale for the supposed benefit of a mess of short-term political pottage.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, this time last week, I was in Strasbourg for meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—a body dedicated to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. On its first day, as is usual, there were two meetings of its various committees. I sit on its migration committee. We were pretty much preoccupied with the plight of abducted Ukrainian children being forcibly taken into Russia to be Russified and eventually turned back to fight against their own people—a horrendous situation indeed.
However, in the informal times between our business items, I was besieged by people from Parliaments across Europe who wanted to ask me about what was happening here last Monday. I explained the nature of that debate, and wished I had been here myself. There was a short gap in the proceedings that allowed me, with such technical ability as I have, to get the debate on my telephone screen. I was able to follow a small part of the debate that took place here last week, pretty much on the subject we are debating right now. I got only a snippet of the debate, but enough to make me think a great deal.
I saw an exchange, some might call it a spat, between the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who is in his place—an honourable man of Tredegar, which is what confers the honourableness on him—and my noble friend, if I may be allowed to award him that accolade for the purpose of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. The discussion was about the rule of law and the role of the UNHCR in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Sitting next to me was Andreas Wissner, the UNHCR official in Strasbourg.
The point at issue was the decision of the Supreme Court that the UNHCR is entrusted
“with the supervision of the interpretation and application of the Refugee Convention”.
I am getting my bearings from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, because it is he who was quoting. Later, it was said that the UNHCR’s guidance
“should be accorded considerable weight”.
The two words that the noble Lord singled out in his speech were “supervision”—that is, of the interpretation allowed to each member state to apply the laws and conventions according to the light of their own experience—and “guidance”. Both of these, he argued, offered a clear indication that the UNHCR was not entrusted with final or binding decisions but merely with the giving of critical advice and counsel.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was clear that the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Murray—who is not in his place; I could have been complimentary about him but I am glad not to be given the opportunity—were both wrong in their suggestion that the UNHCR is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention. It is so charged, said the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the Supreme Court agreed with him. When lawyers, even distinguished lawyers, disagree—I am a minnow here, swimming for his life in a deep bowl—it is sometimes a good thing to turn to the way the point at issue has been applied in previous cases.
Indeed, Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to take into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in making their decisions. This is good advice, not only for courts but for distinguished lawyers speaking in your Lordships’ House. The UNHCR has given detailed attention to all three major pieces of legislation that have been before this House in the last short period. Its reports make most interesting reading and have been very carefully drawn up. We have to bear in mind the role of the UNHCR and, in looking to resolve the dispute that was on air last week, case law—the way the laws have been applied—needs to play its proper part. The advice was clear: the way we are going will involve a serious breach of international law and seriously damage the UK’s standing in the world.
As I did some thinking on these matters in Strasbourg last week, the battery on my phone ran out. The screen darkened, and so did my spirits lower, as I thought, “Next week I’ll be here trying to make some kind of contribution to what I believe is a fundamental aspect of what it means to belong to this country”. Nobody could have said it better than the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, in his welcome return to this House earlier—in three minutes, and, gosh, look at me. Well, to return to my meeting in Strasbourg—guess what? We were discussing migration and the rule of law.
Baroness Fairhead (CB)
My Lords, we do need to stop the abhorrent practices of the criminal gangs and save people dying at sea, and we do need to control our borders. I therefore commend the actions that the Government have implemented, as described by the Minister in his opening remarks. However, as other noble Lords have said, the Bill is not part of the answer.
I have had the honour of representing this country in international trade negotiations. In its current form, the Bill has the potential to damage the reputation of the UK as a defender of democratic principles, and the rule of law and all its facets, including the principle of the separation of powers. In so doing, if passed, it will damage the future ability of the UK to lead on breaches of international law, and more generally on the world stage.
The UK has a long and proud track record of respecting and promoting the rule of law. Indeed, the most recent European Court of Human Rights report demonstrates our impressive compliance: the court takes into account the fact that we have integrated the human rights convention into our public bodies and that it is overseen by our judiciary. But this hard-earned reputation is now at risk.
Although sending immigrants to safe countries is well established under international law, the Bill is being proposed for a very different situation, positioning itself and the treaty debated last week as an answer to a unanimous ruling by our Supreme Court that Rwanda was not safe as a matter of fact.
I will not repeat its detailed clauses, but many legal commentators, including those in this House, have questioned the Bill’s legality, arguing that, even if its passing enables Rwanda to be deemed a safe country under UK domestic law, it is not relevant in determining whether it breaches our obligations under international law.
The Bar Council of England and Wales commented:
“There is an obvious difference between a country that is in fact safe, and one that is not safe but is deemed to be safe. The United Kingdom’s obligation under international law is to ensure that asylum seekers are only ever sent to countries that are actually safe”.
The Bill does not respect the rule of law, including the separation of powers, as clearly articulated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and it breaches our obligations under international law. The great irony, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London stated, is that the Bill is proposing that the UK breaches its international obligations but insists that Rwanda meet its own.
Ultimately, government is about two things: the making of laws and the allocation of money. If it is not bound by the laws it dislikes, the authority of government is eroded. That is why this House has an important role in helping the Government find solutions—but solutions that do not breach the fundamental principle on which their own authority is based. I will therefore not be voting in favour of the amendment, in the hope that our role as a revising Chamber can take place.
Like so very many in the House, I had the privilege of knowing and learning from the late and much lamented noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, called out already by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Lord Judge highlighted the critical importance of the rule of law during his lifetime. I will end by using words from his published essays, as I urge the Government to consider amending the Bill to comply with them. He said:
“The rule of law is indeed our safest shield … it has a resonance for each and every one of us, from whichever country we come. Never take the rule of law for granted. Never, ever. The best of constitutions can be subverted”.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the short time available, I shall concentrate on my conclusions. The first point that I wish to make relates to the policy that the Bill is intended to facilitate: namely, deterring small boats. I do not believe that the Bill, if enacted, will serve as an effective deterrent. I believe that individuals who choose to make the perilous journey across the channel in overcrowded and vulnerable boats are unlikely to be deterred by the slight prospect of being relocated to Rwanda. Those of your Lordships who have principled reservations about the Bill should not support a Bill that cannot achieve its desired objective.
My second point, and my principal objection to the Bill, is the statutory reversal of the Supreme Court’s judgment that Rwanda is not a safe country. Whether Rwanda is or is not a safe country is a matter of fact, to be determined after careful assessment of the relevant evidence. This is what the Supreme Court did. In my view, it is contrary to long-standing principles to reverse, by a statutory pronouncement, a judicial finding of fact.
I turn to my broader objection. This country prides itself on being a country in which the rule of law prevails. We are a country which adheres to its international obligations. The Bill trashes our reputation for domestic and international probity. I cite two provisions. Clause 1(4)(b) states:
“It is recognised that … the validity of an Act”—
any Act, I note—
“is unaffected by international law”.
International law is very broadly defined: see Clause 1(6). That provision is right in strict law, but its sole purpose in the Bill is to provide comfort for the Braverman wing of the Conservative Party and it is a proposition that we should voice with very great caution.
Clause 5 enables a Minister, at his or her discretion, to determine whether or not to be compliant with judicial rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Members of the international community reading the Bill would be entitled to conclude that the given word of the United Kingdom cannot be relied on.
On Clause 3—the disapplication of the Human Rights Act in respect of individuals who would otherwise benefit from its provisions—I call to mind the words of Pastor Niemöller, spoken in 1947:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me”.
Of course, the circumstances are very different from those of the 1930s, but we should beware the precedent that we would create. It is best not to step on to a slippery slope; it can end in some very murky places.
I end with what I hope is a constructive suggestion: the Bill should not be implemented without a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Such a resolution should not be considered until Parliament has received a report on the safety of Rwanda from, for example, a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed for the purpose; there may be other ways of meeting the objective. In the event of no report or an unfavourable report, the Bill would remain in the long grass, where it should be. Such an approach could be reinforced by sunset clauses and constant, continuing assessment. That way, Parliament would at least have an assessment of fact on which it could properly rely. Incidentally, it also accords with the judgment of this House in last week’s vote.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, as the 41st speaker, I will inevitably repeat or underline others’ points, but I will briefly make a couple of observations. I am struck that some noble Lords supporting the Bill nevertheless do so with a hint of equivocation, saying that it is not perfect or the final destination. In addition, I have not heard evidence that the proposal will work. The Minister commented in opening that progress had been made and the numbers of those coming across in boats had decreased. Why do we not put more effort into the courses that have enabled that reduction?
I do not think there is a single noble Lord who is not determined that the dangerous boat crossings of those seeking asylum in this country be stopped. Our valuing of and care for human life and the plight of those fleeing danger place a moral duty on us to work out a way to stop these perilous crossings and find a just and safe way for people to find refuge. We know from the Government’s figures that the great majority of those who have sought asylum in this country through this life-endangering method have had their applications upheld. We are not talking about people risking their lives without legitimate cause. We need to find, as a number of noble Lords have said, safe ways to achieve this goal with our European neighbours. This is a good moral purpose to which I believe we would all assent.
However, from every angle that I look at the Bill, it seems to have lost that moral compass. This continues to be a deeply immoral solution, treating victims as perpetrators and not providing a real, just and sustainable plan for the rapidly changing global refugee situation. I will touch on two related aspects of this.
First, His Majesty’s Government have signed a treaty with Rwanda which they believe addresses the concerns that led the Supreme Court to conclude that it was unsafe. The Government responded by arguing that the facts had changed and those changes are now expressed in the treaty with Rwanda. However, the International Agreements Committee asserts:
“Evidence that these arrangements have bedded down in practice is also needed”—
as a number of noble Lords have said—
“the Treaty is unlikely to change the position … in the short to medium term”.
Rather than testing the evidence through the courts, or possibly via the method referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the Government have decided to introduce the Bill, which in reality dictates to the courts that they must treat Rwanda as a safe country. The use of Parliament as decision-maker in these circumstances is impractical and troubling. I see the Government’s approach as constitutionally inappropriate.
My second and more fundamental point is the constitutional danger of excluding the jurisdiction of the courts in future cases. Under these proposals, as we have heard, the courts would be required to ignore evidence that may emerge in future, thus removing their ability to protect. No Bill should place such limits on access to justice. This raises a serious constitutional issue and potentially, yet again, victimises the victims.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will leave the important legal aspects of the Bill to the many outstanding lawyers who have spoken and will focus on much wider aspects of the current situation. This is a critical stage for the Government’s asylum policies and, by extension, their even more important immigration policies. Net migration last year was roughly 20 times the number of people who crossed the channel.
The Bill sets up a complex system to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda as a deterrent to future channel crossers, yet, at the same time, the Government are granting asylum to applicants from six Middle Eastern countries by a paper process without even an interview. Nearly all of them will have destroyed their documents and most will have crossed the channel and therefore come from a safe country. Young men in those countries total about 23 million. It is ludicrous to be talking purely about law—although it is right for this body to do so—when the policy has lost its way entirely.
The numbers could get even worse. The Migration Advisory Committee recently suggested that asylum seekers, including those who have crossed the channel illegally, should be allowed to work in any job after six months. Surely that would completely undermine the effect of any Bill before us. One is left with the suspicion that the Government’s policy is to focus on asylum to distract attention from the much greater scale of immigration more generally. As has been mentioned, net migration in the last calendar year reached 745,000. That is an incredible number, by far the highest in our history, albeit with some special factors such as Hong Kong, Ukraine and Afghanistan.
What are the possible consequences if we focus so much on asylum, without any reflection on the immigration policy itself? Migration Watch UK, of which I am president, has done some work on the population impact of asylum and immigration taken together. We have made one projection based on net migration of 600,000 a year at current birth rates. The result was a population increase of about 20 million for the UK in the next 25 years. That would be roughly 15 cities the present size of Birmingham. Even at a much lower migration assumption of 350,000, which some other think tanks have suggested, the population increase would be about 9 million.
We are looking here at policies that will have a massive effect on the future of our country. In either case, the implications for housing, health and education would, of course, be huge. To take one example from the education sector, according to government statistics, British children could become a minority in state schools in England in about 20 years’ time.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, was the only speaker to mention public opinion. The wider point of the Bill is surely that failure to achieve an effective legal structure to deter illegal immigration, combined with a failure to achieve a considerable reduction in legal migration, would lead to very serious consequences for the scale, the nature, and—indeed, let it be said—the continuing stability of our society.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we approach this debate with seriousness. Once more, the responsibility to ensure real scrutiny of a Bill rests with our House.
Today, the Government are attempting to rectify what the UK Supreme Court has identified as
“serious and systemic defects in Rwanda’s framework and procedures for processing asylum claims … Its past and continuing practice of refoulement and the changes in procedure, understanding and culture needed”
before Rwanda can be considered a safe third country.
However, the Bill, as it stands, risks entangling us in a complex web of ethical and legal dilemmas that could diminish our international reputation, betray our duty to the genuine asylum seekers, undermine the rule of law and place our courts in an exceedingly difficult position. It risks creating a legislative or legal fiction. Much has been said about the infamous late-night pyjama injunctions, or Rule 39 orders, and the meddling of the so-called foreign courts. Let us be clear: the European Court of Human Rights is not a foreign court; it is a shared court. The UK was instrumental in its establishment and has significantly contributed to its jurisprudence. A British judge sits on the court and British lawyers are involved in its administration.
In Rule 39 orders against the UK, the context is that the court grants only 2% of requests. Last year, there was just one. Also, last year, the court found the UK in violation of the ECHR on only one occasion—the 38th lowest of all member states. Under the Bill, Ministers will have the power to ignore Rule 39 orders. Neither these new powers nor any amendments to the Civil Service Code would alter our international legal obligations. Should a Minister opt to disregard interim measures, this would place the UK in direct violation of its treaty obligations. How can the UK continue to be a global advocate for the rule of law—as many others have said—and honouring international commitments if this happens?
To illustrate the unprecedented nature of such an action, I point out that no member of the Council of Europe has ever taken steps to disregard ECHR rulings or interim measures except Russia, and that is not good company to be in. I am not alone in being perplexed by the inconsistencies that this policy and this Bill will introduce. Our treaty with Rwanda obliges it to adhere to the refugee convention, yet the Bill explicitly exempts the refugee convention and other international obligations from consideration within the UK.
The Government may not thank me for doing so, but I feel compelled to remind the House of the agreement with Rwanda, which included an intent to
“resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees”
here in the UK—a process that, as we know, is already under way, with numbers increasing. Even if the plan is enacted and we finally have refugees going to Rwanda, the numbers will be modest, in the hundreds at most. By comparison, in 2023, almost 30,000 irregular migrants entered the UK via small boats.
Even so, it is perfectly fair to ask those of us who dislike these provisions, “How are we going to deal with the rest?” There are many tools available to the Government. We simply need to know which tools to use and how to deploy them better. The Government have actually made progress and I commend them for that. Small boat crossings, as my noble friend the Minister has said, are down by 36% compared to 2022. The grant rate for asylum decisions in 2023 was 67%, down 9% on the year before. When I was Immigration Minister myself it was actually 19%, applying the criteria of the 1951 refugee convention fairly but firmly.
To clear the backlog, the number of staff working on asylum cases has increased significantly, and 112,000 asylum cases were processed in 2023, the most in any year since 2002. The Government have signed an agreement with Albania for removal of their nationals and to strengthen co-operation. To date, 5,500 Albanian migrants have been returned. The deal with France last year has greatly enhanced co-operation between our countries, and further agreements were secured—correctly—with Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy and Georgia. All these tools—and a number of others—have been, and will continue to be, more effective in stopping the boats than these Rwanda proposals. The Government should focus on these instead, and I believe the country would be grateful.
My remarks today stem from a deep sense of regret and disappointment in witnessing how we have become embroiled in what can be described only as an unhealthy obsession with Rwanda. This fixation appears to be an attempt to satisfy certain factions and individuals, who seem to possess neither the depth of understanding nor the nuanced appreciation of the complexities involved in asylum and immigration matters. For them, nothing will be enough—neither the Bill nor ever-more radical ideas. If we are to restore public confidence in our ability to manage our borders, we should focus on the other tools available and avoid the inevitable problems which will most certainly ensue if we persist with these proposals.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, when researchers and historians come to assess the work of the 2019-24 Parliament, I suspect they will be completely baffled by the reasoning that led three successive Governments—those of Johnson, Truss and Sunak—to rely so heavily in countering the obnoxious human trafficking of migrants across the channel on a scheme to send those migrants, despite the fact that a majority of them are likely to have legitimate grounds for seeking asylum, off to a small African country which our own Supreme Court has ruled is not a safe destination for them. That is without even considering their case for seeking asylum here.
This scheme, the third legislative iteration of which is before this House today for Second Reading, is deeply flawed on the grounds of practicality and of value for money. It requires the upending of the unwritten conventions which have governed the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary for centuries, by barring our courts, from the Supreme Court downwards, from intervening. It makes a bonfire of a large number of this country’s international legal commitments and puts others at serious risk of following them on to the fire—quite a score for one relatively short Bill.
I do not want to dwell for too long on the arguments about lack of practicality. We now know that the Prime Minister—when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—set them out to No. 10 pretty cogently. It is argued by the Government that this year’s Illegal Migration Act has already proved to be an effective deterrent and has reduced the 2023 channel crossings by one-third. However, that assertion is completely unproven. A substantial part of that reduction has in fact resulted from the very welcome agreement with Albania, which enables nationals of that country to be returned as economic migrants. It is nothing to do with the Rwanda scheme.
Another unquantifiable but also substantial part of that reduction is due to the equally welcome intensified Anglo-French police and intelligence co-operation. It must be, or else we are paying an awful lot of money for nothing. Moreover, while the Government refuse to say whether there are any limits on the numbers who could be sent to Rwanda under the scheme, they must fall a long way short of those still being brought across the channel. Therefore, the deterrent effect of the Rwanda scheme is moot, to put it very politely.
As to the constitutional propriety, others have spoken about that issue, and I will not extend my remarks on it.
Then there is the bonfire being made of our international obligations by the present Bill and its predecessors. The refugee convention is first amongst them, as the Supreme Court recognised in its recent ruling. Then there is the convention against torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international legal instruments we took pride in signing and ratifying. That is without taking account of the risk that the Bill would empower the Government to step out on to a slippery slope that could lead to our departure from the European Convention on Human Rights and from the jurisdiction of its court, which, as was so rightly said by the previous speaker, is not a foreign court. I am aware that the Government assert that we are doing none of these things, but they assert that unilaterally, in the face of strong views to the contrary by the bodies set up to interpret and safeguard those commitments. On that, a reading of the testimony of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to the Supreme Court, and more recently on this Bill, is really salutary. To do that is to make a mockery of the Government’s otherwise admirable championing of a rules-based international order.
There is a large amount to criticise in the present Bill, and little, if anything, to commend in it. It is surely a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Cures there are, and they are not simple; all require much closer, more effective co-operation with our European neighbours. They could also be helped if we were prepared to process swiftly and offshore claims for asylum. That is the approach which Italy, Germany and Denmark are said to be contemplating, not the Government’s choice of denying migrants who cross the channel any consideration at all of their asylum claims.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment and opposed to this disgraceful and odious Bill. Other speakers have addressed and will address the Bill’s many faults, moral and constitutional. I will try to explain why it is right and necessary for this House to refuse to consider it further. In making the case, I will echo the speech I made on the Second Reading of the equally abhorrent Illegal Migration Bill.
We all agree that the House of Commons has a democratic mandate and is entitled to pass whatever legislation it wishes. The issue before us today is the role of the second Chamber when presented with legislation such as this Bill, which is so dreadful and unacceptable. As my noble friend Lord Grocott reminded us earlier, we are a revising Chamber, but the reality is—and we all know this—that there is no way this Bill can be revised to make it acceptable. At any rate, the Government are opposed to any meaningful amendment. This Bill is not a serious attempt to address the issues raised by immigration; it is a cynical, political fraud.
We are not just a revising Chamber; we have the power, as set out in the provisions of the Parliament Acts, to also act as a delaying Chamber. Ultimately, we cannot veto the proposed laws sent to us by the Commons, but we can delay them either for a year or until after an election. A Government who have a majority in the Commons can overrule this House, but that does not require us to always accept their proposals. In cases like this, I believe we have a constitutional duty to use our powers of delay.
In support of this view, I refer noble Lords to the words of Sir Winston Churchill on 11 November 1947, speaking as Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition in a debate on a fatal amendment during the debate on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill. His words set out clearly why and when, in accordance with our constitution, this House is entitled—even under an obligation—to refuse to consider a Bill any further, even when it has been passed by the Commons. He argued the case for this House to take such action on the grounds of democracy. He said:
“The spirit of the Parliament Act, and the purpose of that Act, were to secure the intimate, effective and continuous influence of the will of the people upon the conduct and progress of their affairs”.
He also said something that is particularly relevant in our current circumstances:
“Is the party opposite really to be entitled to pass laws affecting the whole character of the country in the closing years of this Parliament without any appeal to the people who have the vote and who placed them where they are?”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; cols. 204, 214.]
Those words are particularly relevant in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. In the closing remarks of his contribution to this debate, he said that if this Bill were passed, we would be living in,
“a different land, breathing different air in a significantly diminished kingdom. Is that what any of us really wants?”
Those are exactly the circumstances identified by Sir Winston as to when the House should say no and no further. In other words, the power of this House to delay legislation should be used in the interests of democracy. This Bill does affect the whole character of the country, and this House, to the extent allowed under our constitution, should delay its passage.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for that speech. He did not pull any punches, which I liked, but I did not like anything else that he said. I find myself with “Sophie’s Choice” here. This is a Bill that I intensely dislike, but I dislike the Opposition’s arguments against the Bill even more.
I am no fan of the Rwanda plan. The absence of a much-promised review of safe routes means that there is no flexibility about who is permanently deported, and there is no ability to appeal. The Bills feels performative, very expensive and unworkable, but mainly I object to a narrow discussion on Rwanda as a substitute for tackling what should be obvious to all by now: the need for a complete overhaul of our current asylum system and a review of often outdated international laws and treaties that are regularly used to limit sovereign law-making.
Here is my dilemma: too often, opposition to any or all government proposals on migration—certainly since I have been in this House—leads to swathes of immovable blocks that effectively tell voters, “You can’t do that”. I am worried when this House plays that role itself, of being one of those blocks. Certainly, treaties and laws internationally made that no one in the UK voted for feel like a slap in the face of the electorate. I am glad to hear that, across the House, there is an understanding that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German, is potentially improper overreach, a sort of cancel culture applied to the scrutiny of legislation. Despite this, however, when the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, told the House that the Labour Benches would treat the Bill like any other Bill, I am just not convinced that this Bill is being treated like any other Bill. In fact, all migration legislation and debates that I have sat through have felt less like scrutiny and revising in good faith, and more as though they are opposing because of a fundamental disagreement on immigration. Amendments that are being put forward even now, I fear, will gut the original aim of the legislation, and that seems to me to be anti-democratic.
There has been a lot of noise ahead of today’s debate. In fact, I was reading Politico, and one anonymous Labour Peer told that publication that the Lords were preparing for “trench warfare.” He then listed the Bill’s sins: overturning the Supreme Court, being contrary to international law and human rights and so on. He said:
“All these things are likely to put lead in the Lords’ pencil.”
It is interesting that those tools of governance are what excite the juices of noble Lords in this House and get them worked up, whereas they seem rather indifferent to public concerns and rarely reference them, and then only to dismiss with a sneer the “will of the people” phrase.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury stressed the important issue of individual dignity and the value of each and every individual, and of course, he is right. However, that was very much with a focus on those seeking asylum. I ask noble Lords to broaden their focus. It insults the dignity of the British public when their concerns about the potential security threat posed by those entering the country illegally in the absence of proper checks are given second-class status versus international treaties. I can also imagine how vulnerable people feel when they discover that, for example, universities are offering visas to overseas students for lower grades than their kids need to get on to a degree course in this country.
Just a few other issues are bothering me. We are trapped here for hours and hours debating the safety of one African country. I feel uncomfortable reading the plethora of briefings sent out by NGOs detailing horror stories from Rwanda full of human misery, even with accusations of torture, but I seriously worry about demonising a country for the purposes of opposing a UK policy and defeating a Bill. Maybe I am being too cynical, but I cannot help but notice that, only recently, many of the same NGOs and commentators were cheering on and lionising another African country for taking Israel to The Hague. Why did they then turn a blind eye to South Africa’s horrendous record of corruption, massacres of its own workers and standing by during pogroms of Zimbabwean immigrants, and so on? It just seems a bit like picking and choosing.
Then there is the focus on whether the Bill will damage our reputation with international institutions. Should such institutions be treated as sacrosanct? Much play has been made of the condemnation of the Bill by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the fact that he denounced any UK lawmaking that wants
“to keep people away from your borders”,
saying that that “will always meet” with the UN’s disapproval. It would mean we would never be able to control our borders. However, I object to taking moral instructions from the UN on refugees after the weekend’s exposé that one of its agencies was implicated in the 7 October anti-Jewish pogrom. I will leave it there.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I do not like the Bill, but, as a number of noble Lords have said, I struggle with the alternative, as absolutely nothing else has been put forward—and certainly nothing has been suggested tonight.
I know that the Government are sincere in their desire to crack down on illegal immigration. We have an absurd situation at play in which criminal gangs and people-smugglers are taking advantage of individuals, facilitating continued violation of our borders, endangering lives and costing the taxpayer significantly. When the people of this country switch on the news, they are rightly horrified to see small boats crammed with people, and clips of small children being held dangerously in them.
The British people have proven throughout history, and indeed more so in recent times, that they are hospitable to the most in need and supportive of genuine refugees. However, their good will has been gravely exploited by the criminal gangs, who rely on an outdated legal practice and loopholes to run a mockery of not only our immigration system but the generosity of the British people. As has been said already, illegal immigration is a danger to race relations and to our society.
On the Bill, I uphold that it is for the British people alone to decide on who comes and who stays in this country. I have no doubt that they wish to see illegal immigration end and that they are fed up with the ping-pong process of legislation being passed in sovereign Parliament only for the courts to then block any attempts on the part of the Government to get on and apply it. In building on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Bill will, I hope, allow the Government to get on with the task of not only deterring and stopping small boat crossings but applying some needed morality and fairness to our processes for dealing with illegal immigration.
While I agree that the Bill is a mechanism that is key to stopping the boats and preventing the courts from second-guessing the sovereign will of this Parliament, I am wary that the asylum backlog, marred by the complexity of individual circumstances, could once again see this matter return to the courts on a costly case-by-case basis.
The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, raised a number of concerns about the agreement. These concerns will arise when the Bill is challenged in the courts, so they need resolving, and quickly.
I do not think this point has been made tonight: Rwanda itself wants to see these safeguards in place, resolved and operating because it needs them for its own reputation, and indeed because it is presenting itself, and rightly so, as a modern, leading African country. Can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurances and clarify how the provisions of the Bill which provide limited scope for individuals to raise challenges based on their individual circumstances will not be exploited as a delaying tactic rather than being a sound legal provision to protect the rights of individuals?
Further, I am encouraged by the action taken by the Government in recent times to secure agreements such as the UK-Albania joint communiqué, which has been talked about already today. Working bilaterally in that case, the Government have proven that the return of over 5,000 people who have no legal right to be here to their safe country of origin is a powerful deterrent which has seen the number of illegal Albanian arrivals to this country drop by more than 90%.
I have in other addresses to your Lordships’ House called on the Government to direct their efforts to perfecting and creating additional bilateral agreements such as this, which surely must be the most sensible way to curb the flow of illegal immigration. In this ever-destabilised world, we need a pragmatic and diplomatic avenue for the UK to continue working bilaterally with other nations to collaboratively address the growing complexities of illegal migration. I would therefore welcome an update from the Minister on how the Government are seeking to further their work in this area.
That said, the challenges that we face today are impacting the people and security of the country and require us to act swiftly. For that reason, I support the Bill.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, were it not for the thousands of human tragedies and broken lives that are part of the problem which this Bill attempts so clumsily to solve, we would be looking at surrealism verging on the point of becoming comic. A scriptwriter suggesting this scenario would be told to go away and come back with something a little more credible. But alas, we are faced with a proposal to put legal fiction into statute.
My learned predecessor John Ley, Clerk of the House of Commons in the middle of the 19th century, once said:
“To hell with precedent! The House can do what it likes”,
and 200 years ago, so it could—perhaps. However, now we have an infinitely more complex and nuanced relationship between Parliament and the courts. Still, a key element of our constitutional settlement and the protection of our freedoms is the rule of law and not what from time to time the Government of the day use a Commons majority to say what that is, whatever the courts may have said or may say.
I fear that over the next few weeks, if there are continuing disagreements between your Lordships and the House of Commons, we shall hear an awful lot of nonsense talked about the Salisbury/Addison convention—I immediately exclude from that possibility the lapidary contribution of the Convenor earlier in this debate. Other noble Lords have spoken and will speak about the legal complexities, but in the short time I have it may be worth taking a moment to look at the relationship between the two Houses.
The Salisbury/Addison Convention, as it became known, was not invented in 1945. If it had a progenitor, it was the third Marquess of Salisbury in the late 1880s. In an age of widening suffrage, he said that your Lordships’ House had an obligation to reject, and so refer back to the electorate, especially contentious Bills, usually involving a revision of the constitutional settlement. We have come a long way since then, of course, enacting the Parliament Act 1911 en route.
There is no doubt that a manifesto Bill has a special significance in the relationship between the two Houses—but this animal has become elusive. The Labour Party manifesto in 1945 was, with Attleian brevity, only eight pages long. It was a clear and specific checklist of intentions. Nowadays, manifestos may be 10 or 20 times that length, and they have taken on the character of a philosophical tract. Distilling legislative intent is not always easy.
In 2006, the Joint Committee on Conventions examined the so-called Salisbury/Addison convention. Its report is well worth reading. The committee did not support any attempt to define a manifesto Bill. It concluded that the 1945 convention, which was, of course, between parties rather than between the Houses, had evolved and it recommended naming the convention “the Government Bill Convention”. The logic of this was that, rather than struggle to find manifesto lineage in a Bill, it was better to treat the endorsement of the elected House as being sufficient democratic authority.
That is a reasonable position to take. I would not support voting against a Bill—even this Bill—on Second Reading. Rejection on Second Reading would be read by many outside this place as a suicide note. However, I counsel care and restraint in seeking to characterise the democratic authority I referred to a moment ago. Phrases such as “the will of the people” are not appropriate—as well as being, in terms, manifestly untrue.
If this Bill is given a Second Reading, I imagine that it will be significantly amended on Report. If so, I expect your Lordships’ views to be widely misrepresented—I hear echoes of “Enemies of the People”. Exchanges between the Houses are not a face-off. They are a constitutionally valuable way of identifying any common ground and of giving the Commons the opportunity to think again. We should not buy into the urban myth that there should be only, let us say, two exchanges. When the Bill for the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was before Parliament, there were seven exchanges between the Houses—as I have some personal cause to remember. If on this Bill there are continuing disagreements, we should have confidence in the strength of our arguments.
My final point is that, when there are exchanges between the Houses, it is important to see them as disagreements not between the Lords and the Commons but between Government and Parliament. That, I think, puts them in their proper context.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, listening to the speeches this evening, I have heard a number of noble Lords state their opposition to the Bill on what they said were moral grounds. I am not qualified to comment on the international legal aspect, but I do not accept that those who oppose this Bill can claim the moral high ground. Let me make just five quick points to explain that.
First, it is not correct to say that those individuals seeking to enter the UK on small boats are coming because they need to seek asylum here. Of course, many may have come originally from countries where they faced persecution, but, once they arrive in France or Belgium, they are already in a safe country. European citizens are not allowed to claim asylum in the UK because of that, so their choice to board a boat and seek to enter the UK is a choice that they would rather live in the UK as a more tolerant country, offering better prospects. That is a very reasonable aspiration, but we have Immigration Rules to control the number of migrants coming to the UK, which they are seeking to evade.
Secondly, it is not right that would-be migrants who bypass our immigration system should be given precedence over others. It is a valid point of view that we should have no limits to immigration—open borders to all—but, as others have said, in the modern world, that is simply impractical. So, if you accept that the UK should have immigration controls to limit the number of people who settle here, you have to accept that those rules should be enforced.
Of course, we always have been and continue to be willing to accept our share of those fleeing persecution, and we should be proud of our record in that regard, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton said in his opening remarks. However, it is not fair or reasonable to allow migrants coming from an already safe country, choosing to come here as a matter of preference rather than necessity, to bypass our normal immigration controls and jump the queue by paying people traffickers to smuggle them in.
Thirdly, while many in this House have argued that Rwanda may not be an attractive location compared with remaining in the UK or France, if we pass this Bill, it will be those who choose to get on the boat to be smuggled into the UK who are making their choice to go there. We will not be imposing this outcome on unsuspecting individuals who come to the UK on different terms. Anyone seeking to bypass our immigration system will be making that choice in the full knowledge of where they will end up. It will be their choice about how comfortable they will be in Rwanda, not ours. If they are not comfortable with that, they can safely stay in France and apply to migrate to the UK in the normal way through our normal procedures.
Then there is the numbers argument. Some argue that the policy cannot work because, they say, thousands of migrants cannot be accommodated in Rwanda. That misses the point. If the policy is successful, very few individuals will actually be sent to Rwanda, because the certainty of being removed from the UK will remove the incentive to come here illegally. In fact, the most successful policy would be if no migrants were sent to Rwanda.
Finally, there are those who argue that there is a magic bullet—a better solution. But the only alternative offered to stop the flow of small boats is to crack down on criminal gangs. Well, while it may be possible to do more to disrupt the large criminal gangs, you do not need much organisation to procure a small dinghy and sell it to those who want to make the crossing. We cannot patrol the whole French coastline. So this alternative is simply not credible. As long as the channel crossings remains a viable route into the UK, people will keep coming.
In summary, I simply do not accept that it is the moral high ground to allow a situation to continue where people smugglers will put more lives at risk through dangerous channel crossings and where migrants who bribe their way onto these boats to evade our immigration controls can jump the queue over others who may have a better claim to settle in the UK. That is not moral, but that is what will happen if we block the Bill. So I will support this Bill on the basis that stopping the boats is the moral high ground, and I urge other noble Lords to do the same.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, finally we have it here. We have been waiting quite a long time for this Bill, and it is very irritating that it is so misleadingly named, because of course the Rwanda safety Bill is the opposite of what is: it should really have been called the “Rwanda Not Safe At All Bill”. It amounts to a stupid, messy, inhumane, cruel, immoral and idiotic way of thinking that you can solve the problem of migration like this.
The Government have created this problem by not putting in, for example, better safe, legal routes. There have been lots of answers coming from these Benches about other possibilities.
Sorry, did somebody speak to me? That is not on.
The Government have created this problem. They have thrown together something they call a solution that is not a solution at all.
It is the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who keeps talking. Can the Whips have a word with him, please?
The Government have dishonoured both Houses by tabling the Bill and bringing it to us to debate. It was wrong to bring this Bill to us; it was wrong to develop it at all.
First, there is the title. Rwanda is not a safe country. We have heard that again and again from the courts. The UK has just accepted for asylum Rwandans who were in fear of persecution if they stayed in Rwanda. That does not sound very safe. Just because this Government say that it is safe does not make it safe. I have heard some ridiculous things from that side of the Chamber. I have heard some very good things, by the way, but also some quite ridiculous things about how Rwanda is safe. It really is not. Secondly, we will be in violation of an international treaty. Do we want to be seen as a country that cannot be trusted, that signs an agreement then backs out of it? I would have thought not.
This is an exceptional Bill which needs us here in your Lordships’ House to take exceptional action. Stopping a Government who have a track record for introducing draconian laws overruling our courts is what we are here for. It is our job. Today we are talking about the rights of refugees but, if your Lordships accept this Bill going through, what is to stop a Government with a big majority then disapplying other human rights? The path to a totalitarian state is not just the Government banning strikes and effective protests or restricting the right to vote—all of which have happened—it is Ministers pushing through laws that say, “This group of people deserve no human rights and the courts are banned from helping them seek justice”. Today it is refugees but tomorrow there will be another scapegoat to target. Some of them might be vile people doing horrible things but that is the point of human rights. Human rights are for all of us. They are there to defend everyone’s right to justice, whether they are saint or sinner, whether the Government like them or hate them.
Convention is on the side of rejecting the Bill. The Labour Front Bench does not like the Lords blocking what MPs have voted for, and I understand that we should use this power sparingly, but, as we have heard, Labour has done it. It had its own successful fatal Motion 11 years ago so I think that it could support today’s fatal amendment if Labour Members just held their noses. I am proud to say that last year the opposition parties joined together to beat the Government on the water pollution rules. A year before that, we rejected outright the 18 pages of government amendments restricting the right to protest and forced the Government to come back with new legislation.
The Rwanda Bill was not in the Conservative Party manifesto. Disapplying the Human Rights Act was not in the manifesto. Convention allows us to reject it. Also, as someone said, it will take us hours. We will be sitting here for a very long time and many of us probably do not have that many hours left and should think, “Is that how we want to spend them—fighting this Government, not winning and having all our amendments sent back?”, because that end of Parliament does not understand what we are here for. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that this is the will of the people, he should call a general election. Please give the public a chance to have their say about this, about the PPE corruption and about the mess that the Government have deliberately made of the NHS.
I have talked to a lot of people outside your Lordships’ House. Some, of course, are concerned about the boats arriving, for all sorts of reasons. But on doorsteps, in streets, offices, shops and pubs, the talk is less of “Stop the boats” and much more of “Stop the Tories”.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for introducing this Bill to deter illegal migrants from making the perilous journey across the high seas.
Despite the law being there, it has not been executed because of successful legal challenge and will not deter. It remains a hollow threat. The new Bill responds to this legal challenge and the Supreme Court judgment by ruling out any generic challenge based on debate about the safety of Rwanda. However, the Bill is not without its own problems, some of which have been referred to today. I will raise two.
Will a successful challenge on individual circumstances become the prototype for other challenges of the same sort? Will there be a successful challenge to the Strasbourg court and what will be the response from a Minister of the Crown to an interim remedy? While I am willing to give the Bill a chance, I am concerned that it is not a satisfactory basis on which to ask the UK Parliament to pass a law. I am concerned about an attempt to have it every way, to be within international law yet disapply certain parts so that that the UK somehow avoids its parameters. I urge my noble and learned friend to ask the Government to exclude, clearly and categorically for the purpose of this Bill, the provisions of those international treaties which make it impossible to honour the mandate to the electorate to control the UK’s borders.
The attempt to run with the hare and run with the hounds is bad for politics, bad for the courts and bad for the constitutional arrangements where Parliament makes the law and the courts interpret it. We have a sea border. We have our own Parliament. We have the finest judiciary in the world. It is time to capitalise on these facts. We need to make our law clear and, if need be, clearly exclude those parts of international law which bind this country and replace them with our own law; otherwise, we shall reap the constitutional and political instability faced by many western countries because we seem to be failing to honour the promise that the electorate sees as its priority.
Across Europe, settled Governments are crumbling, political systems have been undermined, constitutional stability and order have been threatened, and voters have lost confidence in the politics of “business as usual”. The EU is now proposing another measure to control illegal migration which involves quotas and fines on countries that do not take their quota and which is not set to come into law for a year. That is no answer; nor do our neighbouring countries consider it sufficient. In Germany, the left coalition seeks control over migration. France finally passed its own immigration law and, within weeks, the constitutional court of that country has challenged parts of it. Denmark is trying its own scheme and in Holland, Geert Wilders was elected because he promises to combat immigration and undermine the stability of the Rutte Government.
The UK Government should clearly and boldly reject those elements of the existing international treaties which make it impossible for them to act against illegal immigration as the electorate wishes. They should aim to return to the initial proposal of the coalition years to introduce their own Bill of Rights, covering these things with the generosity that we have always shown to asylum and protection claims from people in need. Far from making itself an international pariah, the UK would show itself to be a leader, the one country brave enough to face today’s facts and open the way to solving a problem that concerns almost every developed country.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I start by emphasising that the Bill is unlawful. It contravenes international law, it contravenes our own laws, it is unworkable, it is unaffordable, and it is immoral—because it involves taking incredible risks with human life. Your Lordships will remember that when the judgment from the Supreme Court came down, Lord Sumption was interviewed by the BBC. It was suggested to him that already the Government were saying that they were going to pass this kind of Bill. Quite shocked, he said that it would be “profoundly discreditable” of them to pass a law which flew in the face of a judgment recently given on the fact that Rwanda was unsafe. That is the shameful thing here. Of course, Parliament is entitled to do what it likes, but to say that black is white, or that Rwanda is safe when it clearly is not, is shameful.
The Supreme Court was clear about the facts. It based much of its ruling on the judgment from the Court of Appeal by the distinguished judge Lord Justice Underhill, whose judgment and contribution was as long as War and Peace in the number of words describing the failures of Rwanda in the past in considering applications for asylum; the ways in which it returned people by refoulement; and the climate of fear that exists in Rwanda. There is no independent judiciary because they are captured out of fear of Kagame, who rules with a rod of iron.
People are in fear of speaking out. If you go to Rwanda and ask people about their system, of course they cannot tell you the truth about what takes place. I received an email today from NGOs in the Congo that deal with immigration issues, and I asked if any of them was prepared to give us assistance at the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They said that no one was prepared to speak because they are so in fear of the long arm of Rwanda. They are entitled to feel that. The man who was the subject of the great film “Hotel Rwanda” and managed to evacuate so many Tutsis who were being massacred during the terrible genocide was himself arrested, picked up in Dubai, kidnapped and brought back to Rwanda, because he had criticised Kagame.
In 2018, 12 Congolese asylum seekers who made a peaceful protest about the rotting food they were being asked to eat were shot dead by the Rwandan police. If we are morally content to send people back to these risks, then we should think again.
Let us be clear on the purpose of this. It is because we have an election coming up and the Government want to run up the flag the old subject of immigration and put people in fear of what that might mean. The Government know they cannot fix Rwanda’s legal system in a matter of months or even years, so they have basically struck a deal with Rwanda to take everyone we send—economic migrants as well as asylum seekers. A person will get a place in Rwanda irrespective of whether they are an economic migrant or a refugee. All comers will be fitted in, except that in the treaty—as it was in the memorandum of understanding, although it is never mentioned to the general public—there is a special arrangement that Rwanda can send its vulnerable asylum seekers to Britain. I was glad to hear this mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.
You may ask yourself, “Who are these vulnerable asylum seekers?” One example is that Rwanda has a problem on issues like homosexuality. It is not that there is a law against homosexuals, but they would have great difficulty getting by and living their life as homosexuals if people were to know it. The persecution of homosexuals is very real. There is a whole issue around the Afghani Hazaras, a minority within the Shia tradition of Islam, who are persecuted by Sunni Afghanis. Is there any risk to them if they were taken there for asylum? What about people with mental illness? There are very few psychiatrists in the whole nation of Rwanda, despite there having been a genocide 30 years ago, and 25% of the population suffer from mental illnesses that cannot be treated. The vulnerable people who will be sent here to make use of our medical treatment will be those poor asylum seekers.
It is costing £400 million for very little, but of course it is all about “performative politics”—to use the term mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—at the expense of human lives. We should be ashamed. We had a proud tradition of the rule of law, which I hold to my heart. Let us not forget it—but we are forgetting it here.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, we have had many excellent speeches today and I will, therefore, speak briefly. I am sure we all support the purpose of the Bill, to prevent and deter unlawful migration. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, argued so strongly, the Bill will not achieve that objective.
Our UK immigration policy must not involve breaking international law or human rights—this country has a proud history of upholding both, at all times. As a result, the UK has a priceless reputation enabling us to play a key part in seeking to persuade rogue nations to reform their policies in line with their international obligations.
Only when Rwanda is a safe country, and truly safe, and when the UK Parliament has endorsed this position, can people be removed from the UK to Rwanda in compliance with all our obligations under international law. To satisfy the definition of a “safe country”, all the provisions of the treaty with Rwanda must be implemented by Rwanda, including the establishment of a non-refoulement commitment; strengthening the monitoring arrangements; and strengthening Rwanda’s end-to-end asylum process. All these matters must be bedded in.
If this highly questionable policy is to be pursued—and I have picked up fairly strongly that it is highly questionable—the vital need is for the Bill to be delayed until Rwanda has implemented all the provisions of the treaty and those provisions are bedded in. Only then can the Bill legitimately refer to Rwanda as a safe country for immigration purposes. Delay is the role of your Lordships’ House in this situation, together with a request to the Government to think again.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a lot of anger and outrage this afternoon, and a lot of agonising about nebulous concepts such as international influence and reputation. We have heard much effort to side-slip away from our dualist system of international and domestic law, a lot of advocacy of a purist view of separation of powers that has never applied in this country, and a surprising degree of deference by this sovereign Parliament to a Supreme Court that did not exist two decades ago, is not a constitutional court in the US or European sense—much as many people seem to wish it was—and has decided that it is the fount of wisdom not just on law but on complex issues of foreign policy. Indeed, when it comes to the safety of Rwanda, it seems that the Government’s facts are just judgments but the Supreme Court’s judgments are facts.
Maybe it is useful to get back to the essentials. Perhaps it is old fashioned, but I believe it is the job of a national Government to set terms for who may enter the country, and to control the border accordingly. I think that proposition would be widely agreed on in this country, but seemingly not here. Here, it is suggested by many noble Lords that in significant areas the terms of entry must be set by international conventions agreed decades ago by a European court that seems to believe it has the right to define the extent of its own powers, and by the people traffickers and criminals who make it possible for large numbers of people to take advantage of these terms. We are told, in other words, that the British Government should not, in practice, be able to set the terms under which people can come into this country. I put it that starkly because we can then see that this is not a proposition that would command widespread assent in this country.
This current situation cannot be sustained in modern conditions. The Government are right to do what is necessary to re-establish control. Control must mean that the Government define the conditions for entry into the UK; that one of those conditions is that if you arrive illegally, you do not have the right to stay and must therefore go somewhere else; and that we have no obligation to take in just anybody who shows up and can claim asylum, in whatever numbers. It may well also have to mean that if international law, whether the ECHR or any other agreement, says anything different, then so much the worse for international law. All these things may be unpalatable—and I know they are unpalatable to many in this Chamber; it is much easier to avoid thinking about them—but if you do not do these things, you do not have control.
To the extent that I understand the alternatives most widely advocated by noble Lords, they seem to involve establishing so-called safe and legal routes for the many people who currently show up here illegally—in other words, to acquiesce in the reality that we do not control our borders, and to give up trying. The truth is that safe and legal routes will be rapidly overwhelmed by numbers, and that illegal arrivals will continue.
The most reverend Primate, who is in his place, reminds us that all human beings are of great value. Of course I agree with him, and for the same reasons; of course we should welcome the stranger. But, in my very humble view, in this area you cannot get from that undoubted existential truth to a political proposition—a proposition that large numbers of people from many countries around the world, if they can persuade a criminal trafficker to take them, have the de facto right to settle in this country. Those are propositions of a completely different nature and kind.
It follows logically from all this that of course I support the Bill and its deterrent purpose. I admit some doubts as to whether, in its current form, it will be robust enough to achieve the desired end. I think it would certainly have been better if it had been amended to strengthen the exclusion of international law, as proposed in the Commons; in my view, we will one day have to go there. But it is done now; the Commons debated it fully and has spoken. I support the Government in bringing it into force swiftly and I hope noble Lords will do likewise.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, as I have listened to the debate today, I have been very much aware that noble Lords are seized of the fact that our role is to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp government proposals, as I think we are being asked to do by No. 10. This is our duty and I have no doubt that your Lordships will fulfil that duty with integrity.
Last week, we voted that the Rwanda treaty, on which the Bill relies for legitimacy, should not be implemented until the mechanisms and processes it establishes have been given effect. For the moment, they are aspirational. Anyone who has been involved in the process of establishing new systems and mechanisms knows that these things are not done properly, even in a country such as the UK, which has the advantage of a long-established judicial and criminal justice system and is familiar with accountability mechanisms. Rwanda is not that type of country.
I know that the Bill applies only to those who have come to the UK by unsafe and illegal routes, and that the destruction of the human trafficking business which facilitates access to the UK by these routes is a very necessary and desirable aim. That goes to the heart of the Bill.
Analysis and research led by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law finds, inter alia, that the Bill and treaty would put the UK in breach of its obligations under Article 4 of the ECHR and Article 10 of ECAT: obligations to identify and assist every potential victim of modern slavery and human trafficking, regardless of immigration status or method of entry. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that the Bill
“will, deliberately, abdicate responsibility under the 1951 Refugee Convention, threaten the international refugee protection regime and risk the erosion of the UK’s standing and ability to collaborate in the multilateral system”.
We cannot by stating something make it a reality. If Rwanda is not safe for some people—many noble Lords have pointed out why and where it is not safe, and have pointed to the people who have been given asylum here from Rwanda—the question must arise: what does it mean to say that it is a “safe country”? As the Law Society of England and Wales said:
“Simply put, the Supreme Court found Rwanda to not be a safe country; legislating the reverse will not change the situation on the ground”.
We cannot by legislation make the statement in Clause 1(5) a reality. We have not been told what has changed since the Supreme Court judgment, apart from the making of the Rwanda treaty a few weeks ago—which, as I said, contains a range of aspirational measures that will require very significant work to become operational. As the Law Society also said, as the Bill stands, even if the court is presented with overwhelming evidence that Rwanda is not safe, it would have to ignore that evidence and treat Rwanda as a safe country.
Redress, which pursues claims on behalf of survivors of torture, makes a very important point:
“The Bill sends out a dangerous signal that the UK is willing to circumvent the rule of law, and so undermines the international rules-based order. The UK has historically led the way in establishing the rule of law and should not now contribute to the threats it faces internationally”.
But we know, because we have seen it in your Lordships’ House, that this Government are getting into the habit of disapplying their human rights obligations and undermining the rule of law. I point yet again to the legacy Act passed in Northern Ireland, which removes all rights to compensation under the civil law, to inquests and to prosecutions, except in very limited circumstances.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission advises that refugees and asylum seekers are protected by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and that rights particular to refugees and asylum seekers are within the scope of the Good Friday agreement by virtue, in particular, of the commitment to civil rights and to incorporate the European convention into domestic law. It cites many measures which are binding on the UK and which continue to set standards for human rights protection below which the law in Northern Ireland should not fall. Yet this Bill seeks to deprive individuals of that protection. It suggests that the current relationship between the UK courts, the UK Parliament and international law is balanced—but this Bill will create an imbalance.
We have heard so many voices articulating the dangers and, indeed, perils of this Bill. Undoubtedly, we have to find ways to resolve the problem that gave rise to the Bill and to dismantle, if possible, the highly lucrative businesses profiting from the plight of those who seek a safer and better life. I do not think that many of us could live in Syria, Afghanistan or anywhere else on a salary of about £10 a month, which is the average salary there.
This Bill is not the way forward. At the very least, until Parliament can be assured that the mechanisms and institutions of the Rwanda treaty are in place and that there is consideration of each asylum seeker and any particular vulnerabilities they may have, Parliament should exercise its sovereignty and decline to pass this ill thought-out Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, the Government have yet to respond to your Lordships’ decision on the Rwanda treaty, which is so fundamental to the Bill. This Bill does not stand alone. We will appear ridiculous if we pass a Bill saying that Rwanda is safe simply to overrule our independent Supreme Court, which said that it could not be considered a safe country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to the register of interests for support from RAMP. I start by simply noting rather than repeating the concerns I raised in last week’s debate: the incompatibility of the treaty and Bill with our international obligations, the treatment of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers and of children, and the widespread scepticism about claims of a supposed deterrent effect.
Today, I will focus on Clause 3’s disapplication of the interpretive and remedial provisions of the Human Rights Act, in part because of this clause’s contribution to the Bill’s incompatibility with our international obligations, as advised by the UNHCR, with implications for the Good Friday agreement, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission points out in its very critical advice on the Bill, and because of what it means for human rights and for how asylum seekers are seen and treated. Here I echo some of the points made by the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Durham.
A briefing paper from the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights warns of the significance of disapplication:
“Human rights are meant to offer a fundamental level of protection for every person on the basis of their humanity alone. As … noted in a previous report, if those protections are disapplied when they cause problems for a policy goal they lose the fundamental and universal quality that characterises them. This is arguably particularly the case when they are disapplied in respect of a particular group”.
While the Government are beginning to make a habit of disapplication to marginalised and unpopular groups, as has just been said, the briefing points out that the disapplication of Section 6, which places
“the obligation on public authorities to act compatibly with human rights, has never before been attempted and represents a significant inroad into human rights protections”.
These concerns are echoed in numerous briefings, including from the EHRC, the Law Society and Amnesty.
Let us stop and think what this breach of the universality of human rights means. In effect, it is saying that asylum seekers are to be treated as less than human—as, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon,
“a lesser form of life”.—[Official Report, 4/12/23; col. 1276.]
Their humanity is not worthy of human rights protection.
“Stop the boats” is the Government’s mantra, but what about the human beings in those boats? Do they somehow stand outside the universality of human rights? The Government have paved the way with the dehumanising language they have used to talk about asylum seekers—the language of “invasion”, “breaking in”, “cannibalise”—language which has helped induce the public concern that the Government cite to justify their policy, a point made by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees when speaking to the BBC last week.
Words matter, as the Migrant Rights Network stresses. Their significance is brought home by Erfan, an asylum seeker who writes how he came to realise
“these are not just words. They build a completely new identity, which then justifies how you will be treated, seen and talked about. The language that dehumanises people makes it seem acceptable to place them in inhumane conditions and cut off from society”.
This language now makes it seem acceptable to deny human rights protection.
A statement from MIN Voices, a group of refugees and asylum seekers, some of whom are from Rwanda or neighbouring countries, ends:
“We are human beings, wanting and seeking a safe future”.
By King, a young client of Freedom from Torture who fled persecution, asked in a recent Big Issue piece about the Rwanda plan:
“Why is the UK government refusing to treat refugees like human beings?”
Perhaps the Minister could give her an answer. Instead of an approach which, to quote the British Red Cross’s VOICES Network of those with lived experience,
“disregards the wellbeing and dignity of vulnerable individuals seeking refuge”,
we need, in its words,
“a more humane and compassionate asylum policy”.
I hope we can help achieve such a policy, because if the current Bill passes unamended, I will feel nothing but shame.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I wish to make three points, which have already been made several times in the context of this debate but will not suffer from repetition and which will also allow me to contribute to later stages of the Bill.
It is unreasonable that the Bill asks parliamentarians to override the rulings of the Supreme Court, thereby touching on the constitutional convention of the separation of powers. It is equally unreasonable that the Bill insists that Rwanda is safe—not “could be safe” or “might be safe” but “is safe”. It is also unreasonable that the Bill asks parliamentarians to vote to undermine very important international conventions and much UK domestic law.
The Bill needs radical scrutiny and amendment, and thereafter it needs a steadfast resistance to the pressure of the Government to accept what is, to my mind, a very bad Bill.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register. I am an immigrant, the daughter of immigrants and the granddaughter of immigrants. My grandfather came to this country in 1938.
However, I support the Government on the Bill, because when we have spent millions of pounds in aid trying to help countries such as Rwanda become more accountable, have greater governance and become safer and more transparent, then to vilify them, like we are doing here today, really does make me quite sad and upset. I work a lot in Africa, and I see the progress that countries in Africa are making. Can noble Lords imagine what they must be thinking of us vilifying them the way we are today, when we spend millions of pounds in aid trying to support them to become more accountable? What is the point, then, of all those billions being spent by the global community?
Of course, we have to be fair. I am not a lawyer; I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I do not have the expertise or experience of good lawyers. But I do know—it is actually what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—that we cannot be hypocritical here, where we look at one country and it is fine, and yet with another country it is not so fine, just because we happen to want to take asylum seekers, who should not be here in the first place, to a country we deem unsafe.
I have sat here and listened to this debate, and I have watched the debate on the TV. Trust me: I am not a person in the Conservative Party to the far right of anything. I have spent my lifetime fighting for people’s rights, but I also have found myself fighting for the continent that constantly is put down because it is poor. I did not want to say it, but I will say it, because I have sat here listening to most of the debate today. Is it because it is poor, and because it is Africa, that we have this debate where we can vilify a poor country? It is a country that has come through genocide, and is not perfect, but neither are most countries on earth.
Instead of saying that we will work with Rwanda continuously, and will support Rwanda and the people going there, we sit here and constantly call it unsafe. That is unfair on a country that has gone through so much trauma itself. I was looking at the statistics of Rwanda’s economic growth: it had 6.6% GDP growth last year, so it is doing something right. We need to encourage democracies that are trying to become more democratic, not stand here and vilify them as unsafe because we deem it so—because we in the West deem who is safe and who is unsafe. Perhaps it is time we start to have an honest discussion with ourselves about what we really want for our place in the world. Our place in the world should be one where we work with countries to elevate them, and they become safer and more economically viable, so that people do not want to leave those countries and so they are part of the growth.
I heard the word “odious” so many times today; I heard the words “black and white”, and it really does impact on me, as somebody who has worked so hard to be part and parcel of this community, to make sure that fairness runs through all of us. But that fairness has to then translate to countries that genuinely want to be on the path of growth. We sit here and decide through our lens which countries are safe and unsafe without actually saying that we will be part of the solution, to make them even safer.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, there are not many advantages to speaking so late in the debate, but one is that you can experience the feeling of the House. I have listened to all 55 speakers who have preceded me—except for four or five of them, when I was out of the House. Of those, 37 Members of your Lordships’ House have spoken against the Bill, including five Members on the Conservative Benches, who made very powerful speeches. We all remember the powerful speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. Against that, only 10 speakers have spoken in favour of the Bill.
At this time of night, I think it best that I go straight to giving your Lordships my reasons for being strongly opposed to this Bill. Let us work with the facts. In the official statistics issued for 2022, it is recorded that 8,756 Afghan migrants arriving here applied for asylum status. Of those, 97% were granted asylum. This is hardly surprising given the reports that we still regularly receive of breaches of human rights by the Taliban. On the radio only a few days ago, I heard a report that women were not only banned from education but banned from going out to work, creating serious problems for supporting their families.
I turn to the statistics for 2023. We do not have the official statistics yet, but we have been told that there has been a drop in the overall migration figures in relation to the boat people; that has gone down from about 45,000 to 30,000. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are now about 5,000 Afghan migrants eligible for deportation to Rwanda.
Let us look at the journey that those migrants have made. The distance from Kabul to Calais is 4,168 miles, nearly double the journey from one coast of the United States of America to the other. I cannot tell your Lordships their exact route, but the assumption is that they took the land route, and that they would have had to go through Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria, then decide whether to go north-east, to enter Europe via Greece, or west, to enter Europe via Italy. They would not have travelled in any air-conditioned coaches, let alone aeroplanes. Their only means of undertaking this colossally long journey must have been by hitchhiking on lorries.
What will happen to those 5,000 Afghans if they are deported to Rwanda—which will follow from the implementation of this Bill if the Illegal Migration Act is held to be lawful? They will lose their UK asylum rights and will be branded as illegal migrants. If they try to get back here, they will be rejected. Therefore, I ask the whole House, looking around to all Benches and those of us still here: is this remotely fair or right? Can we possibly allow this to happen when we have the constitutional right to stop it by refusing to allow the Bill to pass through this House? The question is whether we attempt to do so now, at Second Reading, or later, at Third Reading.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government have stuck with the Rwanda scheme despite the Rule 39 decision in Strasbourg in June 2022 and despite the decision of the Supreme Court, which concluded that Rwanda was not safe.
The Strasbourg court’s interim ruling has been described as a ruling by a foreign court delivered by a judge in pyjamas. I do not think that is a helpful way of characterising it. All courts need to have the ability to make interim orders, sometimes at inconvenient times of day, and the court is not foreign to us as long as we remain members.
However, the decision was based on the Strasbourg court’s own rules rather than on what is in the European convention. It was made by a still-anonymous judge. No reasons were given and there was no chance for the Government to come back on a return date. This breaks just about every rule of natural justice and procedural fairness that normally applies in applications for interim relief.
As to the Supreme Court’s decision, it said that Parliament should not legislate to reverse the decision of what is the final court of appeal in this country. But Parliament has done precisely that in relation to three decisions, to my certain knowledge, in the last two years. I was chairman of the Independent Review of Administrative Law and the panel considered carefully whether it was appropriate for Parliament to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court. We concluded that Parliament should think long and hard before doing so, but that it was perfectly orthodox for it to take such a course. Indeed, the submissions we received from all senior judges did not suggest otherwise.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is there not a difference here—a difference between disagreeing with a view and disagreeing with a finding of fact?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I am coming on to that point. There were certain unusual aspects of the decision of the Supreme Court, which is normally concerned with points of law of general public importance rather than findings of fact. It might be better to describe the decision as rather more of a risk assessment based on the evidence before it rather than a finding of fact but, in any event, the Government have since responded to the court’s concerns, as your Lordships have heard.
I ask the question rhetorically: if the matter were before the Supreme Court today, would the judges come to a different conclusion? One should bear in mind that, even before the new steps taken by our Government and that of Rwanda, this case was finely balanced. The Court of Appeal was not unanimous on the matter and the Divisional Court found in favour of the Government. I also note Lord Sumption’s evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledging the Government’s response to the Supreme Court.
The Bill tackles some really big legal issues. In the view of the lawyers for the Government, it has gone as far as it can go without infringing international law. We know that there remain opportunities for litigation—lawyers have already announced their intention to take them—but the arguments on the law will have to wait until Committee.
At this stage, it is important to consider what the alternatives to the Rwanda scheme are, and so I turn to Labour’s position, and here I would like to mention Sir Keir Starmer. He has been criticised as being a “lefty lawyer”. I have had the privilege of being against him in court and, if he is a lefty lawyer, he is certainly a good one. I think it inappropriate to criticise him for the fact that some of his clients would not necessarily feature high on everybody’s desired guest list for a dinner party. What is his policy vis-à-vis the boats? There has been some talk of better relationships with France and better safe routes, but at the absolute centre of what is said to be the strategy is apparently Sir Keir himself. He reminds us regularly that he was DPP from 2008 to 2013. He was not in charge of Border Force or the National Crime Agency; he was supervising prosecutions at a very macro level—which is why I am reluctant to blame him for shortcomings in relation to the prosecution of, say, Jimmy Savile, or even the poor victims of the Horizon scandal. But he cannot have it both ways. Is it really suggested that, on the very arrival of Sir Keir, a former DPP, at No. 10, the smugglers will simply roll up their rubber dinghies and give up their promising and profitable business model? Is Labour’s alternative deterrent none other than Sir Keir himself? I am afraid I am unconvinced by that.
It comes to this: Rwanda is, at the moment, the only game in town. We all agree that we must stop the boats. The Government have made progress but need to go further. This Bill will enable the scheme to take effect—courts here and in Strasbourg permitting—and I admit it may deter those who sustain the people smugglers’ business. Other European countries face the same challenges and are actively considering similar schemes. Of course your Lordships’ House will scrutinise this Bill carefully, but we should retain some constitutional modesty. The elected House has passed the Bill. Many people in this country consider that their Government should be able to control our borders against illegal migration, and we should not ignore them. In the absence of any cogent alternative, while we should strive to improve the Bill, we should not wreck it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My noble friend Lady Verma has just given an exceptionally powerful speech, and I was very pleased to be in the Chamber to hear it. Like her, I have not heard as many speeches in today’s debate as I would have liked, because I have been attending to other parliamentary business in the Moses Room. However, I am quite sure that there will have been lots of speeches by distinguished noble Lords drawing on their expertise, and particularly their legal expertise. My own perspective paints a bigger picture; while it will, I am sure, go against the majority of opinion expressed in this House so far today, it is a perspective I would like to give.
Earlier this month in a debate about the standing of parliamentary democracy, I said that the Post Office scandal illustrates powerfully what is driving many voters’ disaffection: namely, that those of us in positions of authority do not listen or take seriously what voters are telling us when what they say or want does not correspond with what we have decided is right and want to do. The same is true in how we react to the majority’s demand for lower levels of legal immigration and an end to the large numbers of illegal migrants entering and staying in our country. Instead of working together over the last eight years to address one of the underlying causes of Brexit, we have decided that the real problem is that, at best, the voters do not understand why they are wrong and cannot have what they want, or, at worst, they are bigoted for their views.
As I have said before in other debates, people do not expect simple solutions to complex problems but they do expect people such as us to be motivated by the kinds of simple values that any decent, upstanding citizen instinctively shares. We evidence that to them by how we do our job, which must include listening and showing that we understand their experience of the problem that only we have the power to fix.
The travesty of our collective response to the public’s demand that we—the whole of Parliament—get a grip on illegal immigration is that, time and again, convinced that we know better, we have chosen to stand alongside those who enter our country illegally and about whom we know nothing over our fellow citizens who are affected by our decisions and who we rely on to pay their taxes, abide by the law and generally keep the country afloat. When it comes to immigration, our repeated efforts to thwart what the majority have voted for are the clearest representation of the division between insiders and outsiders that led to Brexit and all the other democratic shocks that have since followed. That a majority of Members of this House persist in obstructing at every and any opportunity all measures to deal with illegal immigration shows voters that we have learned nothing and nothing has changed.
To those who argue that a majority do not support this Bill, I argue that it is hardly surprising that people who want tougher action to prevent illegal immigration are losing faith in our ability to succeed. We have done nothing to show that we want to. To be clear, it is normal for people who are angry and want us to clamp down hard on illegal migration to be at the same time welcoming of those who come to this country via approved schemes. My friends and family in Beeston Rylands, the area where I grew up, and which has recently become home to hundreds of people from Hong Kong, are testimony to that.
Whether or not the Rwanda scheme is implemented, it will likely do little to change the Conservative Party’s prospects come the next general election. That is not why I support the Bill and doing whatever it takes to deter people from attempting to enter our country illegally. For me, this is about our duty to deliver what people voted for, regardless of our own politics. The fact that we are having to consider a Bill that is causing so much angst among noble Lords is, in my view, a result of our collective failure.
People go on about populism and populist politicians and how they need to be counteracted. Perhaps those same people should consider why people are pushed towards populism and populist politicians in the first place. Unless we start listening and taking seriously what the majority of voters want, and work together to improve conditions for them—because they are the people who uphold all that we as a country say we stand for—we should not be surprised if they deliver for us yet more electoral shocks.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I begin with an anecdote that has some tangential connection with what the noble Baroness has just said. In 1988, when I was minuting Baroness Thatcher’s meetings, I minuted a meeting discussing the Immigration Act 1988, which required polygamous immigrants to choose which of their wives they wanted to have with them. She listened and nodded it through, and then said: “Why do we always discuss second-order and third-order issues but never the bigger issues? We in this country have never had a big, real discussion about the level of net immigration, legal and illegal. It’s the biggest change we’ve had over the last 30 years but we’ve never put it to the electorate, heard their views or explained to them the policy that we’ve followed”. I thought today, as I listened to the Minister’s introduction, that that is also true of this Bill. It is an important part of immigration policy but not the biggest. The biggest issue is what is in the 2019 manifesto, which is bringing down the net level of immigration. There is no context for the Bill in that way. It is difficult politically because it takes in issues such as NHS manpower and social care, but none the less it is where the real issues lie. This is a kind of hectic, frantic displacement activity to distract attention from the big issues.
When I was Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, we had a big discussion in 1996 about world trends in migration. It was a disturbing discussion and we agreed that there was a coming storm. This is not a new problem; Governments have had decades to get ready for it. We discussed all sorts of things, some of which are not relevant now, including whether we should continue to have a border control policy rather than something like the French ID cards, and there are big issues there that need public discussion. Someone mentioned third-party safe countries, but that was dismissed pretty rapidly on the grounds that you would never find a safe country now. So I find myself looking at this Bill thinking, “Here we are, experimenting with that conclusion”.
I am opposed to the Bill. We have heard some very powerful speeches, which I support. I hope that, in Committee—I think we will have to go through Committee; I do not think we will pass the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German—we can pursue some sort of amendment requiring the Government not to activate the Act until the Supreme Court has certified that Rwanda is safe. I think there is scope there for some sort of deal—you can phrase that as you want.
In the meantime, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, would he please give a reply to my noble friend Lord Kerr about why exactly the Rwanda option is considered likely to be an effective deterrent? What is going on in the mind of the imaginary immigrant who, at the channel, suddenly changes his mind and stays in France? What is it that is putting him or her off—after they have been through mountain ranges, planes, wars, famine, deserts and goodness knows what—taking one small final risk before they get to their desired objective, the UK? What is it about the Rwanda option that is likely to put them off? We need to get inside the mind of the imaginary immigrant.
Secondly, I am deeply disturbed by the constitutional implications of the Bill, which have been set out far more adequately by others. I would like to know the limits in the Government’s mind of this new power—I think it is new—to declare fact by legislation, even where the facts are untrue. For instance, would it allow the Government to pass or propose a Bill stating that every returning officer in a general election must conclusively treat every vote for the Labour candidate as a vote for the Conservative candidate, or the other way around if you wish? You cannot use legislation to tell lies, and this is a lie in the sense that nobody knows whether or not Rwanda is safe. This is a very worrying innovation.
Finally, does the Minister think that Ministers should be able to instruct civil servants not to comply with international law? I would like answers to those three questions.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, with his vast experience of Whitehall and the formation of policy.
I want to concentrate on Clause 5 and a legal issue at the very heart of the Bill: whether a Minister should be able to refuse to abide by an interim order of the European Court of Human Rights, made under its Rule 39 procedure. The president of the Strasbourg court, in a media interview given only last week, asserted that her court has the power to grant interim relief and that member states have an obligation to comply. However, the contrary position had been powerfully presented only the previous evening by Professor Ekins, giving the 37th Atkin lecture in this city.
The present Rule 39 dates from 2013 and provides that the full court or a single duty judge may
“indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted”.
That does not sound like a legal obligation, and that is for a simple reason. The 1950 convention contains no provision for a single judge, or even the full court, to grant interim relief to any person. That omission was not an oversight. There was an attempt in 1950 to give the court such a power, and that attempt was rejected. On every subsequent attempt to give the court that power, the member states have refused.
That is not to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, that a power to grant interim orders might not be useful, sensible or desirable, but that is not the question. The question is whether the court has that power, and the member states repeatedly decided that it should not. For a time, the Strasbourg court agreed that it did not have a power to grant interim relief. It so ruled authoritatively in 1991, and ruled to the same effect a decade later, in 2001. However, in 2005, the Strasbourg court performed a jurisdictional U-turn. It held that, by failing to comply with an interim measure ordered under Rule 39 to prevent a deportation, Turkey had breached Article 34—that is the article which provides that member states must not hinder the right of an individual to access the court. Perhaps that case was rightly decided on its own facts, although I doubt it. If the deportation was a breach of Article 34 then whether there was a breach of Rule 39 as well does not really make any difference. That decision became the slender basis for the court to assert, in a later case in 2009, that any non-compliance with a Rule 39 order necessarily also amounted to a breach of the convention.
Why the change of heart by the court in 2005? It appears to be what one might call judicial envy: the International Court of Justice had held a few years earlier, in 2001, that states had to abide by its interim measures, and it seems that the ECHR court considered that what was good enough for The Hague was also good for Strasbourg. But there is a critical difference. Article 41 of the statute establishing the International Court of Justice specifically provides for “provisional measures”. In other words, the ICJ statute contains in terms precisely the power that the member states had consistently refused to agree to give to the Strasbourg court.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, explained, there are also severe procedural problems with the approach that the Strasbourg court takes. Those problems are not my concern this evening; I welcome the fact that the Strasbourg court is trying to address those procedural problems. But none of that addresses the underlying jurisprudential issue, which is whether the Strasbourg court has the legal power to issue binding interim relief in the first place.
In the absence of locating that power in the convention itself, it has been suggested that, over the years, state practice has given the court this power. I do not find that argument persuasive. I do not have the time now, but that state practice is neither uniform nor consistent. The details are set out between pages 35 and 41 of Professor Ekins’s paper on this topic for Policy Exchange, which repays reading in any event. I am sure that we will come back to it in Committee.
So far as the UK specifically is concerned, we have said, rightly and for good political reasons, that compliance with Rule 39 orders is our usual policy. All other things being equal, so it should be. But accepting compliance as our usual policy is quite different from accepting a Rule 39 direction as a legal obligation, which we should not do, because it is not.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord German and Lord Thomas told us that we have a Bill in front of us, which the Government are asking us to support, which compels decision-makers to treat as fact things that have already been found to be false and to bar courts and tribunals from considering any evidence or arguments to the contrary. I have listened carefully to every contribution in this debate, and they have not been contradicted.
In addition, these Benches cannot support a Bill which states in Clause 1 that both Houses of Parliament consider a country to be safe when, actually, one House of Parliament last week conclusively stated we cannot yet make that judgment and refused to do so. It is not only that we are asked to consider alternative facts for Rwanda; we are now being asked to legislate a false record of our own votes. But we are not alone in saying that we cannot make that judgment about Rwanda: so did the Supreme Court; as we heard, so did the Home Office officials who, since the Government said that Rwanda should only be considered a safe country, have themselves determined that Rwanda is unsafe for four of its nationals to whom we have given asylum, while the Home Office was drafting this Bill to determine Rwanda safe. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is indeed the case.
The Government have said that the treaty addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns but are now asking us to bar the Supreme Court from judging whether it does. These Benches reject that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said at the start that the Supreme Court used out-of-date information when it came to its judgment, but we know, and he knows, that the Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the UNHCR, which just this month concluded again that the UK-Rwanda arrangements are
“incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention”.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law told us that, fundamentally,
“Safety is a factual question which cannot be conclusively determined in advance, for all cases, by the legislature. Enacting a conclusive deeming of Rwanda as a safe country is a legislative usurpation of the judicial function”.
We agree.
Some in this debate, such as the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Hannan, have said that they have to support the Bill because, alas, Opposition parties are not in power. There is a ready solution to their quandary, of course.
An alternative argument from the Government Benches came from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who said that the Bill is “the only thing to do”. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll also said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there”. I say with great respect to my friend Annabel—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—that we are not going to follow her on that road.
Some noble Lords raised the constitutional issue of our voting today, or
“defying the will of the people”,
as the Prime Minister said. Let us deal with the “will of the people” thing first. This is where the Prime Minister has determined that any piece of his legislation emanating from the Government, a government Bill, is “the will of the people” and therefore must be passed. He said it to us about this one, and we have had many Ministers and advisers from the Commons at the Bar just to make sure that we were aware of it. However, there is a wee flaw in this argument as, according to the Hansard Society, in the last Session of Parliament the Government themselves defied the will of the people by withdrawing a whopping 10% of their own legislative programme, or six Bills, four of which had actually been in the 2022 Queen’s Speech. So, if the Government themselves are defiant of the will of the people to such an extent, we are being modest in suggesting that just this one should be withdrawn.
The second argument concerns voting on Second Reading. This is unusual, of course, as my noble friend Lord German said, but it is not unheard of. In 2000, the Criminal Justice Bill was rejected at Second Reading in this House. On that occasion, my noble friends joined the Conservatives and some Cross-Bench Peers in voting the Bill down at Second Reading in this House. Then, as my noble friend indicated, in 2011 on the Health and Social Care Bill, Labour voted against a Bill that had just passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. I respect him greatly—I am not sure whether he is in his place—but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, intervened on my noble friend to complain about that process, forgetting that he voted in that Division, as did five of his colleagues on the Labour Benches who have spoken this evening. All three parties and many on the Cross Benches—including 20 on that Bill, I say to my friend the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—have sincerely made a decision to vote on Second Reading, so that really is not an issue for this evening.
Others have referred to the Salisbury/Addison convention. I am not an expert like the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, but even if the Bill got close to being anything like what was in the 2019 Government manifesto, these Benches have never adhered to that convention. Since the Bill was not in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, it might be worth reminding ourselves briefly, regarding immigration, what was. Page 20 had an
“Australian-style points-based immigration system”,
with the commitment that
“There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down”.
The result? The ONS estimates that net migration to the UK was 745,000 in 2022, up from 184,000 in 2019, with overall numbers at a record high. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, was in Cabinet then, and I and others feel his pain and regret for failure—we felt that in his contribution, but he admitted it, so that is to be welcomed. Also on page 20 was the brightest-and-best visa. Remember that? That was when the UK was going to be catnip for the world’s global talent through the global talent visa. The result? Three applications in two years.
Page 21 is where it gets very worrying:
“We are committed to the Windrush compensation scheme”.
It has taken my noble friend Lady Benjamin and others in this House to be tireless campaigners on this, given the delays and inaction from the Government. The tragic result has been that, four years on, over 50 people have died before receiving recompense.
The overall record on the wider management of immigration is not much better. Actually, it is worse. According to Home Office figures, in 2013 the then Government returned 21,000 migrants voluntarily, but this fell to 4,000 in 2021. For those who had no right to be in the UK, the Government in 2012 returned 15,000 people, but in 2021 that had shrunk to 2,700.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, “We need this Bill because we cannot wait”. Well, on these Benches we have been impatient for action on this for years, and the Government have not acted.
It was not just us complaining: the independent review by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in 2019 warned of consequences of poor data sharing and low morale among Home Office staff. The warnings were unheeded. I make a personal plea this evening: if we heard a contribution this evening with a warning we should heed, it was that from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is a moral and intellectual guardian of our constitution.
But the Government now seek to present the whole issue as being just for those seeking asylum. We know that there is a much lower share of failed asylum seekers as part of returnees: 8% in 2021, compared with 2010, when it was 23%. So we know that those arriving here, no matter how they arrive, have a higher cause, and the Government have considered that cause and given refuge to them—not under 1951 rules but under 2020 rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, “The Government have been blocked all along from having this solution”. The Government have had every single migration measure that they wanted passed. It is that side’s issue, not ours.
The Home Office itself shows us that those seeking refuge are a smaller part of the problem than over a decade ago, but we know that returns are a much bigger problem because of the Government’s own mismanagement. Now, £290 million was spent, with a further £78 million on a notice for tender, last autumn—for nothing, as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said.
We now have a policy that is meant to be a deterrent, but the noble Lord, Lord Green, was right: how successful will it be if a Government issues a press release in the morning saying that their migration policies are a deterrent but then admit in the afternoon that, without a face-to-face interview, they gave 12,000 refugees right to remain, and potentially right to work, for five years? How that will that be successful?
A perfectly legal and acceptable returns agreement with Albania is working, but the Government have failed to agree other legal return and resettlement agreements. These are the very agreements that the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, said in the Illegal Migration Bill proceedings would be necessary, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said would be desirable. But the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, told me they were not a silver bullet, and we have not seen any progress since.
We are not alone in highlighting the issues. The National Audit Office report on immigration enforcement ended with these words:
“The Department’s success in meeting its mission to prevent illegal immigration through greater compliance with immigration laws is unclear”.
On the Bill,
“the government’s position depends on the treaty to sufficiently conclude there is no risk of Rwanda deviating from its terms”,
but the Supreme Court found that
“obligations which Rwanda has previously breached”
were already contained in its agreements and “in binding international law”. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said, we do not then set aside the ability to question this in any other treaty that we have signed, including a trade treaty, as we said. Not only that, but we have not made any concerns unchallengeable.
Parliament is being asked to judge Rwanda safe in primary legislation in perpetuity, but the Government’s own admission is that it will be in that situation only when the treaty is fully operational. But the Minister opening this debate was not able to answer the simplest question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: when will it be operational? The Minister told us that we must have “no doubt Rwanda is to be a safe country”—but he had plenty of doubt in answering when.
So how will we in Parliament know? We have been told time and time again that treaty making and treaty keeping are prerogative powers, not parliamentary ones. Now, apparently, those are our powers. Given that a key part of the Supreme Court’s ruling was that Rwanda had agreements already in place but did not adhere to them, how will we know?
The Government say it will be through a monitoring committee, but the committee in Article 15 of the treaty has no powers of enforcement: it can simply report to the Joint Committee, which has only advisory powers itself.
Before I close, I will pick up the point about trafficking made by my noble friend Lady Northover and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. In 2022, 2,658 people who arrived via irregular routes were successfully referred through the national referral mechanism for report. However, the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 2023 report on Rwanda, which the Home Office cites as a gold standard and operates on the basis of, said that the Government of Rwanda
“did not meet the minimum standards in several key areas. The government continued to lack specialized SOPs to adequately screen for trafficking among vulnerable populations and did not refer any victims to services. The government provided support to and coordinated with the March 23 Movement … armed group, which forcibly recruited and used children … Scarce resources, lack of training, limited capacity, and conflation of human trafficking with other crimes hindered law enforcement efforts”.
So we are now expected to send a woman trafficked by a British gang, who arrived undocumented and cannot even claim that she has been trafficked here in the UK, to another country which will somehow operate a system which the TIP report has said does not even meet minimum standards.
Before I close, I will pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the UK’s characterisation of Rwanda and how we are seeing our relationship through the lens of vilification and ignoring development partnership. Well, it is the Government who say that being sent to Rwanda is a deterrent, not the Opposition. Even before the MoU was agreed, I raised my alarm in this Chamber that the Government had slashed development partnership support from £85 million in 2018 to less than £16 million. Now the financial partnership relationship with the Government of Rwanda is almost exclusively around migration. This relationship with Rwanda is being seen through the Government’s lens, not ours, and I regret that.
I will close by quoting Lord Williams of Mostyn, who opened a debate in 2000 when the House decided to defeat a Government at Second Reading:
“I recognise that most of those who will speak tonight are my personal and professional friends and that they will feel unable to support the Bill … I recognise that their motives are entirely honourable. It is not their motives I question but their conclusions”.—[Official Report, 28/9/2000; col. 961.]
Equally, I do not question any noble Lord’s motives for voting this evening, but these Benches have concluded, for all the reasons that my noble friends and colleagues have given, that this Bill should go no further.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and join the debate that has been going on through most of the afternoon and well into the evening. I will start with the context of this particular debate. For the avoidance of any doubt, this is not a debate between those who think we should control our borders, have an immigration policy and stop the small boats and all the rest of us who do not think we should have a policy on any of those things. Everyone accepts that there is an issue around all those challenges. The context of this debate is: what is the right way to go about dealing with that particular problem? That is what is before us today. Getting to a point where you are either in favour of stopping the small boats or not will do nothing for the legislative progress that we all wish to make.
I want to say from the outset that we opposed this Bill at every stage in the other place and that we continue to oppose the Bill and the measures contained within it. We do not think they will work, we think they are unaffordable and we think they raise real questions about the rule of law. But let me also say that we as His Majesty’s Opposition also believe that it is not appropriate for us to support and pass a fatal amendment at this stage, so we will not do that. We do not think that is the appropriate way for us to act.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has laid it out, as he is entitled to do, and said that he respects everybody’s opinion. We also respect everybody’s opinion. However, we do not believe that, at this stage, it is appropriate for the House of Lords to do that. We believe that the revision and scrutiny of legislation—the traditional role of the House—is the way forward for us.
I gently say to noble Lords opposite who remind me of the constitutional proprieties with respect to this, that if there is to be a change of Government, I look forward to them failing to block or get in the way of or unnecessarily delay a number of Labour Bills that will be brought before your Lordships, including the re-establishment of employment rights from day one. I look forward to noble Lords welcoming that with open arms, and not wishing to delay it at all, and to voting for votes at 16. However, the serious point is that there is a proper role for this House, and we believe that that is to scrutinise and amend but not to block.
The point of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is one that we take on board. The opinion we want to change, and the battle and vote we want to win, is at a general election, where we can vote for a change of Government. We will do whatever we can to win that battle.
Here we are again. Some noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, have pointed out that this House seems to be getting in the way of immigration legislation, preventing the Government tackling a very real problem. I did not notice that with the Nationality and Borders Act, which passed two years ago. That was supposed to solve the problem and nobody blocked that. We made suggestions, but nobody in this House blocked it. Only last year we had the Illegal Migration Act, and that was supposed to solve all the problems. Nobody blocked that, but we passed amendments, gave opinions and said that things needed to be done. As I have said from this Front Bench for His Majesty’s Opposition, we do not intend to block this particular Bill; that is not our proposition.
However, former Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries, perhaps the current Home Secretary and the current Minister, and certainly the previous Immigration Minister, have all questioned whether the Bill is workable. Robert Jenrick MP said that it is both “legally flawed” and “operationally flawed”. That is not just anybody; that is a senior member of the governing party, who has got other aspirations, should it work out for him.
This raises a number of questions. Some £400 million has been spent and not a single asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda. What is really remarkable is that the Rwandan Government say that they will take a couple of hundred asylum seekers. What on earth are we doing spending all this time debating Rwanda when it will be dealing with a couple of hundred of asylum seekers? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what will happen to the other 27,700 that came in small boats in 2023. Where are they going? How does the Rwanda policy work in respect of that? That is if they can find them—we now understand that the Government have lost thousands of them and do not know where they are. The Rwanda Bill we have here really beggars belief.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and other noble Lords made the point that it is quite astonishing to read in Clause 2 that:
“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, in questioning the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—who may be right; I am not a lawyer—if the Supreme Court makes a finding of fact, seeking to change that by legislation does not seem to be constitutionally the right way forward. As other noble Lords have said, what else could be changed because a finding of fact by the Supreme Court was found not to be consistent with what you wanted it to say?
It is made even more worrying and troubling—and this is a Conservative Government; the party of law and order—by Clause 2(3), which tells us that that any court must ignore any appeal that is brought forward
“on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country”.
That is quite astonishing; our own courts cannot determine the rights and wrongs of legislation under this Bill. Even a Government under Margaret Thatcher might have found it difficult to believe that some of this was actually happening.
Various clauses disapply the rule of international law and provide for the disapplication of the European Court of Human rights and various other international bodies. There are some who say that it does not matter that we stand accused of breaking international law, or that the UNHCR says that the Rwanda Bill and the treaty are inconsistent with the refugee convention, the European Court of Human Rights and international law. We are told by some that this is of no consequence. However, many noble Lords have talked about the importance of our global standing and international reputation. I think that matters. If the Government are saying that it does not matter, and that the public do not care, I am quite happy to go to the country and argue that Britain’s place in the world matters, that our global reputation matters, and that our abidance by and adherence to international law matters.
If we do not think international law matters, what are we doing in Ukraine? What are we doing in the Red Sea with respect to the Houthis? What are we doing with respect to China and its policies on Taiwan and the South Pacific? If international law and conventions do not matter, and you can disregard them when you want, what does that say for the international rules-based order? Our country, of which we are all proud, is a country that should be and is right at the forefront of standing up for that, as a senior member of the United Nations, NATO and so on. I say that that does matter. Some say that that is irrelevant to the British people and to public opinion; I say that it is not.
There will be amendments. We read that the Government have included in Clause 1(3) many of the obligations that they expect the Government of Rwanda to take up to ensure that it is a safe country. However, it says that Rwanda has
“agreed to fulfil the following obligations.”
As noble Lord and noble Baroness after noble Lord and noble Baroness have said in this debate, we have no way of knowing whether these obligations are actually going to be fulfilled. The Bill says that they will be but we do not know. It will be an act of faith; it will be a belief that it is going to happen. We hope it will happen, but there is no mechanism in the Bill by which we can ensure that we hold the Rwandan Government to account and know that the things that we want to happen will happen. I suspect that the amendments will seek to address that particular point and ask whether there is some way to make a reality of the various things that have been put in the Bill.
As I said, there is no difference between any of us in wanting to deal with this problem. The Labour Party is continually goaded on the basis that, if His Majesty’s Government continually say that we have no plan, then sooner or later people will think there is no plan. It may be that noble Lords do not agree with what we are saying, but time after time my noble friend Lady Smith and I, and many others, have said that there should be tough measures to tackle the criminal gangs and that we should establish new agreements with other countries. We believe in the establishment of safe and legal routes. We believe that the asylum system and process should be speeded up, so that applications are dealt with speedily and effectively. We also believe that it is necessary, as the most reverend Primate continually points out, for problems to be dealt with at source, through a new way of looking at this together, so that there is a sharing of the problem.
That is the plan. If people do not agree with it, they should argue about it and say it will not work, in the same way that we say the Government’s plan will not work. But I am quite happy to go and put before people that five-point plan as a better way of dealing with those problems than what the Government have laid before us.
We need to ensure that, above all, we have a system that is built on our traditions of fairness, openness and recognising that this issue needs co-operation and sharing, not the offloading of responsibility to others. It also needs to be a system rooted in a system of international law and respect—a system our great country helped to establish. The Bill deserves to be amended to protect those principles as far as possible.
The Government will get their Bill, as I say, even if amended. But the reward will be not only an unworkable system but one that comes with a cost to our international standing and reputation. Now is not the time for us to panic or ditch our principles but to put forward an asylum system and an immigration and asylum law that will work and be based on the principles of which this country has always been proud.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today and shared their thoughts on this legislation. We have heard many thoughtful speeches from many noble Lords, but I welcome particularly the valued insights of my noble friends Lady Goldie, Lady Verma, Lord Wolfson, Lord Dobbs, Lord Horam and Lord Murray. It is clear from across the Benches that there is common ground in needing to find a solution to the challenges we face. Just for the record, of course I agree with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on the worth of individuals.
Stopping illegal migration is an important issue for both the public and the Government. Parliament and the British people want an end to illegal migration, as my noble friend Lady Stowell powerfully argued; therefore, we need a deterrent. As noble Lords will have heard me say last week, we made progress towards stopping the boats but we must do more to break the business model of the criminal gangs and deter illegal migrants. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that there is evidence of deterrence—and that it works. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Horam for reminding us of Albania and the Australian example.
The dangerous channel crossings are often made by young, fit men in search of better life opportunities. Many of those have travelled through safe countries to reach the UK, as my noble friend Lord Hannan set out, and they have paid substantial amounts of money to the criminal gangs to facilitate their journey. As my noble friend Lady Goldie highlighted, these criminal gangs could not care less about the safety of migrants; they care only about the money. I think noble Lords are in agreement that we cannot let this continue.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and other noble Lords were right to place the Bill in its moral context, but proceeding with it is the moral course, as my noble friend Lord Blackwell powerfully noted. We must put a stop to the dangerous channel crossings that are putting lives at risk and to this mass trafficking of people in order to save lives. That is the humane thing to do, and it is the fair thing to do, as my noble friend Lady Verma argued.
By delivering our key partnership, relocating those with no right to be in the UK to Rwanda and not allowing them to stay in the UK, we will deter people from making these journeys and we will save those lives. We also need to ensure that we are meeting our international obligations, so the treaty the Home Secretary signed in December last year sets out to Parliament and the courts why Rwanda is, and will remain, safe for those relocated there. The Bill makes it unambiguously clear that Rwanda is safe and will prevent the courts second-guessing Parliament’s assessments.
The Prime Minister has been clear that he will not let a foreign court block flights. We simply cannot let Strasbourg dictate our border security and stop us establishing a deterrent.
I turn to the matters raised in the debate, including the points addressed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord German. A number of noble Lords asked why the legislation seeks to confirm that Rwanda is safe when the treaty simply sets out the aspirations of what should happen, and the measures are not in place. The Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered in future which could address the conclusions it came to. We have been working closely with Rwanda on these changes. The partnership with Rwanda is now set out in a new treaty, binding in international law, with specific provisions to address the court’s findings.
Since the evidential position considered by the UK domestic courts in summer 2022, we have obtained further specific information, evidence and assurances from the Government of Rwanda explicitly to address the challenges raised by the claimants and the UNHCR in the litigation, and the findings of the Supreme Court, following its judgment in November. This primarily takes the form of detailed standard operating procedures, reviews of contracts for services that the Government of Rwanda have procured—for example, with accommodation, facilities and medical insurance companies—and new and revised training programmes.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Coaker, mentioned this all in the context of the UNHCR. Rwanda has successfully hosted over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers in collaboration with the UNHCR and other organisations. That is not including the nearly 2,000 supported in Rwanda by the emergency transit mechanism to evacuate to safety refugees and asylum seekers trapped in or fleeing civil war in Libya. That is also supported by the EU, which will support the operation of the ETM until 2026, and the EU announced a further €22 million support package for it. As recently as December 2023, the UNHCR evacuated 153 asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda, and the European ambassador to Rwanda described the scheme as:
“A crucial life-saving initiative to evacuate people facing major threats and inhumane conditions in Libya to safety in Rwanda, It is a significant example of African solidarity and of partnership with the European Union. We are grateful to the Government of Rwanda for hosting these men, women and children”.
Regarding our agreement with Rwanda, we have taken crucial steps forward to respond to the Supreme Court findings, which recognise that changes could be delivered to address its conclusions. Both the Court of Appeal and the High Court found that the principle of relocating individuals to safer countries for their protection claims to be assessed was consistent with the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, and the Supreme Court did not disturb this.
It is imperative that we continue to work at pace to stop the boats, save lives and break the business models of the evil criminal gangs. The fundamental accusation that Rwanda is incapable of making good decisions and is somehow not committed to this partnership is wrong, as my noble friend Lady Verma pointed out. I disagree with that. Rwandans, perhaps more than most, understand the importance of providing protection to those needing it. At this point, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that the monitoring of all this is of course dealt with by the treaty, which we debated at some length last week.
I turn to the early intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the Motion set down by this House not to ratify the treaty. Your Lordships will be aware that a resolution made in this House on the treaty does not necessarily stop its progress. The International Agreements Committee report did not fundamentally find anything objectionable in the treaty itself. The report was about implementation, not any flaws in the treaty. The treaty will therefore follow the usual process with regard to scrutiny and ratification. Ultimately, the Minister responsible can decide to issue a statement declaring that the treaty should be ratified in any event, and the Home Secretary will confirm the Government’s position in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Purvis, also asked about the timings of the Bill. This reflects an answer I also gave last week. Both the treaty and the Bill need to progress their respective paths through Parliament in the usual way before they can be ratified or receive royal assent respectively. Rwanda will also need to adjust its legislation and ratify the treaty on its side. Once these things have happened, the Bill and the treaty will be operable.
The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord German, asked about the Government’s safe and legal routes. The UK is a generous country. We are proud of that fact, and we are proud of the fact that we have helped so many refugees to safety. The Government have made it clear that we will continue to provide sanctuary to those most in need, but we can act only within our capabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is not about “I’m all right, Jack”; it is about capability and capacity. While the compassion of the UK is unlimited, our capacity is not. Local authorities have played a vital role in delivery of our safe and legal routes, but they are feeling the pressures caused by both legal and illegal migration. We can bring people over on safe and legal routes only when local authorities are able to receive them. We remain committed to looking at new or expanded safe and legal routes to the UK for those most vulnerable, but only once we have drastically reduced the unacceptable number of illegal, dangerous and simply unnecessary small boat crossings, which are putting a huge amount of pressure on our public services.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can answer the simple question which I put early in this debate. If that is true, why do the Government not accept that those who are accorded refugee status through the process that this Government wish to apply in Rwanda should be allowed back into the United Kingdom?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will come back to that.
On 20 October 2023, the Home Office launched the consultation on the cap on safe and legal routes, to understand local authority capacity. This consultation closed on 9 January 2024. Home Office officials are currently reviewing those responses and are planning further engagement with the respondents through a series of regional dialogues to validate responses and to determine a capacity estimate. We will produce a summary of the consultation by the spring and, in summer 2024, the Government will lay a statutory instrument in Parliament which will then need to be debated and voted on, before the cap comes into force in 2025. Therefore, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, we have to wait for all those things to take effect. I have no doubt that this matter will be up for debate again after 2025.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Brinton, asked how we can deem Rwanda to be safe if we are granting Rwandan nationals refugee status in the UK. Rwanda is a safe country, which is what this Bill asserts. The meaning of a “safe country” is set out in Clause 1(5). However, our obligation when an asylum claim is lawfully lodged and admitted to the UK asylum process for consideration is to carry out an individualised assessment of a person’s particular circumstances. If, after that assessment, there is found to be a reason why a person, based on these individual circumstances, cannot be returned to their country of origin, then it is correct that we grant them protection. It is important to stress that people from many different nationalities apply for asylum in the UK and this includes—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, where, under Clause 4, an individual is seeking the court’s ruling on whether their individual circumstances might give them a reason to not be sent to Rwanda, might that be because they are able to argue that “It may generally be safe but it is not safe for me”? Will they be able to argue that, because they are homosexual or ill, it is not safe for them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, quoting from the Bill in answer to the noble Baroness, it is
“the person in question, based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances (rather than on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country in general)”.
That is pretty straightforward. It is important to stress that people from many—
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I asked what the grounds were for people from Rwanda being given asylum here. What was their well-grounded fear of persecution about?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, each individual case is different. I do not know the particular circumstances.
It is important to stress that people from many different nationalities apply for asylum in the UK. This includes nationals from some of our closest European neighbours and other safe countries around the world. That is why there are a small number of cases where we have granted asylum to individuals from countries that we would otherwise consider safe. This is a reflection of our system working. An individual claim is not a reflection of the country as a whole. This process also reflects the safeguards which the Bill provides to individuals in Clause 4, which I have just read out. Each case will be considered on its individual merits by caseworkers who receive extensive training. All available evidence is carefully and sensitively considered in the light of published country information, but I cannot comment on the specifics of individual cases.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked what support will be available for those who are particularly vulnerable. Rwandan officials will have due regard to the psychological and physical signs of vulnerability of all relocated persons at any stage of the application and integration process. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers in Rwanda who have received the relevant training and are equipped to handle competently safeguarding referrals. Interpreters will be available as required to ensure that relocated individuals can make their needs known. All interviews will be conducted with sensitivity for the individual’s well-being.
The Government of Rwanda have processes in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health, gender-based violence and addiction. All relocated individuals will receive appropriate protection and assistance according to their needs, including referral to specialist services, as appropriate, to protect their welfare.
Article 13 of the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided about a relocated individual relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of their being a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
How will they know? The Illegal Migration Act prevents someone who may well have been trafficked from even starting the process of claiming that they have been trafficked here, so how will the Rwandans know? We are not collecting that information.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I have just said, the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided about a relocated individual by the United Kingdom.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful, but that is prohibited in the Illegal Migration Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord on that very specific point.
These are also detailed in the standard operating procedures as part of the evidence pack released on 11 January in support of the Bill. Furthermore, the UK is providing additional expertise to support the development of Rwanda’s capacity to safeguard vulnerable persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, asked about the treatment of LGBT persons, if sent to Rwanda. Rwandan legal protection for LGBT rights is generally considered more progressive than that of neighbouring countries. The constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law or policy. As set out in paragraph 36 of the Government’s published policy statement, the constitution of Rwanda prohibits, at article 16, discrimination of any kind based on, among other things, ethnic origin, family or ancestry, clan, skin colour or race, sex, region, economic categories, religion or faith, opinion, fortune, cultural differences, language, economic status, and physical or mental disability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about unaccompanied children deemed to be adults being relocated to Rwanda. As the treaty sets out in Article 3(4), we will not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under 18 to Rwanda. Any unaccompanied individual who, subsequent to relocation, is deemed by a court or tribunal in the UK to either be under 18 or to be treated temporarily as being under 18, shall be returned to the UK.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am sure the Minister wants to be accurate. Is it not the case that he should recognise that homosexuality is illegal in Rwanda? The penal code criminalises same-sex sexual activity and individuals found guilty of engaging in such activity can face imprisonment. If that is right, is Rwanda really a safe country?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am not familiar with that part. However, I have just read out the relevant clause in the Bill that deals with specific individual circumstances.
Any person who has been relocated to Rwanda but who subsequently receives a court or tribunal order from the UK that they must be treated as a minor, and are therefore a child who is in Rwanda without a parent or guardian, shall be provided with suitable accommodation and support that meets all the requirements for families with children set out within the treaty under paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2.2 of Part 1 of Annex A to the treaty until the child is returned to the UK.
With regard to concerns about the impacts of the policy on children treated as adults, I reassure noble Lords that there are safeguards in place to prevent that happening. The Home Office will treat an individual claiming to be a child as an adult without conducting further inquiries only if two officers—one of at least chief immigration officer grade or equivalent—have separately determined that the individual’s physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are “significantly over 18 years” of age. If doubt remains about whether the claimant is an adult or a child, they are treated as a child for immigration purposes until a further assessment of their age by a local authority or the National Age Assessment Board. This will usually entail a careful, holistic age assessment, known as a Merton-compliant age assessment. Only once this assessment is complete could the individual then be treated as an adult if found to be so.
Many noble Lords have asked whether this Bill will comply with international law. Its provisions are consistent with our international law obligations. They retain rights challenge based on compelling evidence of serious and irreversible harm in specific individual circumstances, which will arise in narrow circumstances.
In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Howarth, I say that the Bill makes it clear that it is only for a Minister of the Crown to determine whether to comply with an interim measure of the Strasbourg court. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for their comments on this.
I will not get drawn into speculation about hypothetical scenarios, but the internationally binding treaty agreed between the UK and Rwanda contains binding commitments to ensure that the scheme is compliant with international law, including the ECHR. It also makes it clear that domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measures when considering any domestic application flowing from a decision to relocate a person to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty.
The Permanent Secretary for the Home Office has confirmed that if we receive a Rule 39, instead of deferring removal immediately—as the guidance currently indicates—officials will refer the Rule 39 to the Minister for an immediate decision. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, I say that the Cabinet Office has confirmed that it is the responsibility of civil servants under the Civil Service Code to deliver that decision. Consideration will be on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts. I also remind noble Lords that, as the Government have set out, both the UK and Rwanda are committed to making this partnership work.
As my noble friend Lord Murray set out, the Section 19(1)(b) statement is not specific to one provision; it applies to the Bill as a whole. A statement under Section 19(1)(b) makes it clear, in this instance, that the Home Secretary is not able to state now that the Bill’s provisions are more likely than not compatible with convention rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing Bills with a Section 19(1)(b) statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenges on human rights grounds. Parliament clearly intended Section 19(1)(b) to be used as it is included in the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an important measure to safeguard parliamentary sovereignty. Section 19(1)(b) statements have been used by Governments of all stripes before. For example, the Bill that became the Communications Act 2003 included a provision banning paid political advertising on TV. The use in this case recognises the novel and ambitious approach taken by this Bill, and the fact there is room for argument both ways. We are testing the limits but remain satisfied that this Bill is compatible with international law.
The Bill allows decision-makers and the courts to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for a person due to their particular individual circumstances, as we have discussed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London noted, the Bill does not disapply Section 4 on declaration of incompatibility, as this is the only substantive remedy against the conclusive presumption that Rwanda is safe. Retaining DOIs allows the courts to respond to changing circumstances and for this question to be brought back for parliamentary consideration. Of course, the final say on the matter will remain with Parliament and the Government because Section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that a declaration cannot affect the operation or validity of domestic legislation.
The effect of retaining this Section 4 is therefore beneficial in limiting domestic and international legal challenge and, crucially, does not undermine the operation of the Bill, and in doing so reaffirms parliamentary sovereignty. The court could not grant interim relief on the basis of a DOI having been granted because of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked about the impact of the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Bill will apply fully in Northern Ireland in the same way as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is explicit in the Bill and will always be the case, reflecting that immigration policy is a UK-wide matter. Nothing in the Windsor Framework, including Article 2, or the trade continuity agreement affects this. The Bill’s provisions do not diminish the rights and commitments we have made on the convention on human rights in the Belfast agreement. The Government remain fully committed to that agreement in all its parts. The Government are unshakable in their commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the Bill does not undermine this.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Has the noble Lord actually read the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s advice on this matter? Has he taken cognisance of the number of measures he lists which are affected, and the fact it is an obligation under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have just set out to the noble Baroness, the Government takes a different view to those opinions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the costs of this partnership. The spend on the MEDP with Rwanda so far is £240 million. Further funding will be provided to Rwanda once the partnership is operational. Costs and payments will depend on the number of people relocated, the timing of when this happens and the outcomes of individual cases. Spending will continue to be reported as part of annual Home Office reports and accounts in the usual way. Those focusing solely on the costs of this partnership are missing the point. It is incredibly frustrating for the British people and the taxpayer to spend billions to house illegal migrants in hotels. The daily cost of hotels for migrants is £8 million and the cost of the UK’s asylum system has roughly doubled in the last year; it now stands at nearly £4 billion. Criminal smuggling gangs are continuing to turn a profit using small boats. We must bring an end to this.
The Government recognise the extraordinary level of interest in this partnership, and we take our responsibility to be transparent seriously. However, that must be balanced with the nuances of managing our international relationships and respecting commercial sensitivities. We have said we will do what it takes to curb illegal migration and stop the boats. As we explore avenues of doing this, it would be against our direct interests to release all financial information. Costs and payments of course will depend on the number of people relocated, the timing of when this happens, and the outcomes of individual cases. Every individual’s needs are different, and funding will only be provided while an individual remains in Rwanda. Spending will be reported as part of the annual Home Office reports and accounts in the usual way.
I am getting to the end. Noble Lords have asked whether this Bill will, by disapplying international law, have a knock-on impact on wider international treaties and potentially worsen the UK’s relationship with the ECHR. We have a long and diverse history of freedoms in this country, and we are proud of the UK’s heritage and culture on human rights and democracy. But no country has all the answers to global human rights challenges. We continue to engage others about our ongoing journey on these issues—a point made by many noble Lords and emphasised by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary on 16 January.
I am again thankful for all the contributions made to today’s debate. It is absolutely essential that we tackle illegal migration, bring an end to such dangerous channel crossings and save lives. To the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I say that the integrity of our border also matters. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Government in delivering the partnership with Rwanda, and our wider plans to take control of our borders and stop the boats. These are difficult choices to make with regards to tackling this issue. That is what this Government are doing, and we will continue to do so. The Bill will enable us to stop the boats, and I commend it to the House. I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have just read a report of the debate from a senior broadcast journalist. He says that the majority of Peers in this House regard this Bill as an “unholy abomination”. Therefore, in order to sort this matter out, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.