House of Commons

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 21 February 2024

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. Whether she has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on encouraging co-operation between universities and businesses to promote innovation.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)]

Of course, I speak to colleagues on this important topic all the time. Our science and technology framework is designed to ensure that we do not just challenge university rankings, but translate them into material benefits for the United Kingdom. My Department has a number of programmes breaking down the barriers between universities and businesses, which have contributed to the nearly 90,000 interactions reported between universities and businesses in 2021-22. That is a 5% increase on the previous year.

[Mr Sheerman]

Since we have had the impact assessment of universities globally, many of the new and more innovative small universities have outstripped the more conventional and better-known universities. Indeed, the Huddersfield health innovation campus is leading in this area. Does the Minister agree that that innovation partnership offers real opportunities for jobs in the future, and should there not be more incentives to make innovations come faster rather than slower?

[Michelle Donelan]

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of focusing on innovation and collaboration in this area. The University of Huddersfield received £1.63 million this year through the higher education innovation fund to support knowledge exchange and collaboration with business, and I am sure that we can write to the hon. Member with more details.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

On 1 January this year, the UK became an associate member of the Horizon Europe programme and Copernicus. Given our delayed start, could the Secretary of State say what steps she is taking to encourage participation by UK universities and businesses?

[Michelle Donelan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I welcome the news shared just last week by Commissioner Ivanova, who said the early signs of uptake are absolutely excellent. Indeed, some programmes are projecting an increase of over 50%. We are not being complacent. We have launched a comprehensive international marketing campaign, introduced a pump-priming scheme with the British Academy and already started on roadshows.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

British researchers are among the best in the world. We are not so good at turning our brilliant research into the growth that our economy so desperately needs, which requires collaboration between businesses and universities throughout the long years of discovery, testing, adoption and commercialisation. Funding science in chunks of three years or less does not help, so universities, businesses and researchers have all welcomed Labour’s commitment to set 10-year budgets for funding bodies in key institutions. Does the Secretary of State agree, or is that too much to expect from a short-term, sticking-plaster Government?

[Michelle Donelan]

While the words sound good, it is this Government who are delivering on our plan. Just a few months ago we published our response to the spin-out review, and we are making record levels of investment—£20 billion in research and development. This is a Government who are not just talking the talk, but actually delivering.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support women into science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

11. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support women into science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs.

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

Our priority is to ensure that everyone, regardless of background, can pursue the exciting opportunities in STEM. That ambition fully extends to the hon. Members’ constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North and in Livingston.

[Gavin Newlands]

New data from Times Higher Education reveals that female science undergraduates are twice as likely to experience sexism as their peers on non-science courses. Many have reported being patronised or belittled by their male classmates, with this behaviour routinely going unchallenged by staff. What steps is the Minister taking to address the pervasive culture of sexism in STEM so that more women can be encouraged to pursue jobs in that important sector?

[Andrew Griffith]

A key priority for this Government is ensuring that everybody, regardless of background, faces no discrimination and can pursue an occupation in STEM. I am pleased to report that the number of STEM apprenticeship starts by women this year is up by almost 8%, and since 2016 a total of almost £8 million has been awarded to 152 remarkable women role models to help them grow their businesses and innovation.

[Hannah Bardell]

A vaccine firm in my Livingston constituency, Valneva, does lifesaving and pioneering work, and nearly 50% of its workforce are women. It does brilliant work to encourage women into STEM careers. Would the Minister consider coming to Livingston, visiting Valneva, and meeting the company and me to see at first hand the fantastic work it does?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes, and I commend the hon. Lady for having that very successful female-opportunity-giving firm in her constituency. I am in Scotland later this month and I will try to visit her.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

There can be no better example of businesses encouraging STEM education right through school and university for both men and women than the James Dyson Foundation in Malmesbury in my constituency. Will the Minister join me in warmly thanking and congratulating Sir James Dyson on his recent contribution of £6 million to Malmesbury Primary School, which will also be available for all children in Malmesbury to promote STEM at the heart of my constituency?

[Andrew Griffith]

I warmly congratulate the Dyson Foundation on that. It is a fantastic example of philanthropy. As my hon. Friend will know, maths education is a key building block, and we are consulting on establishing a national academy of mathematical science, backed by £6 million of funding. The consultation ends this Sunday and I hope that many hon. Members will respond.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Improving diversity in STEM is not just the right thing to do; it is vital to our future success. Diversity brings new ways of thinking, a better understanding and a new approach. Can the Minister ensure that the Department for Education encourages people to think about STEM careers at the earliest possible level, particularly in primary schools?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about diversity in STEM starting at the earliest possible age. I will of course talk to my colleagues in the Department for Education about doing precisely that.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

A number of my constituents who work in STEM areas have expressed concerns about female research partners currently in Gaza. Can the Minister confirm whether any discussions have taken place with colleagues at the Home Office about providing emergency visas to female STEM academics who are currently working in collaboration with UK partners?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am not aware of that, but I will happily ask the question of Home Office colleagues and write to the hon. Lady.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to tackle the space industry skills gap.

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

Delivering a national space strategy is a key priority for me and the Department. I recognise that a strong space workforce is critical to this, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will be publishing a space workforce action plan later this year.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer and for his work on this. He knows, as I do, that the innovation economy in this country is creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Indeed, 500,000 are forecast over the next 10 years in space, agritech, cleantech engineering and bio, in clusters all around the country, as the recent cluster map showed. Will he ensure that the excellent Department for Education future skills unit liaises closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology cluster team to make sure that we are properly building the job creation plans into the local skills improvement plans on the ground?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend has done so much to advance the interests of skills in the sector during his many years of public service, and he is quite right to draw attention to the successful cluster map that was launched by the Secretary of State 10 days ago. The development of skills is a shared responsibility between Government and industry and we take our responsibilities in that respect very seriously.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I want to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for having taken the Sutherland spaceport to where it is. It is now well under way. Does the Minister agree that the skills we have at Dounreay and at the nearby Thurso College could play a large part in making this a centre of excellence for space launch?

[Andrew Griffith]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a very exciting moment in UK space, and he has long championed the cause of his own constituents in that respect. I look forward to this year being a very successful year for him and the whole space supply chain, and inspiring a future generation locally.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to improve rural connectivity.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to improve rural connectivity.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to improve rural connectivity.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to improve rural connectivity.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

We have made huge progress in connecting the countryside. In 2019 only 6% of premises had gigabit-capable broadband; now it is 80%, and the UK is building gigabit networks faster than any country in the EU. This month we launched another six Project Gigabit contracts to connect another 690,000 rural homes. The shared rural networks are tackling mobile notspots and we have satellite trials for the very hardest to reach.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that her Department is doing, but my constituents in Inkberrow have contacted me because they are really concerned that the infrastructure for their much-needed broadband is being put in using poles in the street rather than underground as they were promised. We must upgrade our infrastructure, but we must not damage our beautiful countryside in the process, so what can she do to support my constituents in Inkberrow to ensure that this much-needed infrastructure is buried underground?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point, and I agree that we want to build underground where possible. It is important that she is advocating on behalf of her constituents, because we have had issues relating to poles. We encourage sharing, but that is not always happening. It seems to be an issue in particular pockets of the country, and we are talking to Ofcom about this to see what more we can do.

[Trudy Harrison]

It is brilliant to hear about all of this progress. What assessment has the Minister made of the value for money cap in connecting the hardest-to-reach households and businesses, of which I have many in my very rural, incredibly beautiful but sparsely populated constituency?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend’s constituency has very low gigabit connectivity, partly because its geography makes connections very expensive. That is why we launched one of our very first contracts in Cumbria. Some 15,000 premises are going to be connected across Copeland, and we are trying to stretch the contract as far as it will go. For premises that will not be reached, we will look at other technologies so that we can get to them as quickly as possible.

[Dr James Davies]

I work closely with Philip Burrows, Denbighshire’s excellent digital officer. He tells me that Openreach can still impose significant excess charges to connect properties that are declared enabled for fibre. In those instances, people are unable to claim via the gigabit voucher scheme. Will my hon. Friend outline what steps she is taking to address this matter?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the experience of Mr Burrows, who sounds like a very experienced officer. I would like to hear a bit more detail, because it sounds like the properties he cites have access to a fibre connection and would not be eligible for a voucher. I would like to know a bit more about the excess charges so that we can deal with any problems.

[Sarah Atherton]

Rossett, outside Wrexham, has little to no connectivity, despite the Ofcom checker predicting that it has a good signal. This significantly limits residents’ lives. Ofcom acknowledges that it is a prediction, but Building Digital UK says that, because the Government rely on this prediction, there is little chance of Rossett receiving any benefit from the shared rural network programme. What would the Minister advise my residents to do?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenge I have had in answering this question. The mobile connectivity figures I have for her constituency are extremely high. This highlights the issue we have with Ofcom’s reporting maps, which are simply not good enough. We have consistently raised this with Ofcom, and we hope to make progress.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

There has been significant improvement in rural broadband connectivity in Northern Ireland as a result of our agreement with the previous Government. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that small businesses in rural areas across the country can further develop themselves by maximising this advantage?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fantastic connectivity in Northern Ireland. In fact, I think it has some of the very best connectivity in the entire country. I will look into any spots that are still not covered, and I will happily get back to him.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will she outline how rural businesses can ensure that they have superfast broadband to secure their viability in an increasingly online market?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but his businesses no longer want superfast. They want gigabit speeds and, thankfully, Northern Ireland has tremendous gigabit speeds. If there are any issues, particularly with access for small businesses, I am happy to look into them.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Devon County Council is spending its broadband clawback money on anything but broadband. That £7.8 million was intended for improving broadband in rural areas, including in villages such as Northleigh. Residents have encountered numerous pledges on poles, but they still do not have full fibre. Does the Minister think the clawback funding for broadband should have been ringfenced by Devon County Council?

[Julia Lopez]

These issues have been highlighted many times by Conservative Members from Devon. We thought we had worked through some of those challenges. The clawback challenge that the hon. Gentleman highlights has not previously been raised with me, and I will happily look into it for him.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some 4.8 million people live in rural 5G notspots; rural areas are seven times more likely to have broadband speeds worse than those at base camp at Everest; one in five poorer homes have no internet to the home at all; and cardiac arrest phones and medical monitors still rely on analogue telephony. [Interruption.] Why are this Government such an abject failure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House could not hear Sir Chris Bryant—[Interruption.] I will have no suggestion that that was deliberate. People may need to speak, but can they do so in a quiet voice and allow Sir Chris to re-ask his question?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Let us just stick with the punchline, shall we? Why are this Government such an abject failure?

[Julia Lopez]

I know that the hon. Gentleman loves to stick the boot in, but he has chosen the wrong subject here. In 2019, there was 6% gigabit coverage, whereas the figure now is 80%. This is a massive infrastructure project, and it is one of the biggest successes that we have, so he has chosen the wrong thing to be snipey about.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to support research and development in medical technology.

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

The UK has an exceptional record of innovation in medical technology. There could not be a more exciting time for the sector; we are extending the length and quality of human life, and solving rare diseases, with the help of the Medical Research Council’s £650 million grant this year.

[Liz Twist]

The north-east has a fantastic life sciences sector, with 7,000 people working in it and a unique combination of medical and technology assets, networks and academic expertise. However, with business investment at record lows, what are the Government doing to ensure that our brilliant research and development is transferred into real manufacturing jobs?

[Andrew Griffith]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government are investing in medical manufacturing. I would be happy to meet her or businesses in her constituency to make sure that they can access those funds. However, it is only the good stewardship of our economy that has allowed us to continue to invest record amounts in research and innovation in the UK.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to ensure that regulators have adequate capacity and co-ordination to implement the AI regulatory principles.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)]

Ensuring that regulators have the right skills and capabilities to regulate in their domains is fundamental to the effective delivery of our approach on artificial intelligence regulation. To support that, we have established a central co-ordination function, which will provide regulators with guidance on implementing the regulatory principles and help them to identify emerging risks and challenges. The £10 million funding we have announced to jump-start regulator capacity and capability will form a crucial element of this work.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

AI in the UK still lacks sufficient regulation, despite the pace of change and the risks posed. The Government stated that they expect to introduce

“a statutory duty on regulators requiring them to have due regard”

to the five high-level principles outlined in the AI White Paper. So will the Secretary of State confirm if and when she will legislate for that, and what factors will inform her decision?

[Michelle Donelan]

The risks of AI are still emerging, so the priority of this Government is keeping pace with those risks, to keep the public safe. That is why we have an agile, sector-specific approach, utilising our world-leading regulators, whereas the Opposition keep calling for legislation on an area they do not understand.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one important thing about the Bletchley conference was that it enabled international co-operation on interoperability and a common approach? Does she also agree that that will enable regulators to co-operate internationally?

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend says, and I call it the “Bletchley effect”; we have seen action taken in other nations across the world since our world-leading first ever AI global summit on safety.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Secretary of State.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us keep it a bit quieter It is not fair that we cannot hear the Minister.

[Michelle Donelan]

We have just celebrated one year since my Department was created. In that time, we have pushed research and development funding to record levels. We have secured a bespoke deal on Horizon Europe. We have led the globe when it comes to AI safety, and we have passed the world-leading Online Safety Act 2023 and much more.

We have a plan to go even further. My Department continues to drive innovation, to create better jobs and to push economic growth. This month, we have set out our pro-innovation, pro-safety plans to regulate artificial intelligence, building on the success of the AI safety summit to cement Britain’s position as a global leader in safe and trustworthy AI. We are slashing red tape to free our researchers from pointless paperwork. We have a plan to go even further and become a science and technology superpower, and that plan is working.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Higher salary requirements and visa charges for skilled workers plus impossibly restrictive family visa rules will put the UK out of reach for many early career researchers and scientists. What is the Secretary of State doing to stand up against these crazy Home Office policies, which will make her own Department’s goals for recruiting researchers and technicians virtually impossible to achieve?

[Michelle Donelan]

The UK has fantastic pull power, with world-leading facilities, four out of the top 10 universities and a range of routes for people to come here, including the very successful global talent visa.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

T2. Recently, after some storms, residents in Hanbury and other rural parts of my constituency were without broadband for three weeks. The problem was fixed only when I, the local MP, got involved. What can the Minister do to make sure that these providers restore services much more quickly? Three weeks is a completely unacceptable delay.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

I am sorry to hear of the problems that my hon. Friend’s constituents experienced. Telecommunications companies are under certain obligations to Ofcom to keep networks up and running. We are testing those resilience measures. Thankfully, gigabit broadband is a much more resilient network which, has withstood floods in York recently for example, but we hope to be able to have a much more resilient network in future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Government’s AI White Paper says that all jurisdictions will need mandatory reporting of frontier AI. The United States has already done it. The EU has already done it. Why is the Secretary of State waiting for a Labour Government to keep this country safe?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will not take any lectures from the Opposition when it comes to AI. We have a plan that is working. We are leading the world when it comes to AI safety. I have spoken about the Bletchley effect. We have the world’s first ever institute doing pre-deployment testing.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T4. Parents want their children to be safe. Many parents are deeply concerned about what children are seeing on their phones. Does the Secretary of State agree that sellers of mobile phones should be doing much more to verify the age of the user? If the phone is being bought for a child, the seller should provide the parents with access to and advice on parental controls, so that parents can help to keep their children safe.

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s passion when it comes to online safety. We are leading the world with our comprehensive Online Safety Act 2023. This is a matter on which we both agree and I am more than happy to discuss it further with her.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

T3. The area between Cockshutt and Welshampton in my constituency is one of the many total notspots in North Shropshire. Can the Minister update us on the progress she is making on total notspots? Will she meet me to discuss the progress of the shared rural network in North Shropshire?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of total and partial notspots. Our amazing shared rural network programme has £500 million from industry and £500 million from Government. We are going through all of those coverage areas that are shown wanting, and we hope to make progress in her own constituency.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

T5. During recess, I took part in a cross-party Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the UN summit on conflict and security. One of the seminars was about AI security. I know the UK held the first ever summit on AI safety, with 28 countries coming together to put forward guidelines. What update do we have on bringing more countries on board to ensure that AI can be explored safely?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

There is a lot of ongoing work, including my conversations with G7 partners; I know that the Secretary of State is meeting with international partners. I would welcome a meeting and an update from my hon. Friend on his conversations at the UN and what work is being done there.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 February.

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

The whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Alexei Navalny. He died for a cause to which he dedicated his whole life: freedom. To return home knowing that Putin had already tried to have him killed was one of the most courageous acts of our time. Together with our allies, we are considering all options to hold Russia and Putin to account, and this morning we sanctioned those running the prison where Alexei Navalny’s body still lies.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Miss Dines]

I know that my right hon. Friend will share the horror felt by this House—the oldest people’s assembly in the world—at the acid attack against a woman and two children on the streets of London. Does he share my anger that we would still have been unable to deport the perpetrator had he been found because of the so-called European Court of Human Rights? When will we stop bending the knee to this so-called European court—a travesty of a court?

[The Prime Minister]

This was a horrific attack, and my thoughts are with the victims and their family. Obviously, I cannot comment on a live investigation, but speaking more broadly, clearly I do not think that it is right for dangerous foreign criminals to be able to stay in our country. That is why our Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made it clear that anyone who is convicted of a crime and gets a sentence of 12 months or more will not be granted asylum in the United Kingdom. That is the common-sense position, which I believe is supported by the majority of the British public, but one that the Labour party voted against time and time again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming my hon. Friends the new Members for Kingswood (Damien Egan) and for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen). I know that they will both be powerful advocates for their constituents.

On a more sombre note, I join with the Prime Minister—I was glad to hear what he just had to say, because I am sure that the whole House will join me—in sharing our disgust at the death of Alexei Navalny, who, as the Prime Minister said, died because of his efforts to expose the corruption of the Putin regime. It is a reminder that Putin has stolen not just the wealth but the future and democracy of the Russian people.

Would the Prime Minister be prepared personally to repeat the allegation made by his Business Secretary that the former chair of the Post Office is “lying” when he says that he was told to “go slow” on compensation for postmasters, and “limp” to the next election?

[The Prime Minister]

As the Business Secretary said on Monday, she asked Henry Staunton to step down after serious concerns were raised. She set out the reasons for this, and the full background, in the House earlier this week, but importantly we have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that victims of the Horizon scandal receive compensation as swiftly as possible, and in full. Making sure that victims receive justice and compensation remains our No. 1 priority, and we will shortly bring forward legislation to address this matter.

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure that takes us very much further forward, so let me press on. On Monday, the Business Secretary also confirmed categorically—I will quote this, in fairness to the Prime Minister:

“that the Post Office was at no point told to delay compensation payments by either an official or a Minister from any Government Department, and that at no point was it suggested that a delay would be of benefit to the Treasury”.—[Official Report, 19 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 476.]

That was on Monday. A note released by the former Post Office chair this morning appears to directly contradict that. I appreciate—[Interruption.] This really matters to the people who have been at the heart of this. I appreciate that the Business Secretary has put the Prime Minister in a tricky position, but will he commit to investigating this matter properly, including whether that categorical statement was correct, and why, rather than taking those accusations seriously, she accused a whistleblower of lying?

[The Prime Minister]

It is worth bearing in mind that, as the Business Secretary said on Monday, she asked Henry Staunton to step down after serious concerns were raised. However, this is, on a matter of substance, one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, because people who were working hard serving their communities had their lives and reputations destroyed. That is why we are working hard to ensure that they get justice and compensation, why we established Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry, why we have already paid out over £150 million of compensation to almost 3,000 victims, and why we will introduce new legislation shortly to exonerate them. We will ensure that we do what is needed, that the truth comes to light, that we right the wrongs of the past, and, crucially, that victims get the justice that they deserve.

[Keir Starmer]

I do hope that the Prime Minister will instigate that investigation into what was said on Monday, because one of the features of this miscarriage is that where concerns have been raised, they have been pushed to one side.

This week, we also learned that a 2016 investigation into whether post office branch accounts could be altered was suddenly stopped before it was completed. Had that investigation revealed that they could be altered, which we now know to be the case, the livelihoods of those wrongly prosecuted could have been saved. What did Government Ministers know about it at the time?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition has picked one particular date, but it is worth bearing in mind that this scandal—[Interruption.] Hang on. This scandal has unfolded over decades, and it was following a landmark 2019 High Court case that the previous Government established a statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams, which is uncovering exactly what went wrong. It is right that that inquiry is allowed to do its work. Also, following the High Court case, the Government established an independent advisory board and not one but three different compensation schemes. As of now, over two thirds of people have received full and final offers. What we are focused on is ensuring that victims get the justice and compensation that they deserve.

[Keir Starmer]

This information about 2016 has come to light just this week, which is precisely why I am asking about it. Considering that the Prime Minister’s Foreign Secretary was running the Government in 2016, and one of the Prime Minister’s current Cabinet Office Ministers was the Post Office Minister, has he thought to ask either of them what they knew in 2016?

[The Prime Minister]

No, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] We did the right thing, which was to set up an independent statutory inquiry. That is the right way to resolve this issue; it is the right way to get victims the truth and the answers that they demand. This Government are getting on with getting them the compensation that they rightly deserve.

[Keir Starmer]

As we all know, the Horizon scandal left people isolated, their livelihoods lost, their lives ruined. Some died without ever getting the justice that they deserved. Fears of delay, or of cover up, are causing them anguish. Yesterday, Chris Head, once accused by the Post Office of owing more than £80,000, said this:

“There is a lack of transparency…We need to see the correspondence between [the] Post Office, the department and UKGI because all of this time everything gets shrouded in secrecy”—[Interruption.]

These are his words; have some respect, please. These are victims.

I appreciate that the inquiry is ongoing, but as the Prime Minister knows—as do I and the whole House—that does not provide a reason why he cannot draw a line under this, give postmasters such as Chris the peace of mind that they need, and release all the correspondence that he wants to see. Will he now do so?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, this is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our country’s history. I do not think it is one that the Leader of the Opposition ever raised with me during these exchanges over the past year, but we are working hard to get victims not just the answers but the compensation that they deserve. We now have a statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams, who has the powers to get access to all the documentation that he requires and to speak to everybody that he needs to. That is the right and proper way to get the truth that the victims deserve, but in the meantime, we are not wasting a moment to get victims the compensation they deserve. The legislation will be before the House shortly.

[Keir Starmer]

In recent decades, there have been numerous scandals that have left public faith in our institutions shaken, and rebuilding that confidence will require those affected to see that politicians are being honest with them and to believe it. Just like the postmasters, victims of the infected blood scandal have been subject to unimaginable trauma during their search for justice, so can the Prime Minister put their minds at ease and tell the House what undertakings he has given to ensure that the Government are not “limping to the election” on payments that those victims are owed by the British state?

[The Prime Minister]

When it comes to the infected blood scandal, as I have said before, I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and the suffering of all those who were impacted by that dreadful scandal. I gave evidence to the inquiry myself last year, and as I said then, I recognise that thousands have suffered for decades.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is an independent inquiry. As this is an incredibly complex issue, as he well knows, the Minister for the Cabinet Office updated Parliament with the latest Government position just before the Christmas recess. He announced that the Cabinet Office was appointing an expert group of clinical, legal and social care experts so that it had the relevant expertise to make informed decisions, responding to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation when they come. He also confirmed that the Department of Health and Social Care will implement a fully bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected. We have also committed to providing an update to Parliament on next steps through an oral statement within 25 sitting days of the publication of the final report. But I will end where I began: this is a deeply awful scandal, and we will do what we need to do to make it right.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Q2. There is a plan for at least 2,000 single young men who have come here illegally soon to be housed just 3 miles from the centre of Lincoln at RAF Scampton, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—if Home Office Ministers have their way. On top of the huge and rising costs and the recent advice from civil servants to Home Office Ministers to can the plan, what reassurance can the Prime Minister and his Home Secretary give that Scampton will not replicate the scandalous incidents that occurred in Cambridge in 2014, when 300 Libyan trainees were housed at RAF Bassingbourn?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns of his constituents. I assure him that we want asylum accommodation to have as little impact as possible on the local community. I understand that the Home Office has put a number of measures in place, including a specialist security provider working on site 24/7 and CCTV, and it is working with the local police as well. However, I know my hon. Friend agrees with me that the only way to stop this problem fully and ensure that local communities are not seeing the housing of illegal migrants—whether that is on large sites or in hotels—is to have a plan to stop the boats. That is what this party and this Government do, and it is Labour that is blocking us at every step of the way.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP leader.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I begin by echoing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the heroic bravery of Alexei Navalny. We must all continue to be united in our opposition to Vladimir Putin.

As it stands, some 60% of the buildings in Gaza are either damaged or destroyed. Much of the farmland is in ruin; some 30,000 people are dead, 70,000 are injured, and 1.4 million are currently sheltering in Rafah, awaiting an imminent Israeli onslaught. Surely the Prime Minister must accept that that does not amount to self-defence.

[The Prime Minister]

I share the concern of many Members about the high rate of civilian casualties and, indeed, the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That is why we have called consistently for an immediate humanitarian pause, which would allow for the safe release of hostages and more aid going into Gaza, so that we create the sustainable conditions for a long-term and enduring ceasefire. That is what our diplomatic efforts are focused on, and that is what I impressed upon the Israeli Prime Minister last week when I spoke to him.

[Stephen Flynn]

Tonight, this House will have the opportunity to join the majority of the international community and say that enough is enough, that the killing in Gaza must stop and that the hostages must be released, and the best way to do that is to send a clear and united message that we back an immediate ceasefire. Surely, all of us, irrespective of our political allegiance, can agree on that very issue?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we want to see the fighting in Gaza end as soon as possible, and never again allow Hamas to carry out the appalling terrorist attacks that Israel was subject to. The hon. Member talks about the UN resolution, but just calling for an immediate full ceasefire now, which collapses back into fighting within days or weeks, is not in anyone’s interest. We must work towards a permanent ceasefire, and that is why the right approach is the approach that we have set out and the United States has set out in its resolution, which is for an immediate humanitarian pause to get hostages out and aid in, so that we then can create the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to increase the amount of humanitarian aid that we bring into Gaza—something I discussed with the King of Jordan last week—and we will have more updates in the coming days of more airdrops into Gaza, but also just in the last couple of days, that have managed to deliver family tents into Gaza, which are providing much-needed shelter for very vulnerable people.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Q4. Key to the much-needed regeneration of Aylesbury are new link roads to cut congestion. Money from the cancelled part of HS2 is meant to be paying towards them—that is only right, given the destruction being caused by the construction of the first part of this unwanted railway—but the cash has not arrived yet. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents they will get the roads they need, so they can spend less time sitting in traffic jams and more time growing the local economy?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, last autumn we announced the Government’s vision to redirect £36 billion of savings from HS2 to invest in hundreds of transport projects across the country, including possible increased funding for two projects that I know my hon. Friend has campaigned on tirelessly—the south-east Aylesbury link road and the Aylesbury eastern link road. I know he has met the relevant Minister on a number of occasions to discuss these proposals, and I can tell him that the details of how these funding uplifts will be allocated will be decided very shortly.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Over 40,000 North sea oil and gas jobs are at risk from an incoming Labour Administration, and neither Labour, the Tories or the SNP have lifted a finger to save Grangemouth oil refinery from closure. With the passing of last night’s Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, the UK Government gave not one, but two fingers to Scotland’s energy ambitions within the UK. Can the Prime Minister explain: in today’s money, the UK has received over £300 billion in tax receipts from North sea oil and gas, so why cannot the UK Government find £80 million to secure Grangemouth’s future and profitability beyond 2025?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have previously told the House, the future of Grangemouth is a commercial decision for its owners. The site will remain operating as a refinery until at least May 2025. The UK and the Scottish Governments are working together to make sure that there are sufficient assurances in place for the support of employees. But when it comes to backing Scottish energy, it is this Government who just this week have ensured that we can support British North sea oil and gas, safeguarding 200,000 jobs and increasing our energy security. It is the SNP and the Labour party that oppose that, but we will always back our fantastic North sea economy.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree with me and Welsh farmers such as Gareth Wyn Jones that our farmers and food security are vital and that the agricultural budget should be ringfenced, unlike the Welsh Labour Government, propped up by Plaid, who are determined to force our farmers out of business with their approach to nitrate vulnerable zones, TB and their new sustainable farming scheme, which using the Welsh Government’s own analysis, is forecast to result in 5,500 job losses and a £200 million hit to the Welsh economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her local farming community, and I know she has been working hard with Gareth Wyn Jones to raise its voice, especially where there is so much concern. Conservative Members are supporting farmers with more money to grow more British food, in contrast with the plans she highlighted, which would decimate farming communities in Wales and are the opposite of what is needed. While we will always back our rural communities across the UK, Labour would take them back to square one.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Q3. It is now more than two years since the fan-led review on football governance was produced. Will the Prime Minister commit to setting up an independent regulator, with the up-front power to intervene to achieve a fairer distribution of football’s enormous riches, to ensure that no community in future loses its football club, as happened in Bury? Will he commit to bringing forward legislation urgently, or will he leave it for a future Labour Government to act on behalf of football fans?

[The Prime Minister]

The independent regulator will put fans back at the heart of football and help to deliver a sustainable future for all clubs. That delivers on our manifesto commitment. The Government are engaged in discussions with industry, and that was part of our King’s Speech, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am glad he brought up Bury football club, because it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) who ensured £1 million of funding to safeguard that football club, and that is what we are doing to communities up and down the country.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q12. GP surgeries promised in planning applications take far too long to be built. Can we clear away the obstacles and make it easier for our amazing family doctors to use additional consulting rooms that they are happy with elsewhere in the community, so that GPs, and the many extra prescribing nurses they are now employing, can see more patients now while they wait for bespoke premises to be built?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks from a point of authority. He knows that we have high standards to ensure that GPs provide services from premises that meet all the required criteria, but I understand it is possible for those services to be provided at alternative locations that meet the contract requirements. I will happily ensure that the Health and Social Care Secretary looks into his suggestions about more flexibility. He will also welcome our recent plans to expand the range of services available at pharmacies, saving many people time and hassle to get treatment for seven common ailments at their local pharmacist, easing the pressure on our GPs and speeding up the care that people deserve.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Q5. I was in the House on 18 March 2003 when this House voted to go to war in Iraq on the demands of the then Labour Government. What followed was death, misery, and destruction on an almost unimaginable scale. Voting against the Iraq war is the vote I am most proud of in my time in this House. Today, after 29,000 deaths in Gaza, we face a vote of similar significance. Does the Prime Minister believe that MPs today should look back with that same pride, knowing that they have done everything possible to stop the death, destruction, and misery tonight?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody wants to see the fighting in Gaza go on for a moment longer than is necessary, and nobody wants to see innocent civilians suffer. That is why we are doing absolutely everything we can to bring about an immediate humanitarian pause, allowing for the safe release of hostages, which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention I believe, and also getting more aid into Gaza to create the conditions for a genuinely sustainable ceasefire. That is the position shared by our allies, that is what our diplomatic efforts are focused on, and that is what our motion tonight will reflect.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I have had the privilege to be spending a lot of time with the law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working patriotic people of Romford in recent months, and they have been telling me what they think. Does the Prime Minister agree with the people of Romford that we need a radical plan to control immigration and stop illegal immigration, to regain sovereignty over our human rights laws in this country, to tell the Mayor of London that we need more police to stop crime in the London Borough of Havering, and a fair funding settlement for Havering? Will the Prime Minister come with me to Romford market, following the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher, and meet the people of Romford? One thing I can tell him they do not want is to be taken back into the European Union by a socialist Government.

[The Prime Minister]

May I welcome my hon. Friend back to his place? I agree with everything he said, and I look forward to visiting him and his Romford constituents at the earliest opportunity.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q6. At a recent meeting of Warwickshire County Council, children with special educational needs were described by some county councillors as requiring “some form of strict correction”, or were “just really badly behaved”. Other inappropriate language was used. Parents of SEN children across the country have been outraged by this, with some 30,000 of them signing a petition calling for those councillors’ resignations. Will the Prime Minister condemn the Conservative councillors’ language and urge them to do the right thing and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not seen the details of those comments and this issue. More generally, the Government have a strong track record of supporting those with disabilities. It is important that children with special educational needs receive the right support in the right place at the right time. We have seen funding for SEN increase by 60% over this Parliament to more than £10 billion. Most recently, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care are piloting a new project to improve access to specialty support in mainstream primary schools, because we want to make sure that these children get all the support and opportunities they deserve.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

We have legislated to give the public ID verification options on social media, and tech companies know the safety value and popularity of that, because they offer it now, but for a big fee every month—it is not good enough. Bereaved parents are campaigning for more measures to protect kids online, fraudsters are routinely exploiting fake social media accounts to scam, and there are fears of global political interference in elections from faceless, traceless bots. It is creating the perfect cyber-storm. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to get tech companies to get on with offering robust, visible and free verification measures as soon as possible to keep people safe?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start by commending my hon. Friend on her work on this issue? She is absolutely right that user verification can be a powerful tool to keep people safe online. The Online Safety Act 2023, as she knows, requires companies to offer all adults optional user identity verification. Companies will also need to take firm action to improve safety for children in particular, and Ofcom will be able to monitor tech companies and have strong powers to ensure they comply. I can tell her that the Home Secretary is meeting the industry on Monday next week and will be sure to raise the points she has mentioned today.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Q7. A KPMG study finds a strong economic case to remove power cables over the Tyne. Despite my questions to previous Prime Ministers, we are no further forward. Can this Prime Minister finally secure a commitment from National Grid to implement its clear legal obligation and fund this vital work? This fog on the Tyne is impeding local businesses and risks possible net GVA benefits of up to £1.2 billion. Our great river needs action now.

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look into the issue that the hon. Lady raises. What would be damaging to the north-east and the Tyne are her party’s plans to stick with their completely ridiculous 2030 decarbonisation target with absolutely no plan to pay for it, which just means higher taxes for everyone in her constituency and the country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Britain’s food security, compromised by cheap foreign imports, now faces a parallel threat: all kinds of industrialisation of the countryside, from large solar plants to interconnectors and substations, and now huge pylons covering 87 miles of countryside. These will blot the landscape and use up valuable growing land, filling the fenland big skies. Knowing that the Prime Minister’s bow burns with gold, like my own, will he ensure that he joins my fight for our green and pleasant land and so make sure that food security and energy security are not competitors?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an excellent point about our food security. The Government have taken steps, which he has supported, to protect prime agricultural land from large-scale solar developments, which I know will be warmly welcomed. Our announcements this week at the National Farmers Union conference also demonstrate our support to increase our country’s food security, backing farmers with more funding and enhancing their productivity to produce great British food. As he knows, all of that, including our green and pleasant land, would be put at risk by the Labour party, which not only does not want to back our farmers but wants to impose top-down planning targets, which would concrete over the countryside that he and I both love.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q8.   In December, the Cabinet Minister for Women and Equalities told the House that she had engaged “extensively” with LGBT organisations since her appointment 18 months ago. A freedom of information answer published this week reveals that, in fact, the Minister has not met a single LGBT organisation but has met two fringe groups that actively campaign against transgender rights. What is the problem that the Prime Minister and a section of his party have with trans people, and that his Minister has with the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have always said, the Government have a proud track record of supporting those in the LGBT community, and we will continue to do so. I have also always said that those who are questioning their gender and identity should be treated with the utmost dignity, compassion and sensitivity as they consider those questions. But, alongside that, it is completely reasonable to highlight the importance of biological sex when it comes to those questions. Nobody should be stigmatised or demonised for pointing out that fact.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The Education Committee has heard compelling evidence to support the strengthening of guidance to keep mobile phones out of classrooms and break times, but over the course of our screen time inquiry we continue to hear deeply disturbing evidence about the risks to young people from too much exposure to social media too early. May I urge the Prime Minister to seek the swiftest possible implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 and to consider whether it is time to review the age of digital consent?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. He knows that we do have a plan when it comes to education and protecting children online. The Secretary of State is making sure that we can implement the Online Safety Act as quickly as possible with Ofcom, but we have also published new guidance banning mobile phones in schools, to minimise disruption and improve behaviour and educational attainment in the classroom. Crucially, we are going beyond that, because what our children see online is of the utmost importance to us, and we want to make sure that we protect their safety and their mental health.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Q9. When important matters of life and death are voted on in this House, does the Prime Minister think MPs should vote according to their party Whip or according to their conscience?

[The Prime Minister]

This afternoon the House will have an opportunity to consider its approach to the situation in Israel and Gaza. Our position is crystal clear: we have called, and will always call, for an immediate humanitarian pause, which would allow the safe release of hostages and more aid to go into Gaza, to create the conditions for a genuinely sustainable ceasefire. But just calling for an immediate, full ceasefire now, which would collapse back into fighting in days or weeks, would not be in anyone’s interests. We are committed not just to an immediate humanitarian pause, but to finding a lasting resolution to this conflict that delivers on the promise of a two-state solution and ensures that Israelis and Palestinians can live in the future with dignity and security.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

It seems that, with the exception of the British Transport police, all other police forces will treat non-contact sex crimes as they would perhaps the theft of a bike, petty retail crime or antisocial behaviour. Will the Prime Minister facilitate a meeting between me, colleagues and the Home Secretary to give priority to these acts of crime, to ensure that women and young girls get the protection they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want women and girls to get the protection that they deserve, and I am pleased that our violence against women and girls strategy is showing results, improving the safety on our streets and increasing sentences for rapists. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting that he needs with the Home Secretary or relevant policing Ministers to discuss his concerns.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q11. I heard the Prime Minister’s responses to the Leader of the Opposition. Just like the Business Secretary’s claims that delays on compensation are wild, baseless allegations, his answers are unbelievable. The response from the Government Benches to the quote from my constituent Chris Head was completely disrespectful. The reality is that we would not have any action without the ITV serialisation of the sub-postmaster scandal—[Interruption.] Government Members can shout all they like, but we all know that is the case. The Prime Minister has promised a new law to swiftly exonerate and compensate victims. Today he said “shortly”, so will he commit today to ensuring that it is brought forward before the next general election?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, the legislation will be brought before the House very, very soon.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

After Network Rail’s so-called signalling improvement works, there has been traffic chaos and delays at level crossings across Egham. In fact, data analysed by my team shows that in the year to September 2023 there was a 3,967% increase in waits of more than 10 minutes from when the barriers go down. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is unacceptable and that Network Rail needs to sort it out?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry to hear about the delays faced by my hon. Friend’s constituents, which I know will be disruptive to their lives. It is important that we have proper connectivity in our local areas, and I will ensure that he gets the relevant meeting he needs to put pressure on Network Rail to improve the service it is providing.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Q13. Children and young adults are most likely to be the victims or perpetrators of knife crime. Ava White was 12 years old when she was stabbed and killed by a 14-year-old in Liverpool city centre in 2021. Danny Jamieson was 16 when he died as a result of knife crime. Their mothers, Leann and Mandy, are campaigning for tougher sentences for knife crime. Will the Prime Minister support the Danny and Ava campaign to end the scourge of knife crime on our streets?

[The Prime Minister]

I express my condolences to Danny and Ava’s families, and the families of all the young people whose lives have been so tragically cut short by knife crime. We have plans in place to cut knife crime, and they are working—we have confiscated over 120,000 weapons, we have cut violent crime in half since 2010, and more dangerous criminals are going to jail for longer. We are bringing forward legislation to increase sentences for knife crime and to ban zombie knives, and I very much hope that the hon. Lady and her party will support those proposals when they are put before the House.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

After years of campaigning, it is great news that there will be a direct bus link between two of my biggest towns in Rother Valley, Dinnington and Maltby. However, there is still a lack of bus transport to our local hospitals. Does the Prime Minister agree that the South Yorkshire Mayor should use some of his resources to back my plan for transport for the Rother Valley, to ensure that every single village and town has a direct bus link to our local hospitals?

[The Prime Minister]

We know how vital bus services are to communities right across the country—indeed, buses are our most popular form of public transportation—which is why we have used some of the savings from HS2 to invest in bus services. We have capped bus fares at £2 right across the country, and we have provided my hon. Friend’s local authority with millions of pounds of more funding specifically to support local bus services. I join him in calling on the Mayor to ensure that there are direct bus routes to hospitals in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to make sure that people can see their loved ones at a distressing time.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Q14.   At the weekend the people of south Wales marched in support of the steel industry, following the Government’s grubby deal with Tata, which is now placing thousands of jobs at risk in Port Talbot and beyond. The Prime Minister is failing to protect our steel industry because he failed to make protecting jobs at the plant a red line. He now has a choice: work with the unions, Tata and the workforce to protect the industry and the jobs with investment, or walk away and do what Tories always do—abandon the south Wales communities yet again. Which is it, Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have worked hard to secure a long-term, sustainable future for Welsh steelmaking, and to grow the legacy of that important industry. That is why during the pandemic we stepped in to support Celsa, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, safeguarded more than 1,000 jobs and ensured that the plant was sustainable. It is why we agreed one of the largest ever cash grants, of half a billion pounds, for Tata Steel to safeguard at least 5,000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost. The hon. Gentleman might want to ask why the Welsh Labour Government did not put in a penny to support that deal.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

The Watford area continues to be the proud home of the national lottery, which employs more than 900 people. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the whole Cabinet, join me in celebrating the successful handover from Camelot to Allwyn on 1 February, and also the £48 billion raised by national lottery players, which so far has funded 700,000 projects in, I am sure, every constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in his congratulations and thank everyone involved with the national lottery. We are all seeing, in our constituencies, the incredible benefit from the investments that they are making, and he is absolutely right to ensure that they receive the praise they deserve today in Parliament.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Q15. The Prime Minister has been at it again. In a previous answer, he boasted about transferring investment from the north of England to the south. When he came to Manchester in the autumn to insult the people of the north of England and cancel HS2—proudly cancel it—was he aware then that, because the trains have to split without the HS2 lines and do not tilt, he would be slowing down services and reducing capacity? Did he not know that, or did he not care?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say a couple of things. First, our plans to continue with phase 1 mean that we can handle triple the capacity that is currently being used on the line. Secondly, every penny of the £19.8 billion from the northern bit of HS2 will stay in the north, being invested in services that people use, such as local buses, and will be delivered quicker. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision, but I have still not quite figured out Labour’s position on this. Do they support the redeployment of £36 billion of HS2 savings in transport across the rest of the country, or do they not? As ever, we do not know what they stand for, they cannot say what they would do, and they would just take Britain back to square one.

Points of Order

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

12:43

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify for the House how we could get some transparency in relation to the questions that the Prime Minister failed to answer today about the Business Secretary’s dispute with the former chair of the Post Office, and about whose recollection of that meeting is in fact correct. Have we, as Members of the House, any recourse to the minutes of that meeting? The Business Secretary said that at no point was anyone told to delay compensation payments by an official, by a Minister or by any Government Department. What we have heard this morning—and the Prime Minister failed to answer during Prime Minister’s questions—does not clarify the matter for us. I do not know whether you could help to clarify it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It really is not a matter for the Chair, but she has come in very quickly after Prime Minister’s questions to put her point on the record, and I know that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on how we can get to the bottom of exactly what is going on with our Canadian trade talks? On 25 January, Politico broke a story about a breakdown in our trade talks with Canada. When I asked the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about this, she said:

“This is a good opportunity for me to state explicitly that the talks have not broken down.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 657.]

On the Business and Trade Committee, we trust but verify. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be as surprised as I was to hear the following relayed in a letter from the Canadian high commissioner:

“As far as I am aware, since the U.K. announced its pause on January 25th, there have been neither negotiations nor technical discussions with respect to any of the outstanding issues”.

Canada is a NATO ally, a Commonwealth partner and one of our biggest export markets. How do we get to the bottom of whether these trade talks are going on in the Secretary of State’s mind or happening in real life?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. As he knows, I am not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but I am sure, again, that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his remarks. As Chair of the Select Committee, he will have further opportunities to pursue the matter directly with the Secretary of State. I am pretty sure that is what he intends to do.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Large numbers of our constituents have come to lobby Parliament today because the issue of Gaza is so close to their hearts. Only a limited number are being allowed into Westminster Hall, even though there is quite a sizeable amount of space, so many constituents are being forced to stand out in the rain. Would it be possible to see what could be done to accommodate more in Westminster Hall as they come in and filter on the green card system?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. This is obviously a matter that the House authorities will be dealing with, but I will ensure that his comments are fed back to see if anything further can be done. I am sure that he will appreciate that large numbers of people trying to gain entrance can inevitably cause some delays, and I am sure we are all sorry about that. As I say, I will feed back his comments.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Later today we will be voting on very sensitive matters that affect the whole House. At the start of that debate, Mr Speaker will no doubt announce which amendments, if any, he will allow to be put to the House. When he was elected, Mr Speaker gave a solemn promise that he would publish the advice he got from the Clerk of the House when he made controversial decisions. I do not know what he will decide or what his recommendation will be, but could you prevail on Mr Speaker, when he comes back to the Chair, to release the advice he is given by the Clerk on whatever decision he comes to on the amendments to the SNP motion we are debating this afternoon?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that his comments will have been heard and that Mr Speaker will make his decision in due course, with all the comments the hon. Gentleman has raised about publication. I think we will leave it at that.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could give me some advice. My office wrote to the Home Secretary more than six weeks ago and we have still not received a response from him about an issue raised by a constituent. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ministers are either wilfully refusing to respond to Members of Parliament or simply, rather worryingly, just treating Members of Parliament with sheer contempt. What do we do to force Ministers to do their duty and respond appropriately to Members of this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. This issue has been raised with the Leader of the House at business questions and I know she takes it very seriously. The hon. Gentleman might like to raise it again on Thursday at business questions, but I have confidence that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments, have written them down and will feed them back.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that yesterday in the House there was an urgent question on border security. Later on that afternoon, it became public that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration had been sacked by the Home Secretary. It is claimed that the Home Secretary lost confidence in the Independent Chief Inspector. It was clear from the urgent question yesterday that one of the issues the Chief Inspector was most exercised by was the 15 reports he has lodged with the Home Office since April 2023, which have not been published. The agreement with the Chief Inspector is that reports he submits to the Home Office should be published within eight weeks. Clearly, a number of those reports are well overdue. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any indication from Ministers about whether they were planning to come to the House to make a statement about Mr David Neal and the fact that he was sacked yesterday afternoon? More importantly, what has happened to the 15 reports the Independent Chief Inspector has lodged since April last year, many of which are on important issues?

Further to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an issue about the Government introducing legislation, which this House is very concerned about, on the Rwanda policy and asylum seekers being moved to Rwanda to have their claims processed. With the lack of anyone now in the role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, that will mean there is no independent oversight or scrutiny at a time when a major policy decision will be implemented by the Government. The Home Affairs Committee is particularly concerned by any delay. We saw in The Times a report that it will be six to nine months before an new Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is appointed. Can you advise on the best way forward?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. She raised a number of points. I have not received any notification that a statement is forthcoming—she did refer to an urgent question yesterday. I know the right hon. Lady regularly attends business questions, and this may be something she might like to press the Leader of the House on. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard what she has had to say and will feed it back. I am sure that in her role as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee she may have other means to pursue the issues she has raised, in particular in respect of reports that she may be able to ask for, but she will possibly know more than me about that.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year ago tomorrow, I raised with the Prime Minister a really important point about the payment of a fine to the EU of £2.3 billion. Following that question to him, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for an explanation. A year on, I have not had a reply. I would have thought it would be in the interests of all in this House to understand how it was that a payment of £2.3 billion was paid as a fine for late payment to the EU. It is in our interests to understand what happened, so is there any recourse I can take to understand what happened?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Again, I do not have responsibility for answers given. It may well be that he could pursue the matter through further questions to the Table Office. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has had to say, and I very much hope that they will feed back this rather long list of messages to the Government.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope it will be quite a short point of order. [Interruption.] It will not be quicker if people are shouting. I ask for some silence, so I can hear the point of order and deal with it quickly.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the Treasury Committee, we have been considering the work of UK Government Investments across a range of issues. We have now got to a situation where quite complex decisions, which appear to have been referred to at board meetings of the Post Office, are obtuse to us. I wonder, given that the disagreement between Ministers and representatives from UKGI who are on the board of the Post Office is very obtuse and hard to unravel, whether you have any advice on how we can bring these important issues to the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady is a senior member of the Treasury Committee. Again, we have noted what she has said and it will be fed back, but she might like to pursue the issue either through the Treasury Committee, or even perhaps by talking to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who I know is looking at this at the moment.

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Reform)

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:57

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about licences authorising the driving of motor vehicles of certain classes; and for connected purposes.

The principal purpose of the Bill is to reform regulation 5(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. These are EU rules that were put into UK law and reduce the number of vehicles that could be driven after passing a general motoring licence test. So-called grandfather rights were maintained for people like me who had passed their driving test prior to 1997 to continue to be able to drive certain categories of vehicles, including minibuses and medium-sized goods vehicles which fall under the categories D1 and C1. In particular, I am seeking reform to our driving licences so that the C1 and D1 categories are automatically given to everybody who has passed a driving test for a car, in the same way that happened for those of us who passed our test before 1997.

This opportunity—a Brexit bonus—to reform driving licence regulations that were put in place thanks to our membership of the EU is motivated by my intention to, first, support rural communities and, secondly, unlock economic growth opportunities. I recently raised this issue in the House in a debate on 31 January and gave notice then of my intention to seek to change the law. Other hon. Members voiced their support for a change, focused in particular on community transport and the D1 category. I do not seek to repeat everything I said in that debate, but since then the Community Transport Association and others have contacted me to voice their full support for a change in the law.

This whole issue first came to my attention when I visited Halesworth Area Community Transport in my constituency and was told about its challenges in getting more drivers. To drive a van or minibus for that non-for-profit organisation, as it then was, people had to pay between £2,000 and £3,000 to do a course and pass a test to acquire a D1 licence, due to the regulations. The problem was reinforced when I visited the Voluntary Help Centre in Southwold, where I was told a similar story. When I went to see the then Transport Minister, I was told that they were EU regulations and that there was absolutely no way we could change them for as long as we were part of the EU.

The Community Transport Association has given me further examples, including Bexhill Community Bus, which stated:

“We are a small Community Bus operator, and we rely on persons with D1 on their licence. We are facing a future when Cat B drivers lose the automatic right to drive a mini bus, and would face the expense of training all new volunteer drivers.”

Changing Lives Together, an organisation in Cheshire that supports a change in the law, says:

“This is very much needed, and we are recruiting from a smaller pool of people every year and it is causing real problems across our area.”

This issue is particularly challenging for community transport associations that help people with disabilities in their daily lives. That was recognised in the Government’s national disability strategy, and there was a commitment from the Department for Transport to help tackle shortages in community transport drivers. It is clear that there is a real need for reform in order to make it easier to acquire a D1 licence to support community transport ventures and our rural communities, and to avoid losing such services or turning them into exclusively paid services.

I turn to the benefits of reforming C1 licences, which are for medium-sized goods vehicles, not heavy goods vehicles. These are the kinds of vehicles used to do a lot of local delivery jobs, but the licence also applies to horse boxes and vehicles such as ambulances. Opening up this category—perhaps with some conditions, such as a minimum age of 25 or having held a driving licence for two or more years—would provide an instant economic boost, without a cost to the Government, and help productivity in the supply chain.

In recent years, we have experienced a shortage of HGV drivers due to a number of factors, particularly during covid. One of the reasons why there has been a shortage is that HGV drivers started switching to jobs using medium-sized vehicles, for which they were automatically qualified by holding an HGV licence. The Department introduced some sensible, temporary measures to help address the shortage. As an aside, the cost of acquiring a C1 licence is typically between £2,000 and £3,000, which is similar to the D1 licence. Apprenticeship courses are available for HGV driving qualifications, allowing businesses to use their apprenticeship levy funding, but there is not one for securing a C1 driving licence. I have been informed that previous attempts to secure one have been rejected, as it is not considered that a 12-month course and practical experience are needed to gain the qualification.

Within Government, I tried to persuade the Department for Transport to look at this opportunity, and I was delighted when it issued a call for evidence in August 2022. As the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), wrote in its foreword:

“The licensing improvements”—

those regarding HGV drivers, to which I referred earlier—

“were achievable partly due to the fact that we had left the European Union and had the freedom to change our legislation to improve our testing and licensing regime… The call for evidence includes seeking evidence on the economic benefits of widening the recruitment pool for medium-sized goods vehicles and minibus drivers, which may attract more people to the industry and support economic growth by further strengthening our supply chain.”

There was exceptionally strong support for the changes to both C1 and D1 licences, and I particularly commend the submission made by the Community Transport Association on D1 licences. Businesses also gave very strong support to the C1 changes, citing significant economic advantages. The reasons given included that it would be much more efficient to run a single trip in a 4.6-tonne van than to be restricted to multiple trips, as it would require fewer journeys to transport the goods. In essence, it would mean fewer vehicles on the road and fewer trips. That is good news for the economy and for the environment. In the same summary, though, it was pretty clear that the Department did not want to make any changes, which disappointed me. But as is self-evident, I have not given up, as I think these simple changes would both bring economic growth and be hugely beneficial for rural communities.

I am aware that the East of England Ambulance Service was hindered in getting new drivers to drive ambulances due to the delays in C1 assessments, despite their already undertaking advanced driver training—the blues and twos, as it is known—for emergency vehicles. I am pleased to say that that has been rectified, but there was a barrier. Further, while I am in the mood for sensible reform through this Bill, we should consider the economic benefits of extending the lifetime of driving licences, which, due to EU law, is currently 10 years for a car and five years for several other vehicles, including horse boxes. That feels unnecessarily burdensome and a change would benefits not only in the cost of processing, but in the cost to drivers across the country.

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is listening hard to these proposals for reform, and I welcome the discussions we have had. I suggest to the Government that such reforms would be exceptionally popular with community transport associations across the country, and with businesses large and small.

I understand the issues around safety. Driving tests have become considerably more difficult since I passed my test, but I think there is a way to address some of the concerns raised by certain campaign groups. I am aware that the Government signed up to the Vienna convention in 2018, although these regulations were already in place and, indeed, we have applied various reservations to the convention so as not to disrupt our common-sense practices in this country. For instance, we do not have to wait for the green light to cross the road at a pedestrian crossing when no traffic is coming in either direction, which, as we know, is a criminal offence in other countries in Europe.

I believe that this is a real opportunity to adopt some sensible approaches that, as I say, would be welcome across the House. The Bill would be a Brexit bonus, increase community transport and remove an unnecessary, costly barrier for business. Recognising the strengthening of the driving test in the past 25 years, we should have the confidence to back British drivers with British rules. I would like to work with the Government during the passage of the Bill to a Second Reading, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before I call Sir Chris Bryant, may I gently remind him that he has to give a speech in opposition to the Bill? I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in opposition.

13:06

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for your reminding me that I have to speak in opposition to the legislation, but given that the Government themselves oppose the Bill, as the right hon. Member has just pointed out, I presume that the Government will be opposing it as well this afternoon.

While I commend the right hon. Lady for her diligence as a Back Bencher in introducing a series of ten-minute rule Bills over the last year—for instance, last year she introduced the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, which fell at the first hurdle because it did not get a Second Reading, with 40 people voting No and 34 voting Aye—we have the same right to oppose her Bill today if we think that it is not appropriate, relevant or necessary. She referred to the fact that she considers this to be—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Other Members may not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I do, and I need to know whether he is in order. If hon. Members want to have private conversations, it would be helpful if they could either have them outside or keep quiet.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My main objection to the Bill is that the right hon. Lady seeks to make this a “Brexit bonus”, as she referred to it. I disagree with that very concept, because I believe that regulatory convergence, rather than regulatory divergence, is more useful both so that British drivers know where they stand in this country and other countries in Europe, and so that European drivers are able to drive in the UK. Of course, there are other areas where there might be Brexit bonuses, because we might trade with other countries elsewhere in the world, but when it comes to driving licences specifically, the only other countries that we are likely to deal with are those within the European Union.

I believe—I think the Government do too, because so far the Department for Transport has refused to budge in the direction that the right hon. Lady suggests—that this is an inappropriate Bill that would do harm rather than good. It would not lead to greater safety, but actually imperil safety in the UK.

We signed up to the Vienna convention in 2018. Exemptions are allowed under the Vienna convention. In a previous speech on this matter, the right hon. Lady pointed out that one of the exemptions that we have introduced relates to when you can cross the road in the UK when a traffic light seems to suggest that you cannot. Under the Vienna convention, we would not normally be able to do that but we have been able to amend it. So there is an argument, which the right hon. Lady has not made, that this legislation is not necessary to achieve the end that she is trying to achieve.

The right hon. Lady also referred to the fee of between £2,000 and £3,000. She made the legitimate point that some charities would like to be able to use minibuses which, when they are fully loaded, go over the 3.5-tonne limit, and that the £2,000 to £3,000 fee is a significant one that can impede them in doing the work that we all want them to do. However, that matter is in the power of Government without any need for legislation.

A further point is that the Government have consulted on this measure, as the right hon. Lady said, but have decided not to proceed. It would be useful if the Government were able to tell us why they have not chosen to proceed. My suspicion is that it is because they believe that this measure would not be safe.

The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to extend the length of time for which a licence is provided. That would clearly be in direct contravention of the Vienna convention. Presently it is set at 10 years, and I personally think that that is the safest way to ensure that every driver on the road in this country has a valid driving licence that is up to date and has the correct address on it, and that the person is properly insured. I am sure many of us have come across cases in our constituencies in which people have been financially disadvantaged because the crash they were involved in was with somebody who did not have a proper driving licence, perhaps because it was out of date and they were not properly insured. The right hon. Lady’s measure would drive a coach and horses through that, if you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Another issue is that in recent years we have had a significant problem with getting enough HGV drivers in the UK. I believe that this measure would make that substantially more difficult, adding costs to businesses up and down the country. It would make it more difficult because many of the present HGV drivers on British roads are not British; they are of other nationalities. If we had a separate set of regulations for the UK—completely separate from the rest of the European Union—it would make it more difficult for businesses to do their work and create an additional layer of regulatory burden, which is a cost to businesses.

My final point is that there are 78 private Members’ Bills listed on the Order Paper that will be called for Second Reading on 23 February, 1 March, 15 March or 22 March, all of which are before the final date for calling a general election on 2 May. I do not think that a single one of them will enter the statute book. There are actually 26 in the name of Members called Christopher, and I feel rather left out that not one of them comes from myself. The serious point is that we keep putting more Bills on to the Order Paper but not putting them on to the statute book, because we still have a system for ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that is completely and utterly bust. The Procedure Committee has said time and again that we are bringing the whole process into disrepute, and that is why we should not be adding yet another ten-minute rule Bill to the Order Paper when we have no intention of putting it on the statute book. I therefore urge all hon. Members to vote against the measure today.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby?

13:13

Division 78

Ayes: 63

Noes: 81

Opposition Day

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[5th Allotted Day]

Ceasefire in Gaza

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

13:30

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Scottish National party motion on Gaza. I understand that the second motion on the Order Paper will not be moved today.

This is a highly sensitive subject, on which feelings are running high, in the House, in the nation and throughout the world. I think it is important on this occasion that the House is able to consider the widest possible range of options. I have therefore decided to select the amendments both in the name of the Prime Minister and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Because the operation of Standing Order No. 31 would prevent another amendment from being moved after the Government have moved their amendment, I will, exceptionally, call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson to move their amendment at the beginning of the debate, once the SNP spokesperson has moved their motion. At the end of the debate, the House will have an opportunity to take a decision on the official Opposition amendment. If that is agreed to, there will be a final Question on the main motion, as amended.

If the official Opposition amendment is not agreed to, I will call the Minister to move the Government amendment formally. That will engage the—[Interruption.] Order. I am going to finish. That will engage the provisions of Standing Order No. 31, so the next vote will be on the original words in the SNP motion. If that is not agreed to, the House will have the opportunity to vote on the Government amendment. Proceeding in this way will allow a vote to take place, potentially, on the proposals from each of the three main parties.

I can inform the House—[Interruption.] Just let me finish. I can inform the House that there is a precedent for an official Opposition spokesperson being called second in the debate and moving an amendment before—[Interruption.] Order. Does somebody want to leave? I am determined to finish. I can inform the House that there is a precedent for an official Opposition spokesperson being called second in the debate and moving an amendment, before a Minister has been called to speak in the debate. In that circumstance, however, no Government amendment had been tabled.

I should also inform the House that the Clerk of the House will be placing in the Library a letter to me about today’s proceedings. I have asked for that letter to be made available in the Vote Office as soon as possible.

Finally, I should tell the House that in my opinion the operation of Standing Order No. 31, which governs the way amendments to Opposition day motions are dealt with, reflects an outdated approach—[Interruption.] Order. Members will be going and not be voting—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Bring back Bercow!

[Mr Speaker]

That is the first one to leave, then.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Bring back Bercow!

[Mr Speaker]

If you want to, do it!

Finally, I should tell the House that in my opinion the operation of Standing Order No. 31, which governs the way amendments to Opposition day motions are dealt with, reflects an outdated approach that restricts the options that can be put to the House. It is my intention to ask the Procedure Committee to consider its operation.

I now call Brendan O’Hara to move the motion.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate what you have outlined, but I seek your advice, because obviously I have taken advice from the Clerks. This is the SNP’s Opposition day, and the purpose of an Opposition day is for our party to have the ability to put forward our business. We have already had a significant delay to the moving of this motion, which has significant interest, to the extent that we have dropped our second motion. Now, we appear to be doing things completely in a way that they have never been done before. May I ask for your advice: what is the point of an Opposition day if it is going to be done like this? [Applause.]

[Mr Speaker]

Let me just say that I think you will want to vote at some point, and clapping is not going to assist it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

A point of order has been raised by the SNP Chief Whip. As I say, I have made a judgment on a precedent—it has been done before. I have viewed it in that way, and that is my ruling. I am going to stand by the ruling, and I am not taking any more points of order. I call Brendan O’Hara.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not taking any more points of order, Mr Linden. I call Brendan O’Hara.

13:30

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.

Our motion calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, from all combatants. I wish to put on record, once again, our unequivocal condemnation of the Hamas attack of 7 October, and to repeat our call both for the immediate release of all the hostages and for seeing those involved in those atrocities called to account for their actions. The war in Gaza is one of the great defining moments of our time, yet, until today, this House has not been given the opportunity to debate both the unfolding human catastrophe and the wider implications for regional and global stability. Nor have we had the opportunity to debate the urgent and pressing need for an immediate ceasefire, as an essential first step in finding a lasting and just peace.

No one would deny that Israel has the right to defend itself—every country has that right. What no country has the right to do, however, is lay siege to a civilian population, carpet-bomb densely inhabited areas, drive people from their homes, erase an entire civilian infrastructure, and impose a collective punishment involving the cutting off of water, electricity, food, and medicine from civilians. And no country, regardless of who it is, can, in the name of self-defence, kill civilians at such a pace, and on such a scale, that in just 16 weeks almost 30,000 are known to have died, with a further 80,000 injured. We cannot allow the core principle of self-defence to be so ruthlessly exploited and manipulated in order to legitimise the slaughter of innocent civilians. If we do that, what hope is there for the future of the international rules-based order, an order created to protect people from atrocities, not to be used as a smokescreen to hide the execution of them?

If we accept what Israel is doing in Gaza as the new norm—as the new accepted standard of self-defence—we undermine that core principle, which is meant to protect and defend us. Therefore we cannot accept that what is happening now is self-defence, because of the precedent that it will set. I have no doubt that that thought contributed to the United States issuing its clearest warning yet to Netanyahu that it would not support his proposed ground offensive in Rafah. This is why the UN Security Council is currently debating a ceasefire as we speak today, and even the US has recognised that a ceasefire must happen for a peaceful political solution. Of course, that does not go nearly far enough, but it does show that things are moving, opinions are changing and the guarantees that Israel has come to rely on are gradually withdrawing.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I think that, at the moment, very few people, not only in this House but across the country, would differ from the sentiments being expressed by the Scottish National party spokesperson. Each night, we all watch the torture of the people in Gaza with horror, and we remember every morning the pain being felt by the families whose loved ones are being held hostage. But does the hon. Member not agree that we would serve their cause, and ourselves in this place, so much better if we built a consensus behind an opinion today, rather than indulging in petty party politics that helps no one?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not quite sure what she means about petty party politics. The behaviour that we have seen today has been pretty petty, but we are all about consensus. If there is anything that can build a consensus for peace, which has to be based around peace, justice and an immediate ceasefire, then we will be there.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I will, if I may, highlight something that I think is more important than some of the conversations that we have had up to this moment. On Monday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement saying that UN experts had uncovered that Israeli forces in Gaza and the west bank are being accused of egregious human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence, including rape. The Israeli Government, of course, have dismissed this without any investigation. Does the hon. Member agree that this Government should be pushing hard for a proper investigation for people to be held to account for these kinds of gross human rights abuses?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is vital to say that, whether it is a perceived ally or a perceived foe, an egregious breach of human rights is an egregious breach of human rights and should be taken as exactly that and investigated without fear or favour.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

One thing that has defined this House over the past couple of years has been the unity over Ukraine, and it has been really important that all of us, from all parts of the House, have stood together against Putin. May I appeal to my hon. Friend to reflect on what is required of all of us today? The issue is one of principle for those who are facing famine and death in Gaza. It is important that all of us across this House show the appropriate leadership, come together and speak up against the human rights abuses that are taking place, and woe betide any of us who fail to show that leadership. Now is the time—today is the time—for this House to come together and stand up for those in Palestine who need our support.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We all have a part to play in bringing peace and saving innocent lives, so I was somewhat surprised to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary on the radio on Sunday seemingly dismiss and downplay the importance of this debate, saying:

“It’s not this vote that will bring about a ceasefire.”

Of course, he is right. Voting for an immediate ceasefire today will not by itself bring about an end to the slaughter, but the impact, and the impact on the optics, of this Parliament, hitherto one of Israel’s staunchest allies, saying that enough is enough, and calling for an immediate ceasefire, would be enormous. While not in and of itself bringing about a ceasefire, support for this motion would further remove that ever-thinning veil of legitimacy that the UK’s continued support gives to Israel’s merciless war in Gaza. It would also show the beleaguered and battered people of Palestine that we care and we have not forgotten them. Calling for an immediate ceasefire would be a pivotal moment in the campaign to stop UK arms sales to Israel. As a South African Foreign Minister said last week, the decision to stop the fighting in Gaza is in the hands of the countries that supply Israel with its weapons. Who knows, it might also help some of the UK’s political establishment and those seeking to aspire to their position to locate their moral compass.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Member refers to the way of stopping the conflict. Does he not agree with me that the only way—the most certain way—of ending this conflict is for Hamas to release the hostages, including a nine-month-old baby who was kidnapped by Hamas? If Hamas were to release the hostages straight away, that would be a sure-fire way of achieving a ceasefire, and that is what we should be talking about.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I think the very first sentence that I said was that we utterly condemn the Hamas attack and we implore them to release the hostages, but there has to be a pathway to reaching that.

When the shadow Foreign Secretary said that the vote today would not bring about a ceasefire, he was right, but to try to downplay the importance of the motion does not serve him well. I suspect that, as these moments do not come around very often, he understands only too well the importance of tonight’s vote. It is moments like these that shape the ethical identity of a country. It is the decisions that we take now that will reverberate down the decades, and they will define who we are and what we stand for. That is why we are calling so clearly and unambiguously for an immediate ceasefire. Anything else pre-supposes that there can be a military solution to this conflict. Any other form of words threatens to give credence to the idea that Israel’s deploying its massive military capacity in Gaza will somehow be enough to destroy Hamas. In reality, as everyone knows and as history tells us, the only possible solution to this crisis is a political solution.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I could understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument better if he were talking about what the Americans seem to call a temporary ceasefire to see whether more hostages could be released, but he appears to be calling for an unconditional ceasefire—I see people nodding—which would leave all the hostages at the mercy of Hamas. Does that not put Israel in the position where previously it has had to release 1,000 people who had been criminally convicted in order to get one soldier back? Indeed, one of the people Israel released was the person who organised the Hamas atrocities on 7 October.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I am absolutely clear that there has to be a roadway—a path—towards peace, and that has to start with an immediate ceasefire. If it does not, there is no pathway. I will address directly the issue of humanitarian pauses in a moment.

When the SNP last called for a vote on the ceasefire on 15 November, the death toll in Gaza stood at 11,320—already a heartbreaking number of people killed. Just yesterday, John Hopkins University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine released their analysis, which showed that if this conflict continues on the same trajectory there will be between 58,000 and 75,000 additional civilian Palestinian deaths in the next six months, so we know categorically what the consequences of inaction will be. No one can claim in the future that they did not know, or that they did not understand the consequences of what they were doing tonight.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while some rules may be more malleable than others, the rules of international law are very clear on self-defence: the use of self-defence must be proportionate, and by any view, 30,000 civilians dead, the majority of whom are women and children, is excessive and not a proportionate use of force.

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. If we accept Israel’s response as the new norm, the danger that everybody across the world, regardless of their circumstances, will be put in is terrifying. It is a terrifying example to set, and a terrifying precedent that should worry us all. I thank her for that intervention.

To address the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), no one can argue with any credibility for what they used to call, and some people still do call, “humanitarian pauses”—the convoluted idea of organised fixed-term pauses in the killing that would allow emergency aid into Gaza, only for the carnage to resume at a prearranged date and time. That should be seen for what it always was: a smokescreen for politicians to hide behind while waiting to see in which direction the wind of public opinion will blow.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Well, we have seen the way public opinion is blowing, across the world and here in the UK, with millions taking to the streets, and polls showing 75%-plus support for an immediate ceasefire. The harsh reality is that the Government, having expended so much political and diplomatic capital on defending and justifying Israel’s prosecution of this war, now find themselves stuck on the wrong side of global opinion. [Interruption.] Consequently, the UK’s international reputation has been so diminished that when the process of finding a just, lasting peace in the region begins, the UK will struggle to play a meaningful part in it. [Interruption.] If the Government cannot see the long-term damage that they are doing, it is up to this House to tell them by demanding an immediate ceasefire.

An immediate ceasefire has already been endorsed by Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Archbishop of York, Scotland’s Catholic bishops, the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales, the Church of England’s House of Bishops, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Quakers, the leaders of the Methodists and the United Reformed Church, the Lutheran World Federation, the UN Secretary-General, the UN General Assembly President, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, Save the Children, Amnesty, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, ActionAid, the International Rescue Committee, Action Against Hunger, the Co-operative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Medical Aid for Palestinians, the Council for Arab-British Understanding, the Balfour Project, Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, War on Want, the Carter Centre, War Child, Unite the union, Unison, the King Centre, World Vision, WaterAid, Tearfund, Street Child, Start Network, Peace Direct, Mercy Corps, CIVICUS, and scores and scores more churches, non-governmental organisations, charities and individuals who have seen Israel completely abandon international humanitarian law by imposing collective punishment on a defenceless civilian population. [Interruption.] In just 16 weeks, an estimated 18,000 Palestinian children have been left without a single living relative.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The only way we can ensure a permanent end to the cycle of violence is by facilitating the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. The main blocker to that is Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has doubled down on his opposition to an independent Palestinian state. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK must show strong opposition to Netanyahu’s plans by unilaterally recognising the state of Palestine as a matter of urgency?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. The United Kingdom has shown a dereliction of duty towards the Palestinians. The SNP has been very supportive, and will continue to be supportive, of a Palestinian state.

All the organisations, individuals and churches that I listed will not ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Nor will they turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering Palestinians. Neither should we. The Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once wrote that

“in silence we become accomplices, but…when we speak every word has the power to change the world.”

As I bring my remarks to a close, I want to share with the House the words of those being forced to live through this hell every single day. Thirty-year-old Islam Harb lost three of his four children, along with his mother, two of his sisters and both his brothers when a missile hit their home. Islam said:

“my family spent days trying to dig the remains of the dead out of the rubble. The body of my brother Khalil was found 200m away from the house due to the power of the strike, in pieces. My children’s small bodies were torn to pieces.”

His surviving sister, Ahlam, added:

“My brother Mohammed…was only recognized by his hair; nothing was left of my brother Khalil except his hand”.

Thirty-year-old Ahmad Nasman, a physiotherapist in Gaza, lost his wife and their three children, aged five, four, and just three months, along with both of his parents and his sister when a missile hit their home. He said it took him four days to retrieve the body of his baby daughter Ayla from the rubble; she was only recognised by the clothes she was wearing. The same blast decapitated his five-year-old daughter, Arwa. He said:

“When the war started, I had only one mission in my life, to protect my children. I wish I were with them when the house was hit…My body survived but my spirit died with my children, it was crushed under the rubble with them.”

That is why tonight really matters. That is why it will be times like these for which we are all remembered. We will be remembered for what we did, or for what we chose not to do. Decades hence, people will say to us, “You were there,” and they will ask us, “What did you do?” Some will have to say that they chose to engage in a debate on semantics over “sustainable” or “humanitarian” pauses, while others will say that they chose to give Netanyahu both the weapons and the political cover that he required to prosecute his relentless war. But some of us in this House will be able to say that when we saw 30,000 innocent people killed, when we saw almost 100,000 innocent people injured, when we saw tens of thousands of traumatised children with physical and mental damage that will last for the rest of their lives, when we saw 2 million people displaced from their homes, when we saw refugee camps bombed, when we saw hundreds of journalists killed, when we saw hospitals reduced to rubble, when we saw places of worship and the people sheltering in them attacked, and when we saw ambulances that had been sent to rescue children being hit by missiles, with those rescued children still inside—at that point, we will say that we chose to do everything that we possibly could to make it stop.

We will also say that we chose to listen. We listened to the International Court of Justice when it determined that there were plausible grounds that Israel is in the process of committing genocide. We listened to the anguished pleas of innocent Palestinians begging for our help to make it stop. We listened to the anger of millions of people from across these islands. And then we used our immensely privileged position as Members of this House to demand an immediate ceasefire.

By supporting the SNP’s motion calling for that immediate ceasefire, this House can put itself on the side of peace, it can put itself on the side of justice, it can put itself on the side of the people, and it can put itself on the right side of history. [Applause.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to those Members clapping—

[Hon. Members]

It’s a new rule!

[Mr Speaker]

I have a list and I can rule who speaks when. We need to hear a debate, not a debating society. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

14:00

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to end and add

“believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.”

There are times when this House can come together with clarity and a unity of purpose, and I hope that this can be one of those moments. It is with pain and sadness that this House gathers today—the pain and sadness of war that has gone on too long. It is now 137 days since the appalling 7 October massacre, and since that day, the killing has gone on. Flattened cities, ransacked kibbutzim, teeming refugee camps, hostages in chains—we have seen it all on our TV and phone screens.

A ground offensive in Rafah would be a humanitarian disaster, a moral catastrophe and a strategic mistake. It must not happen. That is our position, it is the position of the European Union, it is the position of our friends in the Arab world, and it is the position of our Five Eyes partners in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We must not just avert a ground invasion of Rafah, essential though that is; all violence against civilians must now stop. That is why Labour is saying unequivocally that we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to end the bloodshed and the suffering.

[Mr Perkins]

It is important that we try to come out of this debate not only with the House united, but with the United Kingdom in line with international partners. If the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) had given way, I would have said to him that although the leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), spoke during Prime Minister’s questions about being in line with the international community, it is actually Labour’s amendment that would put us in line with international partners. The SNP motion puts us outside the space in which the vast majority of the international community is.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a moment when the whole House can come together. Let us be clear, whether from the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, that we all agree that the time for a ceasefire has come, to end the bloodshed and suffering, and to allow a sustained effort to salvage the hope of a two-state solution. There are three motions before us today. Only one can be supported by all sides.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

We all want to see the fighting stopped. We cannot begin to imagine the horrors of what will happen if Israel goes into Rafah. The problem, as I think we can all imagine, is that Israel might ignore international opinion and do just that. Can we start to think about what action we will take—what sanctions we will propose—against Israel if it does that? There have to be consequences for Israel if it behaves in that way, completely contrary to all international opinion.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend knows that the UN is meeting to discuss those very issues. I think we in this Chamber can all agree that, were that to happen, particularly over Ramadan, as is being indicated at the moment by the Israeli Government, it would be a catastrophic mistake.

Labour supports an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a stop to fighting by both sides now, the release of hostages, a surge of aid into Gaza, and a two-state solution.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about a humanitarian pause—

[Hon. Members]

Ceasefire.

[Paul Bristow]

Or about a humanitarian ceasefire and humanitarian efforts in Gaza. How did he feel when the Leader of the Opposition said publicly that Israel had the right to withhold power and water from the people of Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

One hundred and thirty-seven days into this crisis, I say to the hon. Gentleman, having been in this House for almost 24 years, that this is the moment to lift the tone, not lower it.

Let me turn to the SNP motion. It expresses our common desire for the fighting and the suffering to stop, but as drafted—and I listened to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—it does not address how the fighting will not restart. It calls for an end to the war, but it does not lay out a path to a sustainable peace. It does not fully explain how a lasting ceasefire can be achieved, and it makes no mention of a two-state solution or Palestinian statehood. It does not reference the ICJ ruling and the need for its full implementation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Lammy]

I will give way in a moment.

Frankly, colleagues, the SNP motion appears one sided. For any ceasefire to work, it must, by necessity, be observed by both sides, or it is not a ceasefire. That is why we are clear that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continue with violence. Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October cannot happen again. I have no doubt that the SNP agrees with those sentiments—I heard them in the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute—so it should vote for the Labour amendment.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am listening closely to the right hon. Gentleman. The problem is that we in this House do not have operational control over the combatants. This war will end when both sides are exhausted, decide that they want it to end, and lay down their arms. I listened to the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). He read out a very long charge sheet against Israel, but at the end of the day, Hamas are using their own people—men, women and children—as human shields, and they know what they are doing.

[Mr Lammy]

That is why I say that a ceasefire, by necessity, means both sides. Hon. Members should be very careful not to vote for the appearance of this House taking one side, however concerned we are about the loss of innocent life.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a permanent ceasefire. Clearly, that is what we all want—we need peace in the region—but he cannot demand an immediate ceasefire and also that the ceasefire must be permanent, because we cannot guarantee that. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman wants it to be a permanent ceasefire, that allows the carnage to continue and Gaza to be wiped from the map.

[Mr Lammy]

Let me be clear: the Labour party is calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We have been absolutely clear that when that ceasefire comes, we do not want to see the fighting restart—I have been crystal clear about that position.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way, and for the position he is now adopting around an immediate ceasefire—I think there is more cohesion in this House today than we are showing the public. There are still some people in this House who are demanding that a ceasefire has to be permanent. I do not like making a comparison to our own peace process, but the basic principles are the same. We cannot guarantee the permanence of a ceasefire: we work for a ceasefire and then work to make it permanent, so some people’s bar is too high. If they listen to what the public are saying and watch the TV screens, people are dying today. We have to call for an immediate ceasefire right now, and I thank the right hon. Member for taking that position. I encourage all Members to support any opportunity to vote for an immediate ceasefire tonight.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman reminds this House of the seriousness of the issue before us: not just the ceasefire, but the long yards and roads to peace. That is why in Labour’s motion, we talk about compliance with the International Court of Justice’s rulings and international law, and about Palestinian recognition on the road to the two-state solution. We are also absolutely clear that we should do nothing in this Chamber that cuts across the hard work of Arab partners, EU partners, the United States and our Five Eyes allies that are in the room trying to broker that peace. We on the Opposition Benches say that with some humbleness, because neither of our parties is in the room.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister has talked about how the SNP’s motion does not contain any plan for a long-lasting peace after an immediate ceasefire. I therefore want to know why the Labour motion includes a caveat that notes that

“Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”.

Hamas is not the people of Palestine, so why is that line in the Labour amendment?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is as educated as I am. She understands that a ceasefire takes two sides, so it is crystal clear that if we expect Israel to lay down its arms, we must ask Hamas to do the same.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very pleased to hear him making the point that any ceasefire has to be agreed and committed to by both sides. Unfortunately, though, there was a ceasefire on 6 October, which was broken by Hamas. The previous ceasefire at the end of last year was also broken by Hamas, so why does the right hon. Gentleman have any faith that if a ceasefire were agreed now, Hamas would stick to it?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but let us be clear: the last pause came before there had been any release of any hostages. It came at a point when very little humanitarian aid was going into Gaza, and it is because of that pause that we saw some hostages released—Hamas did stop the rocket fire at that point. As I say, we are all clear that we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The humanitarian situation self-evidently needs the fighting to stop, but it is also our belief that if we get that ceasefire, we will see more hostages released. We are listening to what hostage families in Israel are themselves saying.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Lammy]

I will make a little progress before taking further interventions.

Turning to the Government’s amendment, again, there are elements that we agree with, but there is a serious omission: its failure to call for a ceasefire that is immediate. I do not believe that the gap is unbridgeable—and I am looking forward to listening to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) when he gets to his feet. The Foreign Secretary says that he wants the fighting to stop now, mirroring my language and that of the Leader of the Opposition.

Throughout this war, the Government have followed us. We called for violent west bank settlers to be sanctioned on 6 November, and again on 9 November—the Government moved on 14 December. For two years since Boris Johnson’s appalling letter, we have been calling for the Government to accept the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the conduct of all parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—again, the Government moved on 14 December to do just that. For a decade the Labour party has supported the recognition of the Palestinian state, as expressed in our motion—earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary moved to our position.

Therefore, we once again ask the Government to reflect on the mood of the House. We ask Conservative Members to accept the language in our amendment, so that we can speak together with one voice. I say that with all seriousness. We all know that while we can debate these issues in this House, their effect on the ground is something else entirely. However, if the UK Parliament can speak with one voice on this greatest of issues, perhaps we can genuinely make a difference.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I have been listening very carefully to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has been prosecuting the merits of each of the different amendments. I would point out that there was a Liberal Democrat amendment that answered positively all of the points that have been made so far, but it was not selected for debate, which I feel is a shame. I will be encouraging my party to vote for all amendments that push the cause of peace. He mentions how this debate will be seen on the ground. Unfortunately, after today, it is likely that the headline from Parliament will be that an immediate ceasefire was rejected because of a lack of co-ordination, particularly between the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that we should and could have done better?

[Mr Lammy]

I have huge respect for the hon. Lady. Since 7 October, she and I have been in Bahrain together, meeting with middle east leaders to talk about these very issues. The whole point of Labour’s amendment is to give this House the opportunity to come together, and her poignant messages to this House a few weeks ago are a reason why this is the moment to do so.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and of course I am very pleased to be supporting an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and the recognition of Palestine. When that desperately needed ceasefire happens, does he agree that the Government need to do everything they can to urgently ramp up the amount of aid going into Gaza, to try to save more lives?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises the central reason why we are calling for that immediate humanitarian ceasefire at this moment. We all know that before this crisis about 500 trucks a day were getting in, and today that figure is less than 95. Starvation is widespread and medical aid is hard to come by. The last hospitals are closing, and—this is personal to me, because one of my children is adopted—there are now 17,000 young people in Gaza who are orphaned. That is horrendous. It is why the seriousness of this debate demands that we all act with one voice.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there needs to be an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, but that needs to be in accordance with a clear political framework for a two-state solution, because otherwise we may have the same problem six months or a year down the line. People outside are fed up with politicians—with Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition—saying that they want a two-state solution but not clarifying what that is. Looking at Labour’s amendment, does he now agree with me and other parliamentarians that, when we talk about the recognition of a “viable Palestinian state”, it would need to be in line with the UK-drafted UN Security Council resolution 242 about what a recognised Palestinian state needs to be, so that people know and have a clear framework? Otherwise—as in 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 and 2007, and now in 2024—we will have just kept calling for it. Let us make it clear what recognition of that state means, and have a clear timeline for when we will recognise that state.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, which is why our amendment talks about the political solution that is necessary. All of us know that it is not the military and weapons that will bring an end to the crisis; it is political discussion and dialogue—the business that we are all in. He talks about the circumstances for such a two-state solution. Recognition in and of itself does not achieve that two-state solution, but it is our commitment, if we could work with partners. We are on a road and a journey, and we have heard partners in other countries speaking to that issue at this time. Most colleagues, when they talk about those two states, are thinking about the 1967 borders, but I hear what he says.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I am going to make some progress, because many Members will want to speak and I do not want to dominate the whole debate. [Interruption.] Let me just make some progress, and I will return to SNP colleagues.

Labour’s amendment reflects the common sense and moral purpose of the British people. They see the endless killing of innocents and find it intolerable. We want it to stop now through an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Labour wants that immediate ceasefire not tomorrow and not in another 100 days, but now. The British people see the prospect of an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah and know it will lead only to more death and suffering. They want it to stop not tomorrow and not in 100 days; they want it to stop now. They see the families of hostages in agony, whose capture is prolonging their agony. They want to see the hostages released not tomorrow and not in 100 days; they want them released now. The common sense of the British people understands that rules exist for a reason, and that the international rule of law must be followed. They want Israel to comply with the ICJ’s provisional measures—not tomorrow and not in 100 days, but now. The common sense of the British people also understands that no ceasefire can be one-sided. They know it is not enough just for Hamas or just for Israel to stop firing rockets; they want both sides to stop, and not tomorrow or in another 100 days, but now.

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Member makes the point that only politics and diplomacy can take us to that two-state solution. That underpins why it is necessary to have the ceasefire on both sides and the return of the hostages. However, it is incumbent on all of us—we have debated the two-state solution for decades—that this now has to be a wake-up call, and the international community has to come together to insist that the rights of Israelis and Palestinians are recognised. However, in order to begin that process we need this House to vote today for that ceasefire.

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and ask him to vote for Labour’s amendment.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

On the shadow Foreign Secretary’s point about wishing no more days to elapse, the official Opposition were here just 16 days ago with their own Opposition day debate, and they discussed ministerial severance. Can he tell us why they did not give the same priority to the people of Gaza as they gave to ministerial severance just 16 days ago?

[Mr Lammy]

I have been calling for the fighting to stop for weeks. The Leader of the Opposition has been calling for the fighting to stop for weeks. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I was in the west bank, and in Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—that is how seriously we take the issue. I was also in Israel. None of us—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking through the Chair, not the other way.

[Mr Lammy]

None of us has more moral authority than each of us acting to pass a motion and speak with one voice in this House today.

The British people have seen the spectre of violence in Northern Ireland over many decades. They understand that a ceasefire is not the final destination, but a step on the road to a lasting peace; one that requires hard negotiation and a road map for a political process. There is no way out of the crisis without the hope that both Palestinians and Israelis have a path to security, justice and opportunity in lands they can call their own. Progress will require genuine partners for peace on both sides of the table. Hamas and Israeli hardliners want to bury a two-state solution, and we must now unite to show that we will not let that happen.

As I said before, my discussions with the United States and with European and Arab leaders in Munich have made clear the widespread acknowledgment of the need to urgently seek that just and lasting solution: a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, and a safe and secure Israel, with strong and trusting relations with the countries in the region. That is the prize. I do not underestimate the great pain and division that must be overcome, or the challenges ahead. The UK cannot advance this agenda on its own, but it cannot sit this one out. It is time for the international community to stand up and achieve an end to the fighting and a path to peace, and the UK must play its part. That is why our amendment makes it explicit that we will not give up on a two-state solution. It makes it clear that we will work with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to, rather than an outcome of, a two-state solution.

In this House we are used to division because our trade is politics, but on this matter we must rise above it. When the British people are so clear and so concerned, from Truro to Inverness, let no one tell us that they take no interest in foreign affairs. Would it not send a powerful message if, for once, we could come together as a House for the sake of the nation and for the sake of peace? In this spirit, we designed an amendment that my hon. Friends to the left and to the right of me, and those on the Government Benches across from me, may vote for. It is my appeal to those in this House that we come together, calling in one voice to end the killing and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, and calling on both sides to stop.

A united Parliament today can show we are rolling up our sleeves, and committing to the long, hard road to peace. So we will have made the voice of our nation heard to influence this war, and to help these tragic children of the same land to find peace in the beautiful Palestine of tomorrow and in an Israel without tears, where the stones of Jerusalem shall finally be a city of peace. I beg the House to approve the Labour amendment.

14:28

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

This has already been an extremely interesting debate. We heard from the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way later, but I am not giving way for the moment.

The shadow Foreign Secretary spoke about the huge benefit of our speaking with one voice. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) talked about there being more cohesion in the House than people currently think. The shadow Foreign Secretary talked about the importance of having some humility, because Members of Parliament are not in the room.

I emphasise that the Government are in the room. There was a call for the tone be lifted; the shadow Foreign Secretary said that we should “come together.” I submit that the right thing to do is to support the Government amendment. The Opposition have been supportive in the past, and the House’s speaking with one voice helped Britain’s argument, which he and I share, in the middle east.

Subject to your advice, Mr Speaker, we will move our amendment, which I want to be sure that the House will consider seriously and in the tone that the shadow Foreign Secretary called for. Our amendment states that the House,

supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.”

I submit that that carefully crafted amendment ought to carry the vast number of right hon. and hon. Members with the Government as we seek, in this incredibly difficult situation, to forge a common path and a common purpose.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will do so, but not yet.

This morning I returned from Qatar, as part of the British Government’s collective efforts to make progress on key objectives. I must apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, because I will need to be absent for part of the debate, as it now extends to 7 o’clock, to engage in other ministerial duties. We all want an end to the fighting as soon as possible, but we must also recognise and understand that a ceasefire will not last if hostages are still being held, and if Hamas still rain down rockets on Israel and maintain control of Gaza with capabilities to carry out further terrorist atrocities. The immediate priority must be negotiating a humanitarian pause, because that will create a window to get more hostages out safely, to get considerably more aid in quickly, and to get further negotiations on a sustainable ceasefire going immediately.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

We want the pause to become a complete ceasefire without—I say this to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—a return to fighting. That is the focus of our diplomatic efforts as talk turns to a military offensive in Rafah, which has the potential for devastating consequences. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reflect to the House on the latest developments. As the Prime Minister said to Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, we continue to support Israel’s right to defend its people against Hamas’ terror, but we are deeply concerned about the loss of civilian life in Gaza and the worsening humanitarian crisis.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will in a moment. Let me also reflect on the terrible impact of this conflict. On 7 October, Israel suffered the worst terror attack in its history at the hands of Hamas. More than 1,200 Israelis were reported killed, and more than 5,000 Israelis were reported injured. Even now, more than 130 hostages are still thought to be held by Hamas in Gaza. Last week saw the first hostage rescue since late October, with two hostages returned to their family. We continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages, including British nationals and their families. We are using all diplomatic channels to push for that, working with partners across the region. Meanwhile, we have helped more than 300 British nationals to leave Gaza. The devastating humanitarian crisis is worsening daily, with hunger and disease spreading. According to latest reports, more than 29,000 people have been killed, 69,000 injured, and 1.7 million people have been displaced. We want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets and avoid harming civilians and destroying homes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 2 January and received a reply from one of his junior Ministers in the House of Lords about the plight of the 650 Christians held in the Holy Family church, who are innocent hostages of this appalling situation. I asked the Foreign Secretary if we could give those people asylum as they are clearly in the cross-fire. I received a frankly disingenuous reply saying that the Government would “seek respite” for those people. That means nothing. Are we prepared to offer asylum to those people and get them out?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will know that this is a difficult area that involves other Departments. I will ensure that he gets an update on that issue from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) when she winds up the debate.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister has just laid out the Government’s position, and the difference between that and the Labour amendment may not be immediately clear to those watching. The Labour amendment calls for an immediate ceasefire, and the Government’s calls for a “pause”, which by definition means that the war is not over but there is a pause in it. The Labour amendment calls for the introduction of a Palestinian state, and is in line with the position of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It opposes the action in Rafah, whereas the Government only have “concern” about it. Will the Minister explain, given those four differences, what he thinks is wrong with what Labour is saying in our amendment?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that the amendments tabled by the Government and the official Opposition are close. It is a great pity that it is not possible for the official Opposition to support the Government amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that when he comes to decide how to vote. I will come directly to the other points he mentioned, if he will allow me to do so.

As I have said, we are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah, where over half of Gaza’s population are sheltering, including more than 600,000 children. Those are people who have fled repeatedly since the conflict began, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, it is impossible to see how a war can be fought among them. There is nowhere for them to go. They cannot go south into Egypt, and they cannot go north because many of their homes have been destroyed. Hamas, of course, displays the utmost cynicism in lurking among civilians, sacrificing innocent lives in the name of their fanaticism, and we condemn that utterly. But we must also recognise the result of that cynicism: Israeli soldiers will only be able to reach hostages or the Hamas leadership at an incredible cost to innocent lives. We share Israel’s desire to end the threat from Hamas, and ensure that it no longer exerts control over Gaza, but the UK and our partners say that Israel must reflect on whether such a military operation is wise or is counterproductive to its long-term interests and the achievement of the goals that the international community has set out, before it takes any further action.

Britain and our partners are doing all we can to help those suffering. We have trebled our assistance, and we are pressing to get it into Gaza by all available routes—land, sea, air, trucks of aid rolling in from Jordan, and ships loaded with supplies sailing from Cyprus—all while striving to get more crossings open. As I mentioned, last week I was in Qatar, where we discussed the need to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza. I am pleased to say that a joint UK-Qatar aid consignment arrived in Rafah last week, including tents to shelter families in desperate need. Our partnership on that consignment prefigured our new $50 million global humanitarian and development co-funding initiative, which I unveiled with Qatari Minister Al-Khater last weekend. The Rafah crossing is vital to ensure aid can reach the people who so desperately need it. Britain has continually underlined the need for Israel to ease restrictions on humanitarian supplies and to ensure that the UN and aid agencies can reach civilians in need throughout Gaza.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way in a moment to the right hon. Member for Islington North. Let me also reiterate that Israel must obey international humanitarian law in the way it prosecutes the war and in ensuring that food, water and shelter are available to Gazans. It must also take all possible measures to ensure the safety of medical personnel and facilities. The British Government have repeated that point in all our engagements with Israeli counterparts and partners, including during the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Israel on 24 January, and with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Oman and Lebanon.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

People poured cold water on the South African submission to the International Court of Justice before it was placed. Could the Minister now give a response from the Government to the interim decisions made by the International Court of Justice—the world court—which effectively called for an immediate unilateral halt to the hostilities by Israel against the people of Gaza? Surely, if the Government believe in the rule of international law, they should respect the International Court of Justice.

[Mr Mitchell]

I have previously in the House set out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government respect the International Court of Justice. We made it clear that we thought it was a mistake for South Africa to launch that case when it did, and the view of the British Government has not changed since I last told him it.

The most effective way now to alleviate the suffering is an immediate pause in fighting to get aid in and hostages out. That is the best route to make progress towards a future for Gaza freed from rule by Hamas. Britain has set out the vital elements to turn a pause into a sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting—that is one of the key points that the shadow Foreign Secretary made—and perhaps create the political space for a lasting peace. We can only turn to that if there is first a break in the fighting.

[Layla Moran]

Anything that creates an advance is good, and I welcome the Government move. I am afraid that I cannot support their motion in not calling for an immediate ceasefire, because it does not capture the urgency. I welcome the Government’s sanctioning of the four extremist violent settlers, because there is a link between what is happening in the west bank in the settlements, the political views of the ultra-right-wing in Netanyahu’s Government, especially Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and the protestations of Netanyahu that he does not want a Palestinian state on ’67 borders. He has been clear about that, and when we put all that together, it in part explains why the assault on Rafah and the rest of Gaza is happening as it is. Will the Minister tell the House a bit more about those sanctions, because they are working? Also, what have the Government said to Netanyahu about a future Palestinian state, because it is a necessary precondition for any kind of truce, ceasefire or whatever we want to call it?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, as she knows, but on her last point, she may rest assured that the Foreign Secretary, who knows Prime Minister Netanyahu well, and the Prime Minister specifically in a conversation last week have been clear on the importance of that. I hope she will consider that tonight when she decides how she will vote on the various amendments.

[Sir Charles Walker]

As my right hon. Friend said, and I think the shadow Foreign Secretary said, we are in the business of politics. If my right hon. Friend entered into negotiations this week with the Israeli Government, would we have more chance of persuading them to an immediate ceasefire or more chance of persuading them to the cause of a humanitarian pause?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly.

[Rehman Chishti]

Looking at the specific wording of the Government amendment, it mentions

“a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace”.

With regard to that specific point and the point made earlier, where is the United Kingdom on the recognition of a Palestinian state? I saw comments by the Foreign Secretary recently on that. For a two-state solution to be achieved, the Government need to set out what they consider a Palestinian state to look like. Is it based on ’67 borders and a motion that we, the United Kingdom, drafted and asked others to support? Looking at Ukraine, around the world people say, “If you want us to support you on international law, you have to be consistent in your approach.”

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is important not to go too fast and imperil the objective we seek, and I point him to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I am coming directly to that point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way in a minute; I have been generous in giving way.

We have set out the vital steps for achieving the pause we wish to see. All hostages must be released and a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza formed, accompanied by an international support package. Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel must be removed, and they must no longer be in charge in Gaza. Finally, there must be a political horizon, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned, that provides a credible and irreversible pathway to a two-state solution. The resolution put forward in the Security Council yesterday did not achieve those outcomes. Simply calling for a ceasefire, as that resolution did, will not make it happen. Indeed, as it could endanger the hostage negotiations, it could make a ceasefire less likely.

The way to stop the fighting and then to potentially stop it from restarting is to begin with a pause to get hostages out and aid in. That is what we are calling for, and it could end the fighting now.

We have also taken further steps to hold those to account who undermined the steps to peace in the west bank. Last week, the British Government announced new sanctions against four extremist Israeli settlers who have violently attacked Palestinians in the west bank.

Our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process, and I submit to the House that that must be the right answer. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future, and it needs to be irreversible. Likewise, we must give the people of Israel certainty of security. That does not just come down to us, but we can help. Crucially, we have made it clear that the formal recognition of a Palestinian state cannot come at the start of the process, but it does not have to be at the very end of the process either.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for rewarding my perseverance by giving way—I appreciate that. This has been a highly charged debate, both in the House and among the general public. People are rightly angry. Part of the anger is born from a real sense of frustration that this Parliament and this Government do not give the same value to the life of a Palestinian child as they do to the life of an Israeli child. Whether we accept that or not, it is a strongly held belief. We know that 600,000 children are at risk if the Rafah ground offensive begins. No ifs and no buts—will the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that the Government do not support that action?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have set out the Government’s position extremely clearly. I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman is making. There are strong feelings across the House on this matter. The point that I am trying to make in this speech, and that has been made by a number of Members, is that there is an awful lot in the Government’s amendment that most people in the House can agree with and support.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that the Foreign Secretary has asked Israel to think again about any further military offensive or incursion into Rafah. I think we would all urge Israel to think carefully about how that would be conducted. However, does he agree that our support for Israel on 7 October, when we said it should be able to eradicate Hamas, was clear, and that there is a danger that our emerging position—certainly that of other parties—would leave Hamas’s terrorist organisation partially intact? That is an intolerable situation for Israel: it would send a clear message that using human shields works and that we will not allow Israel to fully defend itself. How would he answer that question?

[Mr Mitchell]

I think that I have answered it, because I have made clear the Government’s position in respect of Hamas and Hamas’s future. If my right hon. Friend reads the record and the Government amendment with care tonight, I think he will see that the key point he is making is one that informs the Government’s view.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the Israeli Government about how, if the hostages were released by Hamas, Israel would withdraw and the peace process could start moving forward?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am sure the House will understand that I cannot comment in any detail at all about the ongoing hostage negotiations, but I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that Britain is right at the front of trying to ensure that the negotiations are successful.

Let me end by recognising that there will be a huge amount to do in the days after a pause. It will be a starting point on the road to peace, not the final destination. Nevertheless, it is critical that all parties give the process the best odds of succeeding. That means first securing a pause in the fighting, which then progresses to a sustainable ceasefire and—we all hope—a lasting peace. I urge all Members of the House to look carefully at the Government’s amendment tonight before deciding how to vote—if you, Mr Speaker, put it to a vote.

14:51

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I want begin with something that Frankie Boyle said. He pointed out that it makes no sense to say that the situation in Gaza is too complex for a ceasefire, because ceasefire is one of the oldest and simplest terms to understand. It means stop firing. In fact, it is so simple that it is designed to be heard and understood in the middle of a literal battle. So there is no middle ground when it comes to a ceasefire: you either follow the order or you don’t. You either stop firing or you don’t.

During the 2014 crisis, there were an estimated 2,251 Palestinian deaths. The then Prime Minister rightly called for an “immediate and unconditional” ceasefire. If we fast-forward 10 years to the current conflict, we have a death toll of nearly 30,000, and that is not including the bodies yet to be recovered from underneath the rubble, and yet the very same man—he is now Foreign Secretary—is failing to support a ceasefire. Nearly 70,000 people have been injured. According to Amnesty International, the death rate in Gaza right now is one death every four minutes. It is not just bombs that are killing Palestinians; it is poor sanitation and malnutrition as well.

We know that people are starving. People are being reduced to eating grass and animal feed. In January—last month—over half of all aid deliveries were denied access and could not get through to those who needed it. Less than half of the hospitals in Gaza are even partially functioning, and the few that are will quickly run out of supplies unless Israel allows aid through.

Since 2008, Israel has refused entry to any UN agency individuals, which to me is a giant red flag in and of itself. Despite these attempts to shield themselves and hide from any accountability, we know that war crimes are being committed in Gaza. Churches sheltering hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been bombed to the ground. There have been strikes against people in refugee camps and hospitals. Earlier this week, there were reports that Israeli forces ordered the evacuation of a hospital, only to start sniper fire on those who attempted to leave, leaving 2,500 folk still trapped in the hospital.

Israel’s own Minister of Defence said there would be

“a complete siege on Gaza… No electricity no food, no water, no gas”.

As the occupying power, Israel has an obligation under international law to ensure that the basic needs of Gaza’s civilian population are met. It is not doing that. The International Court of Justice specifically directed Israel to take

“immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of…basic services and humanitarian assistance”

It is not doing that. Israel still refuses to reinstate the water supply it so cruelly shut off months ago. It is stopping medicine getting in. It is stopping food entering Gaza and, despite the growing likelihood of famine that it will have created, it is still not budging.

Let us be absolutely clear that the actions of Hamas were horrific and unjustifiable, but, as I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the people of Palestine are not Hamas. Israel’s disproportionate and indiscriminate bombing of civilians, combined with everything else that we know, must be the very definition of collective punishment, which as we all know is illegal under international law—it is a war crime.

That is why how this place responds it is so important. In many respects, the ending of the violence in Gaza rests in the hands of the countries supplying the money and the weapons to Israel. The arms trade treaty bans the sale of weapons when there is a concern that they may be used to breach international law. Given that the International Court of Justice has found that there is a plausible risk that Israel is committing genocide, it is upon the UK to revoke all arms licences and military equipment to Israel; otherwise, we break the treaties that we have signed up to. Warm words and platitudes will not cut it—only action will.

One death every four minutes. In the time of this debate, as we all talk among ourselves, 100 more people who were alive this morning will be dead. The least we can do is call for a ceasefire. If we do not, we will be morally and directly complicit in every single life lost and every single family destroyed in Gaza. The route to peace, the route to justice and the route to any humane conclusion begins with an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. Anything less from us, and future generations will quite rightly never forgive us or forget.

14:57

[Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Whatever anyone’s views are about the history or the politics of the middle east, no one can be in any doubt that since 7 October we have all witnessed a humanitarian tragedy. The attacks of the terrorist group Hamas, including the murder of young people attending a music festival and the taking of hostages, were bound to set in train a series of violence, which Hamas must have fully understood, including a full response by the Israeli Government.

In associating myself completely with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Government’s amendment, particularly on the need for an immediate humanitarian pause and a permanent, sustainable ceasefire, including the release of hostages, I want to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is no longer in his place, about the role that Britain can have in the more substantive issue around the conflict. As has been pointed out in the debate, we are not participants in the conflict, so we cannot have a direct effect on whether arms are laid down, but we can have an influence in the process that comes later. Sooner or later, this will have to return to a political process, and Britain should now be setting down the rules by which we want to see peace put in place.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Liam Fox]

Not at the moment.

It is highly important that we understand what we mean by peace when the term is being used in this context. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) had the privilege of being at the Manama Dialogue, and feels strongly about that. We have constantly to make clear to both sides that the concept of peace is not just the absence of war or conflict but freedom from the fear of conflict, oppression or terror. Peace requires mutual respect, freedom from persecution and living without fear of destitution. It comes with self-determination and liberation from arbitrary justice. It needs hope, dignity and enforceable rights. Only when all the people of the region have access to all that could we talk about having achieved a peaceful solution to the conflict.

We need to look at the political process with two addenda. We must move to a two-state solution, because the country that does not want that is Iran, which does not want Israel to exist, and apparently Prime Minister Netanyahu does not want a Palestinian state to exist. We must recognise the will of the international community for a two-state solution in the end. For a political process to be able to exist, we need to deal with the wider security issues. There needs to be a guaranteed security for Israel, to protect it from the sort of attacks that it has seen. It is clear that the Israeli construct of security has failed—otherwise, the Hamas incursions would not have taken place. It is also clear that there has to be a proper guarantee of security for any emerging Palestinian state. Quite self-evidently, that cannot be done by the states on their own. Just as we looked for international security guarantees for Europe after world war two, so we will need international agreement on any security architecture within which a political solution can be found to the Israel-Palestinian issue.

I am sure that this House can unite around the need, as a country, to be concerned about the improved prosperity, hope and opportunity of all young people in the region. It has been my privilege to lead the UK Abraham Accords Group over the past two years, and I welcome the support that we have had across the House, but we must find mechanisms to improve the economic wellbeing of young people, particularly, on the Arab street. Otherwise, there will be no lasting basis for a political solution. People who have nothing to lose will gamble. People who have something to lose will be much more circumspect. That has been the lesson from peace being brought to disputes around the world.

I believe that the important issue of Rafah comes into this, because we are at something of a crossroads. We can move forward with the ideas of hope and prosperity, bridge building and rapprochement that the Abraham accords have brought. The Governments of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco have been far sighted in maintaining that process during the current conflict. If we do not take that path, we run the risk of going back to 1971 and a generation of radicalised young Arabs who will make a political solution impossible.

Much of this debate is quite nuanced in terms of when and how ceasefires should take place, but as a country, we need to set our sights and horizons further, on what happens when the political process does re-engage. Where does Britain play a role? I believe that we have a positive and constructive role to play, and we need to take our debate on to that wider, more important and far-sighted horizon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Some 60 Members wish to take part in the debate. Even given the time available, and allowing half an hour for the winding-up speeches—10 minutes for each—we must impose a time limit. I will start immediately with a limit of five minutes, but that is very likely to drop to three minutes in fairly short order.

15:04

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am speechless at the way this debate began. As the House knows, there has been scant opportunity for me to tell the story not just of my family or the hundreds in the church where they are in northern Gaza, but of Palestinians on the ground and, indeed, those who lost people in the horrendous attacks on 7 October, whether through murder or abduction. I am grateful that we have this opportunity. In the hours of debate in front of us, my first ask of anyone who speaks after me is, please, to hold all those people in their hearts as they say what they say. I believe sincerely that this House is moving towards a right position, and I will explain what I think that is in a moment. On the suggestion that this House is in some way against a ceasefire—I would hope an immediate one, however the semantics play out in the votes later—can we please try to send a message in particular to the Palestinian people perishing in their tens of thousands on the ground, and to those hostage families that, fundamentally, we need this to stop now? I do not care what we call it.

I should have started by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. I sit as an unpaid adviser on the board of the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians.

Last week I went to Israel and Palestine with Yachad, and I will start with a story. On the first day, we went down to the southern border with Gaza, to a place called Nativ Ha’asara, a place I have visited before. We met an incredible woman called Roni, who had lost family members—16 from that kibbutzim had perished. As I went there, I looked across at northern Gaza. I saw the plumes of smoke. I heard the drones and the “pop pop pop” of the gunfire, and I broke down. As I walked back through the village, Roni, an Israeli peace activist, took me to one side, gave me a hug and said, “I’m so sorry”, which I said back. We both cried and held each other.

It is important to remember that although those voices of peace in Israel have been silent for some time, many of the people killed on that day were allies of the Palestinian people who had been calling for decades against the occupation, calling out Netanyahu’s Government, and condemning Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. It is for that reason that I welcome the sanctions on those extremist settlers, because there is a direct link between the right wing elements of Netanyahu’s Government and those extremist settlers. The amendment that the Lib Dems tabled to the motion stated that we should not finish there. We need to continue those sanctions on those people and their connected entities.

I looked across, thinking of my family still in that church in northern Gaza with no food, no water and no way of getting down to the south, even if they could cross at Rafah with the 1.5 million people there. Without an immediate ceasefire, they and other families who are trapped cannot achieve anything. That is even without thinking about whether they would be allowed to come back if they left, or whether there would be a political solution. That political horizon is everything. Without a two-state solution on ’67 borders, we are condemning both Israelis and Palestinians to reliving this nightmare over and over and over again. If there is one message that we send Netanyahu and Hamas today, let it be that we will not accept that.

15:09

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I very much welcome this debate on supporting a ceasefire in Gaza and the steps required to get us there, but let me be clear: as the nation and, indeed, those beyond look on, this is a very sad day for Parliament. Rather than our offering clarity on Parliament’s position, speaking with one voice as we seek to end the fighting, there are not one but three separate texts as this debate turns into a political football. Shame on us for failing to find common ground. What a wasted opportunity this is to exhibit UK leadership and resolve in seeking to get closer to the very objective that we came here to debate.

It is a reflection on how fragmented and polarised our world has become that no single power, or alliance of states, or indeed international organisation such as the United Nations is in control of the events that are now unfolding in the middle east, with all its troubled history—a region on the junction not just of three continents, but of three great Abrahamic religions.

From the start, I supported Israel’s right to defend itself after those terrible 7 October attacks, but I was the only voice here in Parliament, when we reconvened, to warn Prime Minister Netanyahu, before he sent in the tanks, not to invade until there was a clear governance and security plan which any military operation could work towards; and that still eludes us today.

Away from Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel is an important UK ally, a rare democratic state in a troubled part of the world. It deserves our support, but also our frankness. The scale of the collateral damage is shocking—indeed, that phrase seems inappropriate given the loss of life— but there is nothing simple about urban warfare, and future military strategists at Sandhurst and West Point are likely to use the Israeli military invasion as an example of how not to do it, and of how tactics without strategy fail.

On the other side, we look for voices in the middle east condemning Hamas, but they are not there. Bahrain was the only country to say that it condemned what Hamas had done. Are we expecting the Palestinian Authority to step in? It is having its own problems in its own neck of the woods. As I have said previously, before the Israeli tanks rolled in I was the only one to suggest the formation of a temporary technical council by those who had signed the Abraham accords to take responsibility once those guns fell silent.

There is no mention of any of this in the motion or the amendments. Are we suggesting that we should empower Hamas to stay, as they remain committed to destroying Israel? It is in their covenant to do exactly that. Shouting “Ceasefire, ceasefire” alone and unconditionally, will not, I am afraid, change anything; and I say that as someone who has been involved in a few conflicts as a soldier. Perhaps it is symbolic. Surely with our statecraft, our influence and our convening power, we should be doing so much more. A ceasefire is a contract agreed between two sides, and it requires a third party to step forward to ensure that they can control what goes on. It begins with a cessation of hostilities that allows space for other activities to take place, and allows plans to advance. Neither Israel nor Hamas are in that place yet. The alternative is a larger third force, mobilised to enforce a ceasefire, but I suspect that no one here today is advocating that.

A ceasefire calls for timeframes, no-fly zones, buffer zones, emergency procedures to quash any breaches, agreed incentives in relation to, for example, hostage release and humanitarian support, and, of course, international monitoring teams in which the UK could play a part. I do not hear any of that being discussed today; I hear only the clarion call “Let’s have a ceasefire.” This is a detail that we need to discuss before we demand from afar something that will perhaps make us feel better. I simply make the case that, from here, it is easy to shout those words “Let’s have a ceasefire”, but it is harder to implement that in practice.

Britain has a role to play: it has an important, persuasive and active role to play on the international stage. What we have done today is illustrate how much more we need to learn, and how we need to elevate the calibre of our debate in order to deal with these international matters. I will be supporting the Government today, but I recommend that all three parties get together, so that we can come back to the House and agree a unified statement on taking this forward, and how a ceasefire might proceed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. A number of Members have indicated a desire to withdraw their application to speak, but we will still be playing beat the clock, so I am dropping the time limit to four minutes.

15:14

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

Much has been said about the deaths and suffering of civilians in Gaza, and I add my condemnation of those responsible on both sides of this conflict.

In the brief time allowed today, I wish to highlight the role of, and the risks taken by, three specific groups of people who receive little media coverage: humanitarian aid workers, health workers, and journalists. We owe them all a great debt of gratitude for the work that they carry out in the most dangerous circumstances, in areas of extreme conflict and suffering, with the ever-present risk of death, serious injury and disease. Since 7 October, at least 136 staff members of the United Nations—humanitarian aid workers—have been killed in Gaza. The UN’s Secretary-General, António Guterres, said recently that throughout the UN’s history it had never witnessed the deaths of its staff in such large numbers. As for health workers, at least 300 have been killed during the conflict.

The killing of aid workers and health workers is both unacceptable and illegal. The World Medical Association has made that clear repeatedly, and in 2002 it said:

“The right to health is a fundamental element of human rights which does not change in situations of conflict and violence. Access to medical assistance for the sick and wounded, whether they have been engaged in active combat or not, is guaranteed through various international agreements, including those of the Geneva Convention and of the United Nations.”

Israel and those nations supporting her, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have signed up to those agreements, and their neglect in not enforcing them is criminal.

Journalists, too, have paid a heavy price to bring us reports of events on the ground. At least 126 have been killed in Gaza since 7 October, with many others arrested. The presence of journalists in Gaza is essential so that the world can be kept informed of the horrific events taking place there, and, in due course, hold those responsible to account.

The United States and the United Kingdom have much more work to do in challenging all participants in this conflict to respect the human rights of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, health workers and journalists. Without those humanitarian aid and health workers many more lives would be lost, and without the work of journalists the world would be far less well informed of the horrors that are taking place in Gaza. In the last week, 27 humanitarian and human rights agencies including Christian Aid, Oxfam and Muslim Aid wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and a suspension of all arms exports, and for the UK to ensure that Israel fully implements the orders of the International Court of Justice.

Any continuation of the military operation in Gaza will merely result in innocent men, women and children paying the price for a crime that they did not commit. The only way in which to prevent further loss of civilian lives, and to secure the release of hostages and the entry of lifesaving humanitarian aid, is to secure an immediate and permanent ceasefire which includes including calling off the Rafah offensive—not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, but today. I fully support the international demands for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and I will be voting in favour of the SNP’s motion.

15:18

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I know that every single one of us in the Chamber wants the fighting to stop and the conflict to come to an end. The loss of civilian life is always a tragedy, no matter the justification for the military intervention that leads to it. So, yes, our Government must use all diplomatic means possible to try to secure another humanitarian pause in the fighting, to get hostages out and more aid supplies in. However, I am afraid that demanding an immediate ceasefire amounts to asking Israel to lay down its arms unilaterally while its hostages remain in peril and while Hamas retains power in Gaza. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad has said that they will repeat the 7 October attack “again and again”. He said:

“On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000—everything we do is justified.”

That is shocking. Unless Hamas are defeated militarily and removed from power, there is nothing to stop them rebuilding their capacity to commit heinous acts of terrorism.

I appreciate that those calling for an unconditional ceasefire now are sincere and well intentioned, but I feel that such a call means abandoning support for Israel in its time of greatest need, when it is exercising its right to self-defence. We must not forget the 7 October attacks in which 1,000 people lost their lives, involving sickening levels of violence and abuse: murder and mutilation; the killing of babies, children and the elderly; decapitation; and rape and sexual abuse of the most horrific kind.

When I visited Israel in January—a trip recorded in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I had the chance to speak directly to people suffering the torture of knowing their loved ones remain in the hands of this violent Islamist death cult. We must not forget the hostages still held in Gaza, who may well be being raped or tortured right now. No pause or ceasefire can be workable, sustainable or permanent unless it comes after the release of all hostages, the defeat and removal of Hamas from power, and an end to the terror group’s capacity to repeat their 7 October atrocity. That is why I will be voting for the Government’s motion this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Martin Docherty-Hughes.

15:21

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

That is sooner than I expected, Mr Deputy Speaker, but thank you. Interestingly enough, I rose in the House on Monday and quoted a former Member of the House—indeed, a former Member for Dundee and a former Prime Minister—and I would lay the same proposition before the Prime Minister and the leader of the British Labour party, if they were here, regarding their delayed response to the cataclysmic genocide being rained on the Palestinian people: their British policy to Palestine has indeed been weighed in the balance and found wanting. How else can our constituents, and indeed the people of Scotland, view the British Parliament, when its political class has, since November—the last time we dragged it to debate this subject—deflected the reality on the ground in Gaza?

I would like to hear from the Minister, when they sum up at the end of this debate, what assurances the Prime Minister, and indeed any other Ministers, or shadow Ministers from the loyal Opposition, has received since November from the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the systematic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure? Have their seemingly pious interventions in any way restrained the Government of Israel from their policy of genocide, all the while enabling Hamas—I have to agree with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on Hamas being a death cult—making them a partner in death, hate and crime? How does this British political class find itself in this devilish and ominous situation?

One hundred and fifty-three nations have concluded that an immediate ceasefire is necessary to bring an end to the utter devastation in Gaza and to seek a way forward to deal with the death cult of Hamas, who, as we know, are supported by the theocrats of Iran—a regime to which, I remind the House, the British Government have pledged to pay £400 million in regards to an outstanding debt. It is complicated, but the Chamber needs to discuss this, while the Government are, as I see it, pirouetting on the head of a pin. How is it that the French Republic has called for an immediate ceasefire? How is it that NATO allies such as the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have not only called for a ceasefire, but stopped sending arms to Israel? How have they come to conclude that which this Parliament and its political class cannot? One hundred and fifty-three nations disagree with this British political class, led by the British Prime Minister and the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. One asks: opposition to what?

The way the State of Israel has been acting must be challenged. We cannot sidestep the issues faced by the Palestinian nation—as spoken to, I think, by one of the Members from the Liberal Democrats. Palestine’s survival, and indeed that of the state of Israel, depends on it. This is a generational injustice that the Palestinian people have endured. What is the answer? It is an immediate ceasefire. The Prime Minister of Israel’s strategy is to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the west bank. Let us remind ourselves: he is a Prime Minister who is already not only tarnished with a wicked policy in Gaza, but mired in allegations of corruption. In his Cabinet is one Minister who is a convicted terrorist and another who is a confessed fascist.

We must be mindful that in seeking peace, we require justice. That peace, as others have said, must be founded in truth, built according to justice, vivified and integrated by charity and put into practice in freedom—freedom, I am sure, that is desired by Palestinians and Israelis alike.

15:25

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I say at the outset to any Jewish people listening to this debate anywhere in the world, “You do have friends and allies here in this Chamber.” The SNP motion calling for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel woefully fails to recognise reality. I am sorry to say that the SNP is not interested in a solution that would both safeguard the civilians of Gaza and enable an Israeli victory over Hamas; if the SNP was so motivated, it would, for example, be putting pressure on Egypt to open the Rafah crossing as a refuge, instead of massively strengthening it. But of course, the focus is all on Israel defending itself.

Israel has been through multiple rounds of conflict initiated by the genocidal Hamas terror group in Gaza. The SNP motion, should it achieve its objectives, would cement the prospects of many more such incursions or attacks in the future. That is, of course, exactly what Hamas want: to secure endless opportunities to destroy Israel, granted by the confused logic of that motion. If the terror group is left standing, they will regroup. Hamas say as much. That is not conjecture; they make clear in interviews that they will continue their onslaught. They must not be permitted to continue as a terror statelet.

I regret to inform the House that the political grandstanding that we have seen in some quarters—although not all—will not make an iota of difference. Hamas have no intention of laying down their arms, and Israel, as a fellow democracy, has a responsibility.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[Sir Michael Ellis]

I will not give way just yet. I have to say, I was shocked last night to hear the leader of the SNP accuse Israel of committing war crimes and hear the bandying about of such phrases. This incendiary charge is not borne out by the legality of the situation, and it is not in accordance with the facts. It is worth noting that the ICJ, in its interim ruling, said that Israel has a legitimate right to continue its campaign against Hamas. Let us not forget that all Hamas need to do is to release the hostages, including very small children, and hostilities would cease immediately. Let us not forget the third wave: the thousands of Gazan civilians crossing into Israel during the 7 October attacks. That is why civilians have been able to sell some hostages.

Israel has taken such steps despite being under no international legal obligation to, for example, provide electricity and water to the people of Gaza. It has done so despite the grave security threats posed by Hamas. Of course, Hamas cynically destroyed those very same power lines and water pipes on 7 October, which Israel swiftly repaired.

I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said that condemning Hamas’s attack is omitted from the SNP’s motion because it goes without saying. I am sorry, but at the moment in this country, and in many other countries around the world, it does not go without saying. Considering that since 7 October several thousand antisemitic incidents have been recorded in the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, and that people were celebrating outside the Israeli embassy in London in jubilation at the deaths of a thousand people before the Israel Defence Forces moved in on 7 and 8 October, it does not go without saying. A responsible Government in any jurisdiction is one that uses every opportunity to stand with the victims of heinous terrorist attacks.

15:38

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

The right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) began his contribution by telling Jewish people watching that they have friends in this Chamber. I wish to reiterate that in the strongest possible terms. Jewish people are not the Israeli Government and Muslims are not Hamas.

In a matter of weeks, Muslims across the world will fast from sunrise to sunset during the holy month of Ramadan. It is a time to take life at a slower pace. That, however, is far from the reality for people in Gaza. They live with hospitals bombed, homes bombed, ambulances bombed, churches bombed, mosques bombed, UN schools bombed, refugee camps bombed and factories bombed—and the bombing continues. Gaza is under siege from the air and the F-35 stealth bomber, often referred to as the most lethal fighter jet in the world, is being used. Parts for this fighter jet—the laser targeting system and the weapons-release system—are made in British factories. We simply do not know if those weapons are being used by Israeli authorities in the massacre of families and children in Gaza.

Politics is all about choices. The UK Government have the choice to stop or suspend arms export licences to Israel. There is precedent for that. In 2014, the current Foreign Secretary, then the Prime Minister, suspended 12 arms export licences in the light of evidence of human rights abuses. It is morally corrupt, outrageous and sickens me to my core that the UK continues to sell arms to Israel. To all the people of Gaza—mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters—I am sorry. I am sorry that this institution of Westminster has seen your tears yet ignored your pain and suffering. I am sorry that your hopes of returning to the beach to play in the clear blue sea have been snatched away from you. I am sorry that children are experiencing heart attacks and will live a life full of trauma. I am sorry that your dreams and aspirations have changed from becoming scientists and footballers, to dreams and aspirations of staying alive and accessing clean drinking water. I am sorry.

In their hundreds of thousands, the public have marched on the streets, a unified mass movement standing up against the status quo: people from different faiths and no faith, men and women, adults and children, and rich and poor saying that enough is enough and demanding a ceasefire. Here in Westminster, we may have the Whip system and direction from party leadership, but every politician is accountable for their own actions. It does not matter that this debate was tabled by the SNP, which has third party status. It does not matter if this vote is not binding. These are semantics. We cannot continue to accept the systematic and deliberate oppression of the Palestinian people. There must be an immediate ceasefire.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

In terms of the semantics, does my hon. Friend agree that we must remind ourselves of the words of Benjamin Netanyahu in 2019, when he stated that as long as Hamas remain in Gaza, he can always argue that there is no partner for peace during our lifetime? He is part of the cause of this situation.

[Ms Qaisar]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention.

Britain of course has a moral responsibility towards the wider middle east region, due to the scars of the British empire, the Iraq war and the incompetence of successive Governments who have promised peace yet failed to deliver. When we look back on this period of history, we will surely be asked and ask ourselves, “What did you do when Gaza was being relentlessly bombed?” Yet here we are in the House of Commons with Members of Parliament playing time-wasting games and abandoning international law. Why?

15:34

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The backdrop to today’s debate has two parts. One is the appalling outpouring of antisemitism in this country, which we debated in this Chamber on Monday afternoon. The other part of the backdrop to today’s difficult debate is what I believe is a concerted campaign to pressure and even bully MPs to fall into line behind a very specific wording about a ceasefire, which implies an unconditional ceasefire and has the objective of keeping Hamas in place in Gaza.

Every right-thinking person in this Chamber this afternoon wants to see an end to the fighting and bloodshed. It is an appalling loss of life—we can be united on that. I was in southern Israel last week, and I went to one of the sites of the worst massacres that took place on 7 October. I met Palestinians as well when I was in Jerusalem last week, and everybody in the region is feeling the pain of this. Families are bleeding physically, emotionally and mentally. This time last week I was sitting with a group of parents of children and people still in their late teens who are being held by Hamas in Gaza. These mothers and fathers are worried sick about what their daughters are currently going through.

No amount of wishful thinking, or us passing a simple motion calling for an immediate, permanent ceasefire, is going to make it happen. The very difficult practical negotiations and discussions going on involve Egypt, Israel, America, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Do we honestly think that the messy, divided debate we are having this afternoon will make any difference to the kinds of discussions that they are having right now about how we dial down the violence, open up space for aid to go in, and get some kind of negotiation going that will see the release of the hostages? I happen to believe that if there is one single thing that would change the course of the war right now and lead to an end to the violence we are seeing, it would be the immediate release of the hostages. If there is one thing that we could unite around this afternoon, it would be a simple, one-line motion that calls on Hamas to release the hostages immediately. That point should be made time and again.

I have several issues with the SNP’s motion. First, there is no mention of the use of sexual violence and rape as a weapon of war against Israeli women. Why is that important? It is important because there is a campaign at the moment—not just on social media; I see it in emails from constituents, and I had a constituent confront me with this last Friday—that seeks to deny that these atrocities happened. People are saying that Israel has somehow concocted this and that these crimes did not take place. Well, they did take place. They were recorded on mobile phones and bodycams, and they were picked up by other security cameras. There is a 47-minute film that people can watch if they make themselves available to do so—Hamas fighters having the time of their lives committing the most barbaric acts. I encourage all Members to grip themselves and watch the film.

My second problem with the SNP’s motion is that it contains no mention of Hamas’s guilt or the fact that they started this round of conflict. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), started his speech by saying that he condemns Hamas’s atrocities. Why does the SNP motion not say that? Why does it not spell that out? Fundamentally, my problem with the SNP motion is that, at the heart of it, it lets Hamas off the hook for what happened on 7 October.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Crabb]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

After Carol Monaghan, the speaking limit will have to go down to three minutes.

15:38

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The recent ICJ ruling means that the UK, as a signatory to the genocide convention, is legally obliged to take measures in the face of Israel’s failure to prevent acts that may be found to amount to genocide. I have been contacted about this issue by many constituents, asking for me to support a ceasefire, but I want to read out the email from one constituent. She contacted me, and I spoke to her yesterday by phone. Her email says:

“I am writing to you again as a Jewish constituent urging you to join your fellow MPs in calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I, like many in my community, have been utterly shaken by these months of violence. As I write over 28,000 Palestinians have been killed—12,000 of them children—and over 1.9 million displaced. Jews in the UK have been in a collective state of shock and distress since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th. Many in my community lost family and friends in the attack. Yet this only strengthens my resolve to end the utterly heartbreaking violence Israel is unleashing against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This is not a war. I pray for the safety of both Palestinians in Gaza and the hostages in captivity, but only a ceasefire can provide the relief they desperately need. Lives, livelihoods and families are being destroyed; the very fabric of Palestinian society in Gaza is being upended. Such a policy of revenge and collective punishment achieves safety for nobody. The UK government is responsible for ensuring international law is adhered to—yet every moment it fails to advance a ceasefire, it is complicit in the perpetration of war crimes and the killing of civilians. The ongoing escalation of violence in Rafah risks further mass atrocities. This cannot go on. As a Jewish constituent I thank you, the First Minister, and the SNP for your actions so far in working towards a ceasefire, the return of the surviving hostages, and a lasting peace. I urge you, my MP, and my government to demand an immediate ceasefire, the safe return of hostages, and the urgent provision of substantial life-saving aid to Palestinians in Gaza.”

This is quite simply the only way we can end this violence and start to fight for a future that guarantees freedom, equality and dignity for all Palestinians and Israelis.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Three-minute limit. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

15:41

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just been talking to a lady colleague who received a green card to go to speak to people in Westminster Hall. The moment she explained the Government’s position and her support of their moderate amendment, she was surrounded by a screaming mob videoing her and intimidating her. All this hatred has to stop. We have to pull together in this country. Nobody in this country or in this House was responsible for the horrific attacks by Hamas. We all utterly condemn Hamas and their genocidal activities.

We must support moderates. There are many moderate people in Israel who want a two-state solution and who are horrified by the activities of settlers trying to intimidate Palestinians. We must give hope to Palestinian people. Nothing can justify the genocide on 7 October, but still there is a degree of hopelessness among the Palestinian people at the rate of settlements in the west bank and what is happening in Gaza. We must give them hope.

That is one side of the story, and surely we can unite behind that. I support the efforts of the British Government in trying to do so, but surely we can also take a moderate and sensible position on this issue of a ceasefire. There is no point in having a unilateral ceasefire now if a death cult will use that ceasefire to go on bombing and killing innocent Israelis—it will achieve nothing. We have to have a balanced, sustainable ceasefire in which the hostages are released and Hamas’s leadership is removed permanently from Gaza. Now I am speaking largely on behalf of the people who live in Gaza. There is no future for the Palestinian people in Gaza with Hamas in control. There will be constant warfare, hatred, disaster and bombing. We have to get rid of Hamas. We have to get the Palestinian Authority, for all its faults, back in control, and we have to push the peace process forward. The Government amendment is moderate and sensible. It is trying to achieve peace and we should support it.

15:44

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Late last night I returned from Cairo, which I had visited as one of the members of the International Development Committee to listen to the experience of heads of non-governmental agencies and UN agencies working in Gaza. They described a man-made humanitarian catastrophe, and I am ashamed of the moral cowardice in the response of those in the world who first failed to prevent, and are now failing to stop, the atrocity unfolding before our eyes. I have heard at first hand how Gaza is characterised by death and destruction. Bombs and bullets have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people. Whole families have been wiped out and whole cities left uninhabitable. Those who survive have been horrifically injured and left displaced with nowhere to go. Nothing is off limits for Israeli forces, which have been targeting and destroying places of worship, schools and hospitals. Disease, malnutrition and starvation have become inevitable. In these conditions, hope has been extinguished for so many. Time and again, some of the most experienced humanitarian workers—people who have borne witness to the world’s worst disasters and conflicts—have told me that they have never experienced anything like the horrors of Gaza.

Only 150 aid trucks a day are getting into Gaza. The UK says that it is supplying aid, but that aid is sitting in trucks at the border. Even so, the destroyed infrastructure, the lack of security due to the constant threat of Israeli bombardment, and the huge number of people contained within such a small area mean that aid cannot be distributed once it arrives.

The message from aid workers is clear: an immediate ceasefire must be implemented to stop the slaughter and to deliver lifesaving aid to the trapped people of Gaza. How anyone in this Chamber could vote against this basic notion of humanity is beyond me and my constituents.

Where else in the world has there been a war in which the majority of people killed are women and children? They are hemmed in with no escape and, as one witness told me, they are being killed like “fish in a barrel.” Andrew Gilmour, the former UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, told “Newsnight” last night that the killing of women and children “was probably the highest kill rate of any military killing anybody since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.”

In Cairo, I was told of ambulances and field hospitals being targeted, of people with white flags being shot on the spot and of children as young as five being pronounced dead with single sniper shots to the head. This is not a proportionate response. It is collective punishment, pure and simple, and it is a breach of international humanitarian law. Who here honestly believes that this immense suffering is part of a just war?

I have listened to Prime Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber rightly call for justice for Russian war crimes in Ukraine, despite there being no judicial judgment. Conversely, I have voted to recognise the genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, despite the UK Government refusing to recognise it, as they say that a genocide can only be determined by a court. Yet when the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide, as there is a plausible risk, the UK Government said that

“Israel’s actions…cannot be described as a genocide”.

And the UK Government have not publicly called on Israel to comply with the court’s ruling—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have to leave it there.

15:46

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity for parliamentarians to have their say on finding an end to this horrific conflict, which has cost so many thousands of innocent lives, both Israeli and Palestinian. I recall coming to this House in October, when the Prime Minister made his first statement. I said that we had seen Hamas commit horrific terrorist acts on 7 October, and those horrific terrorist acts took the lives of innocent people, which is unacceptable.

The backdrop to today’s debate is the terrible loss of innocent lives. The Library’s briefing outlines the number of innocent lives lost: 29,000 Palestinians, with 69,000-plus injured; 1,200 innocent Israelis, with 5,431 injured; and 88 journalists.

I wrote to the Prime Minister on 1 November calling for humanitarian pauses to get aid in and hostages out. All hostages have to be released. It is now February, and we have not been able to achieve the objectives of peace or the release of those hostages. Eight days of confidence-building measures, with the release of hostages, has not happened.

What is my position today? I will be voting for motions that call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, or that call for an immediate ceasefire, because the time has come. If not now, when? The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council, and the Prime Minister said at Mansion House that the United Kingdom will lead and not be led. If that is the case, we need the United Kingdom to stand up.

[Afzal Khan]

Prime Minister Netanyahu has confirmed that restrictions will be imposed against Palestinian Muslims wishing to visit the al-Aqsa mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam, during Ramadan. As per international law, Israel has no sovereignty over East Jerusalem or al-Aqsa, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a deliberate provocation of Palestinians? Will he join me in condemning that dangerous and discriminatory move?

[Rehman Chishti]

As the former UK special envoy for international religious freedom, I say that all places of worship must be protected. What we saw about three and a half years ago, when the al-Aqsa mosque was stormed on the night of Laylat al-Qadr, was absolutely unacceptable. We are now coming into the period of not only Ramadan, but Easter and Passover, which is why I said earlier, “If not now, when?”. Of course, I accept that we need hard-edged diplomacy to deliver on a two-state solution, an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and immediate humanitarian assistance going into Gaza. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister about this, but the UK can have an international donors’ conference for Palestine—we did this for friends of Syria. We are looking at creative ways to move forward and save all innocent lives. Yes, the UK needs to put its position firmly out there on what we see as a two-state solution and a Palestinian state. That has to be in line with the 1967 borders and our position at the UN—resolution 242. We drafted that resolution and therefore we need to ensure that we deliver on it. Today is the time to ensure that we deliver a ceasefire, a lasting peace in the region.

15:51

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

How do I find words in my allotted three minutes for the tragedy that has engulfed the Palestinian people? Israeli bombs have killed 30,000. More than 10,000 children have died. The death toll per head of population is greater than in any conflict since the second world war. Gaza lies in ruins. People are starving. Women are enduring caesareans without anaesthetic. And yet this House has been paralysed.

I vividly recall that when I was a journalist in Palestinian refugee camps, Palestinians would come up to show me keys to lost homes their families were forced to flee in what is now Israel, when advancing guerrilla troops spread terror. Along with their old-fashioned keys, they would also show me British Palestine mandate house deeds—issued by us, guaranteed by the United Kingdom and stamped with the mark of the Crown. We owe them. At the very least, we owe them our voices raised in outrage at the collective punishment they are now enduring in defiance of international law. We are talking about innocent people, children, babies, who are not remotely responsible for the atrocities carried out by evil Hamas. Slaughtering, indiscriminately, the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the very definition of collective punishment.

Some say, “What’s the point?”. We know we cannot force Netanyahu to stop bombing. But we can apply pressure. Silence is tacit acceptance of Israel’s actions. We can show Palestinians, who still imagine that this House has a moral compass, that we do care passionately about their plight, we lament their suffering and we despair at the lost innocence of their children, as another generation learns to associate Israel with cruelty, extremism and hate. The vote at Westminster tonight, the second we on these Benches have called, is not and never was, as some commentators parochially claimed, about embarrassing political opponents. Not everything is about Britain. I will not speak for colleagues in other parties, but I know that many outwith the SNP support our motion; some have lost their Front-Bench jobs because they cannot, in good conscience, remain silent. I hope the majority of Westminster MPs now feel the same. Embarrassed silence will not save lives. If we do not call for an immediate ceasefire now, when will we? How many more innocents have to die? No, it is past time for our voices to be heard loudly and unambiguously: enough bombing, enough slaughter.

13:49

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I, too, was on the emotional cross-party visit with Yachad to Israel and Palestine last week. We stood at the site of mass murder in Kibbutz Be’eri and Netiv HaAsara and heard with horror the accounts of the victims and bereaved relatives of what happened there. We also stood on a bluff above Gaza City and saw the artillery landing and heard the gunfire and the drones overhead. I contemplated the futility of 30,000 dead, and, with horror, thought of the assault on Rafah and its 600,000 children.

Various things became clear during that visit. First, there can be no military victory over Hamas—that is widely accepted across the world and is being whispered even in Israel—not least because every bomb and every bullet that lands is a recruiting sergeant for that appalling organisation. Secondly, the security of these two peoples are intrinsically intertwined. Anybody who is interested in the security of Israel in the future has to recognise that this conflict is making things worse, not better, and that the security of the Palestinians is required for the security of Israel into the future.

We also met some remarkable people: Rachel Goldberg, whose son, Hersh, is still being held by Hamas; Maoz Inon and Yonatan Zeigin whose parents were both killed by Hamas; and a group of young Palestinians who yearn for freedom. All of them are dedicating their lives to peace. They were the threads of hope that we met on our visit, and they offered the prospect that these two remarkable peoples could find a way to live side by side.

Then I returned to the United Kingdom, Mr Deputy Speaker, to find us trapped in a crazy battle of semantics. I must confess that I do not understand the difference between “ceasefire”, “pause”, “cessation”, “truce”, which is then qualified by “sustainable”, “credible”, “humanitarian”, or “one that lasts”. The British people think that our moral compass is spinning in this House, that we have no clue what we are doing any more, yet they see the bodies of shredded children coming across the media pretty much every day. They want three simple things: they want the killing of Palestinians and Israelis to stop; they want the hostages to be returned; and they want aid to flow into Gaza.

Our job as Back Benchers is to vote for the outcome that we want to see, not some clever process by which we might get there. It is not to second guess what the parties are going to do, but to say now what we want to happen. I agree with the British people that the violence must stop. If those people who hold out the prospect of hope in Israel stand a chance, there must be an atmosphere of peace. It was Menachem Begin who said that war is avoidable, but peace is inevitable. It is time for the bloodshed to stop and for the talking to begin, and in this House, in this country, we must do what we can to make that so.

15:57

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

We sometimes rattle off statistics in this place and they have no real meaning, but what we do know is that, in this dreadful conflict, there are 1,200 innocent Israelis who were brutally and evilly murdered, beheaded, raped and kidnapped on 7 October. The consequence of that has been the unfolding of utterly horrific images across the Gaza Strip, with almost 30,000 men, women and children—innocent citizens—tragically killed in this brutal conflict.

I will be voting for an immediate ceasefire tonight, because the fighting needs to stop and it needs to stop now, but I will be doing so on the basis of the Opposition amendment (a), which was set out so eloquently by my right hon. Friend, the shadow Foreign Secretary. Words matter and it matters that we call for a ceasefire—not a unilateral ceasefire, but a ceasefire of both sides, otherwise it is not a ceasefire. [Interruption.] Those on the SNP Benches can laugh, but if Hamas do not lay down their arms, too, it is not a ceasefire. That is a simple fact. I want to ensure that the offensive on Rafah does not happen, that we get aid into the Gaza Strip in the quantities that we want to see. Aid is not mentioned in the SNP motion. We need to ensure that the ICJ’s provisional rulings are implemented and upheld, because international law matters, and that we get a two-state solution and a peace process. We need to tackle the wrongdoings in the west bank. The illegal settlements have to end. We also need to ensure that there is justice for the Palestinians, and that we get a Palestinian state. None of that is in the SNP motion.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

There is no reference to water or oxygen in the SNP motion. Does the hon. Gentleman presume, therefore, that the SNP does not want people to have water or oxygen? Don’t be so silly, man. You know exactly what this is about. This is about stopping the killing now.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, we know exactly what it is about. The hon. Member is playing party political football—[Interruption.] He is playing party political football with the most atrocious situation that is going on in the middle east. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) rightly said, there is a lot more that brings people together in this place. We want to see a ceasefire. We want to see an end to the killing.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I was playing party politics. I am not in a political party. He should know that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair; that is part of the argument.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Member can still play political football.

We need a Palestinian state. We need to get justice and an end to this conflict, which has lasted for seven decades. As those on both sides of the House have said, the brutal reality, and the real tragedy, is that there is a lot of consensus but the extreme voices in the debate have been the loudest. That is true in Israel and Palestine as well. It is a simple fact that the moderate voices on both sides have been drowned out for two decades. Those who believe in a two-state solution have been left at the edges. Both the Netanyahu Government, together with his allies, and Hamas have thrived on, and needed, each other’s extremism. Enough is enough. Let peace prevail, and let us have a ceasefire now.

16:01

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I do not think that anyone in this House, or anywhere else, does not want to see a ceasefire in Gaza. I am sure that we have all been deeply moved and concerned by the horrific sights of people suffering in Gaza. No one wants to see an escalation, and I add my voice to those saying to Israel, “Think very carefully before escalating your action into Rafah,” but a real ceasefire has to be an agreement between both sides. Unless Hamas agree to lay down their weapons and keep to a ceasefire, a ceasefire effectively becomes Israel surrendering. We all know that Hamas are very unlikely to do that. There was a ceasefire on 6 October, and Hamas broke it with the most appalling action in killing more than 1,200 Israelis and committing the most despicable gender-based violence, sexual assault and rape.

The point has been made that the one thing glaringly missing from the SNP motion is an utter condemnation of the actions of Hamas on 7 October, and their gender-based violence. [Interruption.]

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Double]

I will not give way, because of the time.

Hamas broke the ceasefire that was in place in November, when the initial tranche of hostages was released. My understanding is that Egypt proposed a peace deal in December that involved a ceasefire, but Hamas refused to take part in it. We need to be very clear in this place that the biggest obstacle to a ceasefire is Hamas. That is where our attention needs to be. I would have far more time for SNP Members if they put just as much energy into putting the focus on Hamas and calling for Hamas to end their threat to Israel, to renounce violence against Israel and to remove from their charter the objective of seeing Israel destroyed, as those Members spend putting the spotlight on Israel. The real barrier to a ceasefire is Hamas, not Israel.

I want to see a two-state solution. I want us to be able to start recognising Palestine as a proper state, but that will never happen while Hamas continue their leadership in Palestine. The only way forward in my view is an end to Hamas and a proper ceasefire in place, so that we can start to build a two-state solution for the future peace and prosperity of Israel and Palestine, but that will not happen while Hamas stay in place.

16:04

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In the short time available to me, I would like to discuss the value of a Palestinian life and why, for some in this place, it seems to be worth less than a Ukrainian life or an Israeli life.

We all watched in horror as the 7 October atrocity unfolded. No one in this place was not disgusted—sickened—by the act of evil of perpetrated that day. Similarly, we all watched on, horrified, as Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine and carried out unspeakable acts. We spoke as one in our complete condemnation of those acts. That is where the indefensible double standards begin. Government and Labour Front Benchers were able to talk about near genocide and war crimes in Ukraine, yet they are unable to do so now in respect of Gaza.

I want to tell the story of just two families and the tragedy that has befallen them—war crimes. Associated Press reported:

“The sound of gunfire crackled over the phone as the teenage girl hid in the car and spoke. An Israeli tank was near the vehicle as she and her family were trying to heed Israel’s call to evacuate their home in Gaza.

Israeli troops were firing on the car, the teen said in terrified calls to relatives and emergency services. Everyone in the vehicle was killed except her and her 5-year-old female cousin, Hind, she said.

‘They are shooting at us. The tank is next to me.’

And then there was a burst of gunfire. She screamed and fell silent.”

The Palestinian Red Crescent sent an ambulance but lost contact with the crew. The report continues:

“12 days later, the ambulance was discovered blackened and destroyed.

The two medics were dead. The Palestinian Red Crescent accused Israeli forces of targeting the ambulance as it pulled up near the family’s vehicle. The organization said it had coordinated the journey with Israeli forces as in the past.

The family car was found as well with six bodies, including Layan’s and Hind’s.”

Fifteen-year-old Nahed Barbakh was waving a white flag in Gaza when he was shot dead. It was all witnessed by his nine-year-old sister, Rimas, who told ITV News:

“They fired and hit him in the leg and he fell. My father kept telling him to crawl back towards us. Then he was hit in his neck and back… My brother Ramez wanted to go to him. My father grabbed him by the jacket but he got free and ran towards Nahed. Ramez tried to pull him, but then he too was hit, in his heart, and fell on his brother. He looked at us with a smile and then passed away.”

The report goes on:

“She added that she can’t sleep because she cries her ‘eyes out’ every time she thinks of her brothers.”

Their father said:

“They used loudspeakers to tell us to evacuate, when we did they killed my sons before my very eyes.”

Nowhere in Gaza is safe, even when the IDF promise that it will be. It is IDF state-sponsored barbarism.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Anyone in Gaza watching their daughter having a C-section under a tarpaulin without anaesthetic, picking up parts of their brother from around the neighbourhood or burying a child is not worrying about the wording of a motion. They want to see a ceasefire to stop all that now. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever happens tonight—whether we vote for the SNP motion or the Labour-amended motion—the House should vote for a ceasefire? That is what is needed.

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. That makes some of the nonsense that happened earlier on, which does not do this House any justice whatsoever, even more shameful. Some people need to reflect on their actions this day.

Everything that I have described was carried out while the Government and Labour Front Benchers collectively covered their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and pretended not to see and hear what the rest of us cannot unsee. I asked at the start what the value of a Palestinian life is. Honestly, that question should haunt the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, because I can tell them that 24 Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli killed on 7 October, and that number is going up every single day that we sit here and do nothing.

16:09

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It has been a truism across so many of today’s speeches that we have a universal desire for the violence to stop, and for it to stop immediately. The only question that exercises us in this Chamber today is, what is the most effective method to achieve that immediate cessation of violence?

I will do the SNP the courtesy of addressing its motion. This is an SNP debate, and it is that party’s motion that is important. However, as has been referred to multiple times today, the SNP motion makes no reference at all to the Hamas attack on 7 October last year. It makes no reference to the stated intention of Hamas to repeat atrocities again and again, similar to and worse than that which was achieved on 7 October. We know that removing Hamas from Gaza—again, something that the SNP motion makes no reference to—is the only way to stop civilians, Israeli and Palestinian, from being killed. If we address only half of the issue, we will condemn any ceasefire to failure and bring about a renewed cycle of killing time and time again and a repetition of that appalling history of violence.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not give way, because I have so little time. I am sorry.

The most important thing for people in the region right now is an immediate cessation of violence, which will be achieved through a humanitarian pause. Such a pause would stop the fighting, get the aid in and allow for the hostages to come out. It is not delayed by the wider ceasefire negotiations—those are inevitable, because this is a complex matter—but it makes space for those negotiations to take place. Those negotiations are going to have to deal with the release of all hostages. A one-sided ceasefire is no ceasefire at all, nor is a ceasefire that leaves Hamas in possession of their hostages.

The negotiations will also have to deal with the recreation of a Palestinian Government for both the west bank and Gaza, freeing the people of Gaza from the terror of Hamas: they terrorise not just Israelis, but Palestinians too. Crucially, the negotiations have to lead to a credible and irreversible pathway to a two-state solution. That all takes time, but the fighting needs to stop now, so the Government are absolutely right to call in their amendment for an immediate humanitarian pause to give space for ceasefire negotiations but to stop the killing now.

16:11

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On 13 November, I had the honour of meeting Adi and Dvir Efrat, a mother and daughter kidnapped by Hamas on 7 October. Thankfully, they were rescued by brave IDF soldiers. For the last number of weeks, I have stood in Parliament Square holding posters containing the names of people such as Tsachi Idan, Ran Gvili, Inbar Haiman and others who were kidnapped—not just Israelis, but people from around the world who remain kidnapped today by Hamas and tortured today by Hamas and its instigator the Muslim Brotherhood.

All of this is a consequence; the awful war that we are witnessing in Gaza is a consequence. It is a consequence of the unjustifiable attack on Israelis and Jewish people on 7 October—an attack that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) quite rightly identified as not even being mentioned in the motion that we are being asked to vote on today. We are not being asked to vote for the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), no matter how sincere or mealy-mouthed they may have been; we are being asked to vote for a motion that does not contain any word about the rape of the women, the murder of the children or the unjustifiable attack. It is as if it did not happen; it is as if it were invisible. Other people in the 20th century denied things that happened to Israel and Jewish people. That is essentially what we are seeing tonight: the denial of an attack on Israel. [Interruption.] Yes, it is utterly vile that it did not appear in the motion.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have all heard much today about what various motions and amendments contain and do not contain. Let us focus on the situation and what we all agree on: as the hon. Gentleman well knows, all of us in this House condemn the despicable behaviour of Hamas. We all call for the release of the hostages—their poor families must be in absolutely terrible situations. We all want people to stop being killed, women and children particularly, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the remarks he just made, in which he conflated things that should never be conflated, do not show this House in the best way. We are all entitled to our views, but we need to treat this particular subject seriously and with the dignity and respect it deserves. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not do that.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady’s motion, which she is asking me and other Members to vote on tonight, does not contain a single word about 7 October. It is a denial, and it is invisible because it is as if it did not happen. That is what we are being asked to vote on tonight by the SNP.

The tragedy of the thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza is the moral responsibility of Hamas, just as the Israeli casualties are the moral responsibility and the actual responsibility of Hamas, who have deliberately and cynically initiated a high-intensity conflict in one of the most densely populated areas on earth specifically to maximise civilian deaths and to turn global opinion against Israel. Today, Israel faces attacks on eight fronts: Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank, Yemen and Iran, plus the one the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute wants us to open up as another front, which is the parliamentary front against Israel. He wants us to oppose Israel in this place. The SNP fails to recognise that this House can be pro-peace and pro-ceasefire, but also recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is a shame that the SNP could not do that tonight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Rob Roberts.

16:16

[Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope you can direct me. I have just been called an “antisemite” by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and I think it is an absolute disgrace that that is where he taking this debate today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker has pointed out time and again that we must use temperate language, particularly in debates that are very heated, so I would ask Members to be very careful. I did not hear what was said, but I must reinforce: please use temperate language whether you are on your feet or you are sitting down yelling something. I would prefer you not to yell anything, but please use temperate language.

[Mr Roberts]

Last week, I wrote to Israel’s ambassador in the UK. It occurred to me that, for as long as I can remember, we have heard that Israeli military strength is among the greatest in the region, and that Israeli intelligence networks, led by Mossad, one of the largest espionage agencies in the world, are second to none in gathering information. In my letter to the ambassador, I asked why, with such a strong military that is presumably led by such a brilliantly informed network of intelligence, it was not possible to be surgical and precise about the strikes. I explained that I would be embarrassed, if I was one of them, not to be able to tell the difference between an innocent civilian and an enemy combatant.

Can one of the world’s greatest intelligence networks really not isolate and take out these terrorists without needing to simply level entire city blocks? If they cannot strike with more precision, I said, arguably they should not be striking at all, because every time they do so, they put innocent people in harm’s way. Now, in a completely foreseeable and obvious development, having been told to flee south by Israel, the plan seems to be to attack the southernmost city. I have to say that, if I were in the Israeli military and intelligence services, I would be ashamed of some of the things I was being asked to do. If I was in the Israeli military command, I would hope that I would be brave enough to say, “Stop. This isn’t right. This is no longer self-defence.”

A friend of mine asked me, “Why do you think they’ll listen to your letter when they have disregarded everyone else?” I replied, “Well, they probably won’t, any more than either side will listen to calls for a ceasefire.” She said, “If it’s your view that either way both sides will ignore calls whatever, but you believe that stopping the killing is right, and if it was your family in Gaza, why would you not vote for a ceasefire, at least for your own conscience?” That simple point of logic from my friend won the debate, and has shaped the speech I am making today.

As I have mentioned family, I would like to take a moment to metaphorically reach out across the Chamber, as I am sure the whole House does, to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) not only for facing the horror of having family trapped and, indeed, killed in the region, but for having had to deal with ignorant and bigoted comments in media interviews because of her Palestinian heritage. It may not always feel like it, but I am sure that if we allowed ourselves to be humans and not politicians, the whole House would conclude that we are all with her and our hearts go out to her, as indeed they do to the families of the hostages held by Hamas.

In the words of Martin Luther King:

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

I hope that this House can stop its foolish bickering, and reinforce a clear and unequivocal message of hope for the people embroiled in this conflict. I hope that they can recognise the sanctity of all life, and bring this madness to an end. As the right hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said earlier, we must not dance on the head of a pin about the wording; we must get behind a simple message of peace.

16:20

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I returned last night to Tooting from Egypt, where I had been with colleagues from the International Development Committee, meeting some of the world’s leading humanitarian workers, medics, and representatives on the ground of the United Nations agencies in Gaza. None had ever witnessed a humanitarian catastrophe so hopeless and so bleak. They described the bitter stench of death, dead bodies, sewage, one latrine for every 600 people, not enough water to drink or food to eat, and people eating weeds growing on the roadside, or eating food made for animals. Every representative spoke of violations of international humanitarian law—children being shot in both feet, people so desperate to feed their families that they ran towards food trucks amid gun battles, and mothers waving white flags, attempting to cross the street, shot dead in cold blood.

It was truly obvious to me, as it is obvious to us all, that there has not been adequate protection of civilians. Indeed, 65% of those killed were women and children, which is the complete opposite to every other battle and war where the majority is men of fighting age. Psychologists on the ground are reporting children under five years old talking of wanting to take their own lives, because they have watched their siblings hanging dead from buildings, their parents exsanguinating in front of them, and they are now left alone to face this world. Health workers have not been protected from the war, and there have been over 300 attacks on health facilities in Gaza. Medicine has been blocked at the border, and most hospitals are non-functioning or overrun by critically injured children who are unable to be treated.

Yes, we need a peace process; yes, the hostages must be freed; yes, the wheels of international law must turn; and yes, the Palestinian people must have a recognised state. But first, today, this minute, now, we must have an immediate ceasefire to save tens of thousands of lives. This country has an historic responsibility to the people of the middle east, and it is in our strong national interest to secure a two-state solution. What this Parliament does today will resonate with leaders, Governments, and peoples across the globe. The mother of all Parliaments has something to say, and I will say this: when we are elected to this place, we want to feel that when we are looking at ourselves in the mirror in the twilight of our lives, and when people no longer know who we are, we will be proud of who is looking back. Today, let us say clearly that an immediate ceasefire must come, justice must be done, and peace must be won.

16:23

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

War is terrible and, as we have heard today, the tragic consequences of all fighting are dreadful. War should be avoided at all costs, but sometimes it cannot be. Sometimes war is necessary, such as when accommodation cannot be made, when there is no possibility of good faith negotiations, or when the cost of allowing the enemy to go unchecked is just too great. The war in Gaza is just such a war: devastating, tragic, appalling, yes, but unavoidable because of the 7 October massacre.

Members have reminded the House of the appalling, depraved and unspeakable crimes that were committed that day against Israeli civilians. Any Government who did not then act to prevent such things from happening again would be failing in their duty to protect their citizens. There simply is no other way to keep Israelis safe than to destroy Hamas. We might wish it were otherwise, but that is the reality of the situation. We are all appalled by the loss of life in both Israel and Gaza, and we are all calling for a pause to the fighting to allow much more humanitarian aid to get through. But to call for an unconditional ceasefire now shows, I am afraid, a naive judgment of the situation on the ground.

There is no moral equivalence between a bunch of murderous terrorists and rapists attacking civilians with glee for the sole purpose of inflicting evil. [Interruption.] I will not give way, as so many want to get in. There is no equivalence between those murderous terrorists and a nation state using conventional forces to root out a dangerous enemy, however much we may criticise their tactics. For Hamas, the civilian deaths, including of Palestinians, are the point of the conflict and were the point of the original attack. We must be clear that Hamas bear responsibility for all the deaths in this conflict. The only outcome that will secure a lasting peace is for Hamas to be destroyed. I ask those calling for an unconditional ceasefire now: do they not want Hamas to be destroyed? Why are they not calling for unconditional ceasefires in other conflicts across the world? Why are they not calling on Egypt to assist refugees, as the Polish did upon the invasion of Ukraine?

I am afraid to say that Benjamin Netanyahu is not listening to this debate. It will not change the outcome on the ground. I understand that MPs are facing extreme pressure. They are facing threats, and I feel particularly for colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but we cannot allow those threats to influence our democracy, our speech in here or parliamentary procedure. Those demanding votes for a ceasefire tonight will not stop at that; they will call for boycotts of Israel, an arms embargo and prosecutions of Israel in the UN. Yet again, Israel is being singled out. As the world’s only Jewish state, it is being exceptionalised. We are seeing the rise in antisemitism here on the streets in the UK. We cannot afford to give into that pressure. We must respect Israel’s right to defend itself and to prevent the most atrocious crimes that have happened in my lifetime from ever happening again.

16:26

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

For too long, the leaders of the western world, including in this Chamber and those who populate these Benches before us, have turned a blind eye to the decades-long suffering of the Palestinian people—a blind eye to the occupation of their lands, a blind eye to the expansion of illegal settlements and a blind eye to the theft of their homes. We are and have been complicit in the continued futility of their struggle for self-determination and complicit in their pain and suffering. Arms sales to Israel from this place, which are then used to murder innocent women and children in Palestine, make us so complicit. Ministers will stand at that Dispatch Box time after time and attempt to justify those arms sales and those deaths.

Since 7 October and the deplorable actions of that day, which have been universally condemned by my party, we have been asked to do more than turn a blind eye to the collective punishment of innocent Palestinians; we have been asked to endorse it. If it is not collective punishment, what is it? Is it merely a conflict? Is it a war, or is it more than that? Is it genocide? If it is, are we truly prepared to keep turning a blind eye? We on these Benches say: no longer. Some 30,000 Palestinians lie dead, and 12,000 are innocent children. Some 60,000 more have been injured, their lives forever altered by the horrors of war. We say, “No more.”

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus today must be on the bloodshed and slaughter in both Israel and Gaza? Some of the antics, games and name-calling we have seen today in this Chamber paint this Chamber in an unedifying light.

[Steven Bonnar]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely on the money. We cannot afford to sugar-coat the truth of the harsh realities being faced on the ground in Israel, in Gaza and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or the potential for further atrocities in Rafah. Two thirds of those who are dead are women and children. Is this just another conflict? Does that seem to be proportionate?

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steven Bonnar]

No, I will not, and no, it is not proportionate. We are being asked to turn a blind eye to genocide. It is high time that the world recognised it as such: genocide. That is what is happening in Israel and Palestine. Innocent lives are being wiped out, families are being ripped apart and communities aare being decimated before our very eyes, never to return. The concern and the anguish that our Muslim and Jewish communities here in the UK are experiencing must be intolerable, watching the lives and the potential of their countrymen and women being destroyed by the senseless and horrific violence being meted out upon them. Their anguish is our anguish, their struggle is our struggle, and their fight for justice and peace is our fight for justice and peace.

The world is watching. We need an immediate ceasefire now. The SNP motion gives the House the opportunity to tell the world what kind of people we are; what kind of world we wish to live in; what kind of Parliament is this. I urge all those who believe in the inherent dignity and worth of every human life to stand with me, stand with us, and support our motion by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza today.

16:30

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

What I have said in private scores of times before today I will now say in public. I want, my constituents want and Gaza needs an immediate ceasefire. Teisen. Tinghuo. Waqf’iitlaq alnaar. Hafsakat-esh. Jang bandi. No matter what language we say it in, a ceasefire is what we need. In keeping with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), it is not about a sustainable ceasefire or a long-lasting ceasefire—which is basically just sustainable in other words—or a kind of ceasefire, in hope of a ceasefire. With 28,000 people now dead in Gaza—11,500 of them children—playing around with words is just playing around with people’s lives.

Israel has gone too far. It has not just gone too far today; it has already gone too far for months. I am concerned about Rafah, because we have heard time and again about innocent people’s lives in Gaza and how they would not be hurt, but we have reached that figure of 30,000. How can we have any trust and belief that the 1.5 million people now in Rafah will be left untouched?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Too often in this House we reflect on what happened in Rwanda and Srebrenica, and on how we did not take action. He is correct that if we do not take action now to demand a ceasefire, when will we do it? The House has an opportunity today. For goodness’ sake, let us come together and show that we will stand up to stop the conflict, deliver peace and get to the two-state solution.

[Mark Logan]

I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. Members on my side of the House have talked about the motion being merely symbolic or virtue signalling, but at the end of the day we are MPs not to fix potholes or to follow up on whether a hedge is growing into next-door’s garden; we are here to protect lives. We have the opportunity today to call for an immediate ceasefire. Yes, that may just be signalling to an extent, but that signal must be given today to Israel, one of our close allies in the region. Twenty years back, with the United States in Iraq, we thought we were being the good friend by going along with them. No. The better friend says, “No, this must stop now; this must stop today.” A ceasefire must happen now.

No longer in good conscience can I continue to back in public the line that Government Members have taken, regrettably. Even from a geostrategic perspective, I do not see what favours that does for Israel in the long term. Israel has had a difficult time in the region that it is sat in, but this will not create any more friends for Israel. I come from Northern Ireland—I see the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), a villager from the same neck of the woods as me—where, in the last 30 to 40 years, 3,500 people died in the troubles, and I know the trauma that has caused. But in five months, 30,000 people have died—how will people ever get over that? In our experience, Hamas are bad people, and they have to be called out. The people behind them have to be obliterated. We do not want to work with Hamas.

The SNP motion could have gone further to call out Hamas. We in Northern Ireland have dealt with those troubles, when very bad people hid behind political leadership. The ceasefire must happen. That is also in the interests of Israel in the long term. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to step up and take a leadership position with other middle powers, not wait for the next United States election.

In my own good conscience, I cannot acquiesce to the Government’s position on Gaza anymore, and neither can the people of Bolton. Although you sit diagonal to me today, you are not diametrically opposed to me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Alan Brown.

16:35

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This call for an immediate ceasefire is about limiting the horrific slaughter to the 30,000 civilians already killed, and stopping more civilians from being killed by bombs and bullets, starving to death or dying from disease. Currently, one in six children in the north Gaza under the age of two are suffering from malnutrition, and 90% of children across Gaza under the age of five are already affected by one or more infectious diseases. We know that aid is available, but it is blocked by Israel, which breaches the interim ICJ ruling. If denial of electricity, food, water and medicine is not collective punishment, what is it? It needs to be called out for what it is, and Labour and the Tories need to look at that. The 2 million displaced citizens by the instruction of the occupying power breaches international law by violating article 49 of the Geneva convention. Where is the condemnation from the Government and Labour of the displacement of civilians?

On reprisals, the Hamas attacks were brutal, but 25 innocent Palestinian civilian deaths for every Israeli death is not justice. The ICJ will make a judgment on genocide, but the Israeli ambassador stated:

“every school, every mosque, every second house has access to tunnels”.

She asked Iain Dale live on air in the UK if there was any solution other than destroying every building in Gaza—she is justifying genocide in terms of physical destruction, which is a breach of article 2 of the convention on genocide. Where is the condemnation of those comments by the Israeli ambassador to the UK? There is a deathly silence.

Rightly, when debating the merits of ceasefire, the issue of the release of hostages comes up. It is quite clear that a ceasefire is required if there is to be any chance of them being released safely. It is obvious that unless there is a ceasefire, the hostages are also at risk of death from disease and starvation, or even being killed by the IDF, who unfortunately have already killed some of their own brethren. Perhaps it is time to listen to the brave families of the hostages, who have protested against Netanyahu and called for a different approach. It is time to listen to organisations such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians, or the 25 humanitarian organisations demanding an immediate ceasefire. It is horrific to hear that humanitarian aid workers are dying right now before us. It really is time for a ceasefire, and then to look at building a two-state solution and helping the survivors, who will be traumatised for life.

16:37

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I believe that everyone in this House wants to see peace in the middle east. We all want the killing to stop. I was not sure that I would be able to speak today, because I got a green card from a constituent who is in his late 80s who came up to Parliament. I thought it was my duty to speak to him, because he is so concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people and what is happening in Gaza. When I was on doorsteps over the recess, I spoke a constituent who is married to a Palestinian man. He came to the door and told me that he had lost 20 members of his family in Gaza.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the SNP Opposition day motion, but I do not think that we can forget the events of 7 October. We cannot forget that it was a shocking and barbaric attack by a terrorist organisation—I believe that we are united on that point. More than 1,400 people were murdered, one by one. More than 3,500 were wounded, and almost 200 were taken hostage. Innocent women were raped, their bodies desecrated and even booby-trapped to kill others when they found them. In the wake of that heinous attack, Israel had not only the right but the duty to protect its citizens and oppose the grave threat presented by Hamas, which has not gone away.

However—I think this is very important—there is a night-and-day distinction between Hamas terrorists and innocent Palestinian civilians who are facing a devastating and growing humanitarian crisis every day. That is why it is incumbent on Israel to do all that it can to minimise civilian casualties by ensuring that its campaign targets Hamas leaders and operatives as much as possible.

Make no mistake: all of us in this place want to see a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire. The reason I cannot support the Opposition motion is that it completely ignores the fact that Hamas is still holding more than 100 innocent Israelis captive in Gaza. No nation can be expected to abandon its own citizens to captivity, and in the Opposition motion the ceasefire is not seen as contingent on the release of those hostages. It is the release of hostages that is the key to sustainable peace, and that is why I support the Government’s amendment. I think it is moderate, and I think it recognises the balancing of interests in a very difficult region.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are no further speakers on the Government side, so if Members can say what they need to say in fewer than three minutes, they will be helping their colleagues.

16:41

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

I will endeavour to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think we all abhor the deaths by Hamas on 7 October, as we all should, particularly those of Israeli peace activists. I can hazard a guess at what they would have wanted, and it is certainly not what has unfolded. The deaths on 7 October, or on 6 October, or at whatever time before or since, are all very sad and lamentable.

In August 2023, the United Nations noted that 172 people had been killed by Israeli forces on the west bank alone—not in Gaza, but on the west bank. Why did the UN report that figure in August? Because it had passed the grisly milestone of 170 killed on the west bank in the entirety of 2022. It is sad that this has been going on for so long—too long. The killing by Israel of 25 times as many people as were killed by Hamas on 7 October is another grisly and sad fact, especially as the majority of the 30,000 dead are children and women.

There can be no room for hate, and we all condemn antisemitism for fear of where it can lead and has led in the past, but we see daily on our televisions where anti-Palestinianism has led: it has led to genocide. The Labour amendment supports efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire, not a call for a ceasefire but efforts to achieve it. The Tory amendment talks of

“moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire”.

The main motion talks of a ceasefire, meaning that this has to stop. What is or is not in the motion is beside the point; it is not a history motion, but a ceasefire motion to stop the killing of people.

If I were to be critical of the SNP—and I am not in the SNP—I would say just one thing to its Members. Efforts to establish any sort of relationship with the Labour leader have not worked well, and they do not bode well for the time after any election when they hope to secure a referendum. However, that is beside the point.

The House cannot impose a ceasefire, but it can be an important domino towards that ceasefire. It can be good for the immediate saving of lives, and it can mean a safer future for Israel itself in the long term. The alternative to a ceasefire is to continue fire, and that will mean the deaths of hundreds and thousands and perhaps tens of thousands more people. No more, Mr Deputy Speaker, no more.

16:43

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The SNP motion today raises the important point that we must all be calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, specifically to prevent the impending humanitarian catastrophe in Rafah, which cannot be allowed to continue. However, I cannot vote for the SNP motion without the amendment tabled by my party. Labour’s amendment provides an opportunity for the whole House to speak with one voice and call for a ceasefire that is sustainable; one that will last and put an end to the starvation, suffering, injury and death that has gone on for far too long.

That is why we cannot call for a ceasefire without an amendment that understands that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting while Hamas continue with violence and holding hostages. We cannot have a meaningful and enduring ceasefire if we do not recognise that it must, by definition, be two-sided. All Palestinian civilians in Gaza must be protected. Hamas must be disarmed and have no role in the future governance of Gaza. All hostages must be freed and returned to their families. The international community must act to instigate a Marshall plan for rebuilding Gaza and the innocent lives of all those touched by this conflict. Without those conditions, I fear any ceasefire would be unsustainable and would simply destabilise the environment further, causing more suffering.

With Labour’s amendment, the House has an opportunity to come together alongside our colleagues in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and call for an end to this horrific period of violence. A ceasefire must stand as the start of a new chapter. There must be genuine progress towards a negotiated two state-solution. The international community must play its role in creating a pathway towards the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian state, recognised as such—one that can thrive in peace side by side with Israel, within secure and recognised borders, with Hamas’s operations demilitarised and their weapons decommissioned beyond use. Colleagues from across this House should join our call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire with a clear plan for how that can be achieved, and vote for our amendment tonight.

16:46

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The situation in Gaza is beyond horrific. Around 1.5 million people have been squeezed into the city of Rafah, where they fled after the Israeli Government told them it was a safe zone. They fled believing they were escaping the horrors of bombing, but that is not the case.

We have all seen the videos and heard the stories of the horrors coming out of Gaza. We have seen the stories of kids being forced to have their limbs amputated without anaesthetic. We have seen the stories of women being forced to use scraps of cloth from tents as sanitary products. We have seen the stories of journalists killed while trying to document the Israeli Government’s atrocities so that the world can see. Indeed, just recently, we heard the tragic story of six-year-old Hind Rajab. Because of a conflict that was not of her making, and because of this Government and this place’s unwillingness to take meaningful and effective action, Hind has become yet another casualty of the Israeli Government’s vendetta in Gaza—a six-year-old casualty. Let history remember them. Let history remember what we do here tonight.

It is a simple fact that the best way—the only way—to guarantee not only the safety of the Palestinian population in Gaza, but the release of all remaining hostages is through an immediate ceasefire. It is not through continuously bombing a civilian population or continuously moving the people of Gaza from one area to another, and it is certainly not by assaulting the last remaining safe zone in Gaza. It is time for us all to show moral courage and recognise that the only way to bring an end to the suffering is by voting for an immediate ceasefire.

We saw injured Palestinians forced to travel south on foot as there were no ambulances available, and thought: surely now they have to back a ceasefire. We saw a pregnant woman burned to death, and thought: surely now they have to back a ceasefire. We saw hospitals and safe routes bombed, and thought: surely now they have to back a ceasefire. We saw premature babies dying in incubators, and thought: surely now they have to back a ceasefire. We saw white phosphorus falling from the sky, and thought: surely now they have to back a ceasefire. Now we are seeing a death toll of almost 30,000 civilians, most of whom are women and children. Surely now, tonight, they all have to back a ceasefire.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

We need to recognise the gendered face of conflict, as the hon. Member has said. Hamas have weaponised sexual violence against female civilians in Israel, and UN experts warned on Monday that the IDF may have killed Palestinian women and girls who were holding white flags. Does the hon. Member agree that we need an immediate bilateral ceasefire?

[Amy Callaghan]

I agree with the hon. Member that we absolutely need a ceasefire and that we need a ceasefire now, so I hope she joins me in voting for the SNP motion this evening.

People across these isles, including many of my constituents in East Dunbartonshire, demand through marches, rallies, petitions and emails that the UK Government back a ceasefire. We must end the suffering. We must stop this humanitarian tragedy. We must have a ceasefire now.

16:49

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Some 23% of my casework since October has been on the humanitarian disaster in Israel and Gaza. The vast majority of my constituents seek a ceasefire, and to see the death and destruction of communities, and the intolerable and unimaginable misery of innocent civilians, brought to an end. Angus constituents also highlight Israel’s right to defend itself and the plight of the people who were slaughtered by the murderous criminal terrorists who are the members of Hamas in their appalling attacks on 7 October. I have unity with all my constituents in their varying ambitions, because the situation in Gaza is a disaster for everybody, no one more so than the innocent civilians within Gaza itself, but also for the people of Israel. I refuse to believe that we have some sort of moral superiority in this country when we call for a ceasefire. I also believe that there are people—good people—in Israel who are desperately sad at what is happening to innocent people in Gaza. That is why we need to give voice to them, and their ambitions, in this Parliament and in this state.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Has the hon. Gentleman, like me, been struck—I am sure he has—by the extraordinary number of decent ordinary constituents, who normally would not get in touch with their MP, getting in touch on this particular issue?

[Dave Doogan]

Yes, I have. That is why it is a great sadness that it has taken so long for this Parliament to have such an in-depth debate on this global issue of utter catastrophe. I am very pleased that my SNP colleagues have tabled this Opposition Day motion, which is important in allowing Members on both sides of the House to give voice to their constituents’ anguish over what is an utter disaster zone: 30,000 civilians dead; a stain on all our consciences. Civilians who played no part in the atrocities of 7 October—

[Dr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No, I will make progress. Too many Members need an in.

We are approaching five months of intolerable incarceration for those who were taken hostage on 7 October. Trying to extract the remains of your family from the rubble does not bear contemplation. As the state of Israel, you know you are in difficult territory when the United States of America tells you that you have gone over the top. The semantics in this Chamber are much to be regretted: a debate on the type of ceasefire is an indulgence that people who are not living in fear for their lives can allow themselves. A ceasefire is a self-explanatory, simple term, which the people of Gaza would very much like us to get to grips with and move in one motion or one amendment, so that the people of the United Kingdom can have their voice heard on this issue.

One troubling issue is the false equivalence that pervades the debate. The 30,000 civilian deaths in Gaza do not atone for the tragedy that befell Israeli civilians. The IDF represent the democratically elected Government of the state of Israel and the people of Israel. Hamas do not represent the people of Gaza. The equivalence is completely false. What is most important is that humanity must prevail, whatever the detail. That is why I will be supporting the SNP motion.

16:54

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We have heard some compelling speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and many other Members gave the perspective of people on the ground living in that hell that is Gaza right now. We should listen carefully to their incredibly powerful contributions.

I am proud to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is important to focus on what it says. The amendment says that we oppose the ground offensive in Rafah, which “risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences”. It would put us in line with

“Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.”

The amendment calls for

“rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief”

for the people of Gaza,

“demands an end to the settlement expansion and violence”

and

“urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures”.

The amendment also demands a two-state solution, to which the people of Palestine are entitled, and says that Palestinian statehood is

“not in the gift of any neighbour.”

I challenged the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to tell us what is wrong with the amendment. We have heard many speeches from Conservative Members, and not a single one has outlined what they oppose in the amendment. Anybody who says that they are in favour of an immediate ceasefire is compelled to support the amendment or explain why they do not. It is not enough simply to say that they are supporting the Government motion, because that is very different. The Government motion calls for a pause, not a ceasefire. This is not semantics. A pause means that the fighting is interrupted but then continues. A ceasefire continues to hold until someone breaks it, which is very different.

The Government motion does not oppose the action in Rafah or speak about the need for a Palestinian state. The Government motion does not bring us in line with our colleagues in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and it does not urge Israel to comply with the ICJ verdict. I am afraid that people who vote for the Government motion but do not vote for the Labour amendment are voting against all those things, and it is really important that that message is heard.

I am very pleased to hear that the SNP will support the Labour amendment. The party is right to do so, and I hope that all those—from both sides of the House—who have argued powerfully in this debate for an immediate ceasefire will support the Labour amendment and see this House united behind those words.

16:57

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

This is a really important day for all of us in this House. Our constituents have written to us in droves, asking us to speak out for a humanitarian end to the crisis. I want to reflect on some of the speeches we have heard from right across the House, particularly that of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). He said, “If not now, when?” That is a question we should all be asking ourselves.

As a Chamber, we are very good when we reflect on the horrors of genocide, when we think about what happened in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur, and we ask ourselves why we did not stop the killing in those situations. Yet here we are again. Twenty-nine thousand people—women and children—have been murdered. Why? We are members of the UN Security Council and in a position of leadership, and we should be standing up today. Yes, we extend a hand of friendship to our allies in Israel, but we see that the only way we can resolve this is if we have an end to the fighting now. We recognise everything we have said about the two-state solution over many decades, and we now have to push on.

We are politicians and diplomats, and we are meant to improve people’s lives. We have come together, thankfully, to support our friends in Ukraine. The House has come together to say that Putin must be defeated, but we need to recognise that we cannot have any more of the needless slaughter taking place in Gaza. Yes, we want to see Israelis being able to live in peace and security. Yes, of course we want the removal of Hamas—that vile terrorist organisation—but for goodness’ sake, today is the day that we must come together. Let us stand united. Let us say, “No more should innocent civilians lose their lives in Gaza.” Let us make sure that today is one that this House can be proud of.

16:59

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

When the House last voted on a ceasefire in November, 11,320 Palestinians had been killed, including 4,650 children. When the ICJ’s plausible genocide ruling made clear the right of Palestinians to be protected from genocide, the death toll in Gaza had surpassed 26,000. I find myself asking again—just as I asked when 10,000 were killed and when 20,000 were killed—now that over 29,000 men, women and children have been killed, whether this Government believe that there should be any limit at all to the number of civilians slaughtered. People all over the UK are struggling to grapple with the fact that the Government seem not to understand that starving civilians, destroying schools and hospitals, and targeting refugee camps can never be viewed as part of a legitimate military campaign. We cannot allow benchmarks of humanity to be eroded in the way that we are seeing in Gaza. This cannot be the future.

I shall keep my remarks brief, but I want to talk about the chilling, shocking disregard for Palestinian life and the dehumanisation and racism that we have witnessed across much of the mainstream UK political establishment. Any expression of Palestinian identity has all too often been deemed unacceptable over the recent period, and long before. I am shocked by this, Members on all sides of the House are shocked by this, the general public are shocked by this and countries all over the world are shocked by this, yet the US continues to use its power, along with the UK, to ensure that this nightmare continues. This is utterly shocking and it will never, ever be forgotten.

Why are Palestinians being treated differently and denied any sense of humanity? Why are Palestinian lives and dignity not being protected? I will be voting for a ceasefire again tonight and I will continue to do so until the horrors of what is happening stop. I urge others to do the same, because human rights are inalienable, because all lives matter—Israeli and Palestinian—and because the weight of duty and history is on our shoulders.

17:02

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Today my boys celebrate their 18th birthday, so for me this is a special moment, in that I hope we will come to a decision that will make the world that they step into as adults a better place. I would have hoped that one of the most serious humanitarian crises in living memory would have brought consensus instead of competition. We are supposed to be voting to bring peace to a deeply polarised conflict, but that will not be achieved by political factionalism in this place.

Despite accusations of tribalism in the Scottish independence movement, Alba intends, as we have often done before, to support the SNP motion today. My party’s position was set out by my party leader Alex Salmond on 9 October:

“There has been a long and sorry catalogue of atrocities throughout the history of this conflict. Terrorist action against civilians can never be justified and neither can military reprisals which lead to killing and maiming of children. Both sides should be told by the international community to now choose the path of de-escalation and ceasefire. There can be no lasting settlement which ignores long-standing United Nations resolutions and there is no path to peace which can be initiated by violence against civilians.”

He was right, as has been evidenced by the subsequent violence, death and destruction. This serves no one, and an end to bloodshed should be the only guiding principle we observe.

At the start of the current conflict, many of us met a young Israeli man who had lost both of his peace-campaigning parents in the 7 October attack. Despite his loss, his appeal was for de-escalation, peace and the amplification of moderate voices in Israel. He described the anger in his country towards the current Israeli Government. We have also heard from Palestinian representatives who have lost every generation of their family in the ensuing IDF attacks. Those families had followed the instruction from Israel to move to the south of Gaza but they were wiped out anyway. We have heard testimony from Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, which are witnesses to alleged war crimes. The ICJ has found it plausible that Israel’s actions may amount to genocide. The Jewish Voice for Peace rabbinical council has condemned the continuing violence against Palestinians and those countries that support and enable it.

If this House cannot co-operate, and if it calls those of us who seek peace naive on a matter of such humanitarian significance, how can we expect others who are so invested in this conflict to lay down their arms and talk?

17:05

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Members across the Chamber have set out, in moving terms, the context and the consequences of the last few months in Gaza, so I will not try to capture it.

I worked for relief and development agencies for 10 years before being elected to this place, and I never encountered a humanitarian context as hellish as the people of Gaza are experiencing. Our constituents are watching in desperation and distress, and they feel powerless to the point of complicity. That is not the main issue, but it has consequences for their faith in politics and international law, and I want to give voice to the feelings of dread that people feel when the images they have seen on their screens become permanently etched in their mind.

I feel the same way. I look at my sweet, smiling, innocent six-year-old daughter, and I see a six-year-old trapped in a car for days, with nobody listening to her cries, surrounded by the bodies of all the people she loves. Those stories will never leave people.

Worse, people who express basic human emotion and solidarity with people who face the unimaginable are being met with slurs and distortions. They are smeared as being pro-Hamas and slurred as being antisemitic, as we heard in this Chamber just a few moments ago. Like most of my constituents, I stand in full solidarity with the victims of the wicked Hamas attacks of 7 October. Those vile, indefensible attacks were carried out by a cynical organisation that has not allowed the people of Gaza to vote for a generation, but the attacks do not justify the horrors that have followed.

I defend Israel’s right to exist. I stand in solidarity with Jewish people here and around the world, including those standing against the far-right Netanyahu Government and their excesses throughout the last summer. Netanyahu is a man who, in word and deed, has repudiated the two- state solution that many of us in this Chamber advocate, and that is the only possible outcome that does not condemn the region to years of this nightmare.

Comparisons between the middle east and Northern Ireland are shallow, and I avoid making them. The one lesson that can be learned is that the first step is to stop the killing. Those who ask for a permanent ceasefire are setting an impossibly high bar. Even when the paramilitaries were dragged to that point in Northern Ireland, it took a decade for their ceasefires to be made permanent.

We need to stop the bombs and the rockets, we need to release the hostages, we need to release the aid, and then we need to work every day to make it sustainable. Only politics can do that. There is no military solution here, and there never was. I do not care which amendment is passed tonight and I do not care about the form of words, so long as this House sends a clear message calling for international momentum towards an end to this slaughter and a pathway to a just and lasting settlement. Israel has failed to reach its objectives. If we do not support a ceasefire now, when will we?

17:08

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Obviously, Israel is entitled to defend itself. It is unquestionable that Hamas’s actions were totally reprehensible, but we are long past the point at which Israeli action was legitimate. It has not been a matter of days or weeks; it is now months. Israel has gone beyond what international law views as acceptable.

What Israel is now doing is not a natural consequence of what Hamas did, which was evil and wicked—the retention of prisoners and the holding of hostages remain so. What is now happening is not a consequence; it is deliberate. Israel is acting to the plan of Netanyahu and others to make Gaza unliveable, which is why we have to support a ceasefire and call out Israel’s actions. Israel is not simply defending its own. It is not simply looking for hostages in tunnels; it is crushing the life out of Gaza so that it will be unliveable, not for weeks or months but for years, if not forever. It is Israel’s intention to flatten Gaza, which is why we have to require not just an immediate ceasefire but, ultimately, genuine peace.

That comes back to the role of Britain, which has been supine towards Israel and towards the US. The tragedy now is that it is moving from being supine, in failing to vote at the UN, to being complicit. We know that RAF Akrotiri is not simply being used by the RAF to fly into Israel; we have handed it over to the US so that it can move things into Israel. Of course, when we ask the UK Government what America is moving from Cyprus into Israel, they cannot answer. When we ask the Americans, they say, “We can’t tell you, because it is a British base.” This is a deliberate distortion, in order to allow Israel to be supplied through the UK, acting in complicity with the USA. We also know that intelligence is being used and carried out by Britain, and that it is being shared with others. We are told it relates to the hostages, but what else do we know? We are simply not told. We know that the British Army is training the IDF and that the British military machine is seeing companies making huge profits.

The time has come for an immediate ceasefire, but the time has also come for the UK to stop being complicit with the United States, to stop being supine to Israel and to stand up for humanity. The developing world is speaking out and it is about time the UK stood with it.

17:11

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Everyone here knows that what is unfolding in Rafah, in a refugee camp the size of Cardiff, but with treble the number of people crammed within its boundaries, is an irrevocable disaster. Yet in the light of that evidence, the Government’s refusal to support calls for a ceasefire is shameful. That is important, as it is doing reputational damage to the UK’s interests at home and abroad.

While dismissing a ceasefire, the Government claim to be working to prevent the loss of civilian life in Gaza. But where is the action and the urgency? What could the Government be doing to make a difference? Where are the export bans of arms to Israel, given the clear evidence of their use against civilians? Where is the diplomatic pressure on the Israeli Government to comply with the ICJ ruling? Where are the UK efforts to restore funding to the UN in Palestine, given the dire humanitarian situation there? Where, even, is the provision of treatment for injured Palestinian children in UK specialist hospitals? Those are all things we could do tomorrow.

Emily Fares of Llwyngwril, who is my constituent and British citizen, is desperately seeking support via crowdfunding to bring over family members from Gaza. She told me this morning:

“My father-in-law was messaging me most of the night as Al Mawasi came under intense fire. On loudspeakers Israeli forces were asking displaced women and children to stay in their tents, and for men to surrender themselves. We did not hear until this morning that his brother and sister and children survived. This is meant to be a designated safe zone. They are living in terror.”

The Government must be aware that the inconsistency with which Palestinians seeking to escape a warzone are being treated is set to be the subject of a legal challenge. My constituent has seen the support provided by the UK Government to Ukrainian refugees for two years. Both she and I can conclude only that the lack of similar support to refugees first from Afghanistan and now from Palestine must now be morally and legally questioned. Will the Minister justify to Emily why there is no such scheme for people trapped in Gaza?

We know that only a diplomatic means can solve this crisis, which has brought so many new horrors since 7 October—one where the fighting stops, where Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners are released and where, finally, there is a route to a sustainable two-state solution. The longer we allow death and violence to continue, the more the rising reactionary forces of antisemitism and Islamophobia will continue to spread through all our communities.

15:59

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I have listened intently to those Members who are supporting the Government amendment, and they are asking us to ignore two key facts. They are asking us to ignore the International Criminal Court investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel, and they are asking us to ignore the order from the International Court of Justice, which urges the UK Government to uphold their own legal obligations to prevent Israel from committing genocide.

Difficult though it may seem for some, the act of voting today for an immediate ceasefire is the simplest of actions required of Members of this House. The harder task is finding an effective means of applying pressure to do so. We could start with halting the provision of arms to Israel. The UK Government already have the means to do so through articles 6 and 7 of the arms trade treaty, which they have signed and which ban sales where there is a concern that arms may be used to breach international law.

A YouGov poll in December showed that 71% of the UK public believe that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, with only 12% against. The military escalation since then, and the impending threat to Rafah, have only strengthened those views. As Oxfam pointed out, more than 100 countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, support an immediate ceasefire. These numbers will grow and we may increasingly find ourselves on the wrong side of history and humanity.

Both the international community and our own individual constituents are aware of what is continuing to happen. Israel has intensified the airstrikes on Rafah ahead of its threatened ground offensive. Let us remember that Rafah has 1.5 million people, including half a million children, all shielding in 20% of the Gaza Strip, without access to adequate shelter, water, food, and medical facilities. That needs to stop.

I am blessed to represent a diverse constituency. Like so many others, I have had local organisations write to me. I wish to end with the words from the Crookston Community Group, which is represented by people of all faiths and of none.

“In the midst of conflict and turmoil, the pursuit of peace becomes more crucial than ever. A ceasefire between Palestinians and Israelis is not just a regional issue; it is a call for humanity to come together and prioritise dialogue over violence. By embracing peace, we can pave the way for a brighter future for all mankind.”

I ask all Members to support the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. After Richard Foord, there will be only Labour Members left to speak. If they can lose a couple of paragraphs from their speeches, they will be really helping their colleagues.

17:17

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I will spend my three minutes drawing on some lessons from counter-insurgency campaigns in years gone by and then I want to quote from one of my constituents.

When we talk about being a friend of Israel, we should think about what a friend is. To my mind, being a friend involves being listened to. At present, I see no evidence that the British Government are being listened to by Israel. This was particularly evident when the Foreign Secretary said that the UK might recognise a Palestinian state. It was a suggestion that has been utterly rebuffed by Benjamin Netanyahu. The insurgents—Hamas terrorists if you prefer—sought on 7 October to provoke an excessive reaction. Fifteen years ago, counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen wrote:

“If insurgents can provoke an excessive government reaction against a population, this can become a very powerful motivator for retributive action.”

On this basis, the terrorists who cheered those atrocities on 7 October—the film of them is terrible disgusting and appalling—are still celebrating, because another generation will mourn dead parents and dead children and be attracted magnetically to Islamism, to the very Islamist ideology that Israel is trying to expunge by destroying Hamas.

A more successful counter-insurgency campaign would have sought to use distinction to distinguish the terrorists from the innocents—to separate the insurgent from their support. A more successful counter-insurgency campaign would have used proportionality—not parity of lives lost, but a response that is proportionate to a limited military objective. A more successful counter-insurgency campaign would have involved long-term post-insurgency planning of the sort the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said earlier should have happened in advance of Israel sending in tanks.

I am proud to represent Rupert Joy, a former senior British ambassador who served in several countries in the middle east and north Africa. He wrote to me:

“David Cameron’s statement that Britain could formally recognise a Palestinian state—before the end of negotiations—is an important step. It could serve to right historical wrongs, and give Palestinians hope for the future.

But I remain deeply concerned that the UK Government’s response to Israel’s indiscriminate actions in Gaza and the rhetoric is not only ineffectual and morally indefensible but hugely damaging to the UK’s current global standing and international interests”.

I will vote this evening in favour of the motions or amendments that call for an immediate ceasefire, because I am reminded of Tacitus, who wrote in “Agricola”:

“They create a desert and call it peace.”

17:20

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

In January, I visited Israel and saw for myself the aftermath of Hamas’s attacks last October. In the kibbutz Kfar Aza, I walked the burned-out streets and saw the homes, razed to the ground. This was not the scene of a battle, but of a well-planned and ruthlessly executed massacre: a pogrom. Surprised as they slept in their beds, the residents had no chance to defend themselves. More than 60 people were murdered, 20 were taken hostage, and an unknown number of women were subjected to horrific acts of rape, torture and mutilation. Such scenes were repeated throughout the border communities of southern Israel, and at the Nova music festival, where more than 360 young people were murdered. In Tel Aviv, I visited the exhibition that tells the story of the festival and the appalling events that unfolded there. Our guide, a survivor who had helped to organise the festival, told us that she had lost so many friends in those few bloody hours that she had to choose which of their funerals to attend.

We urgently need an end to the fighting, and a permanent and sustainable ceasefire in Gaza, but that requires the perpetrators of the 7 October attacks to be disarmed, and to have no part in the future governance of Gaza, so that they can never again—as they have repeatedly pledged to—repeat the horrific crimes that they committed against Israeli men, women and children nearly 140 days ago. It also requires Hamas to immediately release the more than 130 hostages that they continue to hold—hostages who we know Hamas have beaten, tortured and raped. Among the hostages is the British citizen Nadav Popplewell, whose sister Ayelet Svatitzky I met in Israel. Ayelet’s 79-year-old mother, Channah, was also seized at the kibbutz Nirim, and her brother Roi was shot and killed behind his home at the kibbutz.

I also want to mention events closer to home. Within hours of the Hamas attacks, anti-Israel protesters massed outside the Israeli embassy in London, and they have continued to demonstrate in our towns and cities ever since. Some have chanted antisemitic slogans and carried racist signs. Others have glorified Hamas’s butchery, and many more appear not to have noticed, or not to have been concerned, by what was occurring around them. This Manichean view of the conflict, which seeks to cast one side as victim and the other as villain, will do nothing to promote or further a desperately needed, genuine peace process that fulfils the Israelis’ right to security and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those in this House who take a different view on Israel’s actions in Gaza. We all feel distraught at the suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza. We all know that there must be a massive and immediate increase in humanitarian aid. We all fear the impact of a significant Israeli military operation in Rafah; however, the SNP motion is one-sided, and does not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Sam Tarry.

17:23

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Like so many in Ilford, I have watched with horror the deaths of so many innocent civilians in Israel and Gaza. I have received literally tens of thousands of emails, letters and phone calls from constituents of all backgrounds, faiths and political persuasions, and from the mosques, temples and churches, including the churches in Ilford that have raised money for Gazan hospitals for over 40 years. They are outraged by the atrocities that they have been witnessing, livestreamed for the past four months, and they will no doubt watch how all of us vote in this Chamber today.

Israel of course has a right to defend itself, and no one here is denying the horror of the 7 October attacks, which saw the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust. We must be clear, though, that the subsequent actions of the IDF in the past five months have gone far beyond self-defence. The scale of the carnage of the ground is unimaginable. The humanitarian system has collapsed. Thousands of civilian men, women and children are dying in their droves, with refugee camps, religious buildings, schools and UN facilities targeted and levelled on a daily basis.

At the same time as those atrocities, we have heard repeated chilling remarks from top Israeli Government Ministers appearing to condone and encourage those actions. The Minister for Agriculture called the war “the Gaza Nakba”, the Minister for Heritage raised the idea of dropping an atomic bomb to flatten Gaza, the Minister of National Security stated that encouraging emigration from Gaza is a necessity, the Defence Minister said that they are fighting “human animals”, and the Israeli Prime Minister himself compared Gaza to Amalek, referencing a Bible passage that says:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

I note that a motion was proposed in the Knesset yesterday saying that it would never, ever support a two-state solution.

Those are not cherry-picked comments. They are statements from top Israeli Government Ministers. That rhetoric was a key component of the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s claims of genocide in Gaza are plausible. The place of Gazans, we were told, would be safe if they fled to Rafah. That is why, as we listen to that language, we dread the devastation that is about to be unleashed, and why only an immediate and permanent ceasefire would halt that violence.

We must work with neighbouring Arab nations to facilitate the release of the hostages, and to allow for the restoration of essential services and for international humanitarian assistance to reach those in need. We must not stop at a ceasefire. The international community must use this moment to facilitate a dialogue that builds a genuine and lasting peace. We must put our faith in the ordinary people of Palestine and Israel for a peaceful solution.

17:26

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Every member of this House will have been horrified by the bloodshed, suffering and horrors witnessed on our TV screens night after night. Many of us will never look at the world in the same way again. The question that we have to ask ourselves today is: what we are going to do about it? How do we use our influence as a nation, as a member of the UN Security Council, and as a country with huge diplomatic weight, to help put an end to the nightmare that we are witnessing?

In late October, I tabled a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire, which was subsequently signed by 100 MPs. At that time, around 5,000 people in Gaza and Israel had lost their lives. When this House first voted on a ceasefire in mid-November, around 11,000 Palestinians had been killed. Had Parliament done the right thing then, it could have been part of a global push for action that saved lives, but this House failed. Let it not fail again today.

Now 29,000 Palestinians have been killed, two thirds of whom were women and children, so the priority for us all must be to do everything in our power to help stop the loss of any more civilian life, and that means backing an immediate ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General, the vast majority of Governments, and some of the world’s most respected human rights bodies, including Oxfam and Amnesty International, back an immediate ceasefire. And let us be totally clear: so do three quarters of the British public. It is shameful that our Government have repeatedly refused to support one.

As the UN Secretary-General said in October, those heinous attacks—crimes that we all condemn—by Hamas in October

“do not justify responding with collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

An immediate ceasefire would save civilian life, allow the aid needed to enter Gaza, and help to ensure the safe release of the Israeli hostages. It could be the catalyst for the peace process that we need and for a way of meeting the International Criminal Court rulings on the genocide convention.

The alternative is thousands more deaths, ever deeper human suffering, more war crimes and the risk of a wider regional war, so it falls to every one of us today to send a signal to our Government to do the right thing; to demand that they use every diplomatic channel to push, if possible, for an immediate ceasefire as the key way to help bring an end to this crisis. Tonight, I will vote for an immediate ceasefire. Every other MP should do the same. Enough is enough

17:28

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has on several occasions stood before this House and professed his support for a two-state solution to the crisis in the middle east. On that, I agree with him wholeheartedly. A viable and sovereign Palestine co-existing with a safe and secure Israel is the only path towards peace that remains open. Indeed, when I put that very question to the Prime Minister in October, during a statement to the House, he responded that he would recognise Palestine as a state when the time is right. If the time is not right now, when is it going to be?

It is precisely for that reason that I will vote to support an immediate ceasefire today. The violence in Gaza has now left over 30,000 dead, with millions displaced. It is therefore clear that if the violence continues, the prospect of a two-state solution diminishes, along with any hope of a lasting and just peace for the region. That is why I believe any commitment to a two-state solution must be more than words; it must be matched by actions and deeds. The best action towards that goal would be for the UK to work towards an immediate ceasefire, the release of any remaining hostages, and the recognition of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

The vast majority of British people want a ceasefire. The path to peace will be a political solution: violence and military action will not achieve peace. The members of the United Nations Security Council want a ceasefire, yet the USA has vetoed it twice, with the UK abstaining on 8 December and again yesterday. I say to this Government that they should get off the fence and be on the right side of history. That said, while a ceasefire is clearly a necessary condition for peace, it is not sufficient. The recent ICJ ruling states that it is “plausible” that acts that could amount to genocide are being committed in Gaza against the people of Palestine. The British Government must therefore end the sale of arms to Israel—weapons that are being used to kill innocent Palestinians.

Finally, in making these demands I am not speaking for myself. Over 10,000 constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green have recently written to me calling for a ceasefire, for the recognition of Palestinian statehood, and for the ending of the arms trade to Israel. Never have I witnessed such passionate advocacy on any issue by the people of Birmingham, Hall Green, and I am proud to stand in the Chamber today to be their voice and their vote in this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups are expected at 5.50 pm, and the Division is expected from 6.10 pm. Contributions a lot shorter than three minutes will help—please look towards two minutes.

17:32

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

For 137 days, tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed. Entire families have been wiped out by intense bombing that has spared no one. Israeli forces have opened fire on unarmed civilians in hospitals, in queues for aid lorries and in fishing boats. They have killed children, such as six-year-old Hind Rajab—her desperate call to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, trapped in a car alongside the bodies of her dead family members, should haunt us all. The UN has expressed serious concern about the detention of women and girls, with credible reports of degrading treatment and sexual violence by Israeli soldiers. People have lost everything they own, from their homes to their most cherished belongings, and we have seen videos of Israeli soldiers stealing or destroying those people’s possessions, including the food they have had to leave behind.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians face forced starvation. In one heartbreaking video, a girl begs her cat, “If we die, please don’t eat us.” This horrific situation is not some unfortunate accident. It could not be clearer that what Israel is doing in Gaza is immoral. It is wrong. And the International Court of Justice has ruled that it amounts to a plausible risk of genocide, yet Israeli leaders continue to defy the Court’s orders.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nadia Whittome]

I am afraid that I need to make progress.

If there is one moral principle that all of us in this House should share, it is that genocide should never be allowed to take place. The ICJ has said that, under article 1 of the genocide convention, states must

“employ all means reasonably available”

to prevent genocide, within the limits permitted by international law, so what are the means that our Government have? They surely include doing everything they can to bring about an immediate ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid, and ending the arms sales and military training that are enabling Netanyahu’s hard-right Government to continue their atrocities, while continuing to call on Hamas to release all hostages.

For decades, the world has been far too indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians, who are subject to oppression and discrimination simply because they are Palestinian. Israel cannot continue to deny their right to self-determination. It must end its 67-year-long illegal occupation of the west bank and its brutal siege of Gaza. The UK Government must stop their selective empathy and help create a path to safety, security and freedom for both Palestinians and Israelis.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I urge colleagues to try to stick to two minutes. I could get everybody in if they did that.

17:34

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the clear calls for an immediate ceasefire in the SNP motion tabled today, for that is what is required. I have been consistent in my calls for an immediate ceasefire since the horrific massacre by Hamas on 7 October, and the declaration of the Israeli Defence Minister on 8 October that the Gaza strip would pay a heavy price. I remain steadfast in my belief that a ceasefire is required. As everybody today has commented, it is only a political solution that will lead to peace in the region. The ceasefire must be sustainable, and we also need humanitarian aid to go in. Hostages and prisoners must be released, and we must stop the arms export licences to Israel. However, the key thing is a ceasefire at this point to stop the killing.

In the very limited time I have, I want to focus on the gendered nature of the conflict and the horrific impact it is having on women and children in Gaza. Over 70% of the 30,000 people killed are women and children. Every hour, two Gazan mothers are killed by Israeli attacks, and every day almost 200 women in Gaza are giving birth without adequate care. All this is because 1.7 million Gazans have been displaced from their homes and are living in squalor. I have lots of testimonies provided by ActionAid and other charities about the impact this is having disproportionately on women and children.

What is happening to the Palestinians is collective punishment, as the Secretary-General of the UN and countless agencies have stated, and as the main motion before us rightly says. The ICJ—others have said this, but it is extremely important—has said that there is a plausible risk of genocide by the state of Israel. We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe, and we stand on the precipice of mass civilian slaughter if the Israelis attack Rafah.

To conclude, I welcome the statement by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in the House today that this is the moment to come together. The only way this can be done is by consistently calling for and supporting those calls for an immediate ceasefire. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House will support both propositions.

17:37

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the SNP for using its Opposition day to bring about a debate on Gaza. The House has not covered itself in glory today, with all the delays at the start of this debate, and I cannot quite understand why we are now finishing early.

The issues before us are the reality of the horror of people’s lives. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who spoke earlier, talked about the pain of those killed on 7 October, the pain of those in a church and the pain of the relatives of those who have been killed in Gaza, as well as the continuing destruction of the lives of almost 30,000 people in Gaza since this conflict began. There is the use of unbelievable levels of ordnance in destroying Gaza, with the carpet bombing of the whole place. Some 29,000 bombs had been dropped on Gaza by the Israeli forces. By comparison, the US dropped 4,000 bombs on Iraq during the five years of that particular conflict.

What we are seeing is the total destruction of society, life and hope in Gaza. I keep meeting Palestinian people who tell me how many of their relatives have been killed in Gaza. Our good friend Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador, has lost 100 members of his wider family in this conflict. I met a man going through unbelievable trauma, Wael, in Bristol two weeks ago, who has lost 17 immediate members of his family.

Israel’s lack of support or recognition for international law goes back a long way. It has been found wanting under the fourth Geneva convention in so many cases in relation to the power of an occupying force. The International Court of Justice—and I attended the hearing in The Hague—listened very carefully to the South African application, and in effect demanded an immediate ceasefire, which has not happened.

When this happened and the whole thing kicked off, António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, said that this did not “come from nowhere.” It comes from decades of the encirclement of Gaza and the occupation of the west bank. It comes from the settlement policy. It comes from the inability of Palestinian people to live their lives in peace. A ceasefire now is essential, and it has to go on to end the occupation, end the settlement policy, and recognise the plight of those thousands of Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Libya and so many other places around the world.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has been defunded. We are sending arms, not aid. We should be sending all the support we can. The best support we can give is to stop the arms trade with Israel, end the battle in Gaza at the moment, and bring about peace and hope for the Palestinian people.

17:40

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I want a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire, and how I wish that the simple act of calling for one was enough to deliver it, as some people seem to believe. In reality, it will take a bit more than that, and we must accept that if the hostages are not released, that is a major block to a ceasefire. We should throw our weight behind talks in Egypt and Qatar and at the UN, and with the people who are making practical negotiations possible to try to bring this thing to a conclusion. It is not enough to wish for it or to march down the streets, block traffic, invade railway stations, and chant “ceasefire now.” That might make someone feel momentarily good, but it does not change anything at all. We need a much more practical approach to what we are going to do, and that has been absent from this debate, which at times to me sounded like a prosecution of Israel.

As a Labour Friend of Israel, I am happy to criticise some of the actions of the Israeli authorities at the present time. I have no problem with that. But I know what happened in Israel on 7 October, and I do not think that should be written out of history by people chanting for something else. In the time I have available, I will say simply this: I want a ceasefire; I want the hostages released, aid delivered, and support for genuine efforts to build peace. I will work with those of good will from any political sphere who share those views, but we should be careful of sanctimony and lectures from Holy Willies on this subject, because the reality is that we do not get something by wishing for it or by preaching at others; we get it by working for it.

17:42

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

According to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Israeli has killed, seriously injured or maimed well over 100,000 people in Gaza since 7 October, the vast majority of them civilians, and women and children. More than 1,000 children have lost limbs, and many have had to undergo amputations without anaesthetic. Whole families and generations have been wiped out, and just this week the United Nations Human Rights Office said it believes that Israeli soldiers have engaged in arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killing and sexual violence, including the rape and execution of women and girls, and intentionally and publicly humiliated and degraded others. Israel itself has posted videos of its humiliation of civilian men.

Israel did not even pause for breath in its slaughter in Gaza when the International Court of Justice put it on trial for genocide and ordered it to protect Palestinian lives. Yet our Government continue to enable and assist the Israeli military. The UK Government must explain why they have issued at least 27 arms licences to Israel in the last 137 days—British-made bombs and weapons killing civilians in Gaza. The UN World Health Organisation and others have been warning for weeks that famine and disease in Gaza are starting to kill more civilians than bombs and bullets. The health system in Gaza has been bombed into collapse. Famine is now in Gaza, and 80% of the world’s hungriest people are in that tiny enclave. Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Palestinians are forced to eat grass just to survive. Palestinians in Gaza are forced to grind animal feed into flour just to survive. Cutting off funding for UNRWA, the United Nations aid organisation for Palestine, is a death sentence. Only a fraction of the bare minimum for survival is being allowed through in aid. Israel is bombing Rafah, where it drove almost the whole population for their supposed safety. Israel says that it plans a full invasion, which would trigger a catastrophe that would dwarf the horrors we have seen so far.

The UK Government are under an obligation under international law to do everything in their power to stop genocide, yet they have not taken a meaningful step to do so, and they will not even call for an immediate ceasefire to end the devastation. We must call for an immediate ceasefire, and it is ludicrous that we are engaged in collective punishment. Collective punishment is a war crime. Forceable transfer and slaughter are war crimes. We therefore need the motion that the SNP has put forward today, which calls for an end to these war crimes and an immediate ceasefire. I support it.

17:45

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Since this House first held a vote calling for the Government to press for a ceasefire, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. More than a million have been displaced, not just once, but multiple times over and over again. Nearly half of Gaza’s population are starving, as food and water are restricted. The brutal bombardment has killed almost 30,000 men, women and children, while more lie beneath the rubble of homes, schools, churches, mosques and hospitals in a tragedy that should be unthinkable. In Gaza, where more than 11,000 of those killed are children, this unthinkable tragedy has become a reality. A 15-year-old child growing up in Gaza today has never known peace, but this conflict has been the deadliest they have ever seen.

Almost every day for almost five months, Gaza’s children have faced a multitude of dangers, whether that is from the Israeli military’s bombs or sniper bullets, the grave health risks of wounds treated without anaesthetic or infection control, the acute malnourishment and disease ripping through the population or the psychological torment of being exposed to such death and destruction. These are not combatants, and they are certainly not acceptable collateral damage; they are children. It is shameful that children are wasting away, that most babies under the age of two are starving and that nearly all children under the age of five languish with disease.

Within weeks of the attack on Gaza, we saw haunting images of children begging the international community to protect them, but in the months that followed, the international community made it clear that it is not listening. The question we must ask ourselves is: what is the point of having declarations, charters and institutions if they will not even protect children? What benefit do international courts that the UK touts as the bedrock of a rules-based order offer if they will not halt the killing of children? What purpose does this international order serve if it ignores Palestinian children as being as deserving of protection as any other? The answer is simply that it has failed. Today, we can either continue that legacy of failure, or reject it and vote for an immediate ceasefire to end the bloodshed.

17:48

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“what I witnessed…in Gaza was not war—it was annihilation.”

Those are the words of an American doctor, Irfan Galaria, who recently returned from Gaza having volunteered at one of its remaining working hospitals. On his return, he described the carnage inflicted by Israel’s bombardment. He spoke of the “sea of tents” around Rafah, where 1.5 million Palestinians have been displaced. He spoke about how every few minutes his hospital would shake as airstrikes rained down nearby. The doctor described the medical equipment he had to use for amputations as being

“a Gigli saw…essentially a segment of barbed wire.”

He spoke about one occasion where parents carried a group of children into the emergency room. Their families had tried to return to their homes in Khan Yunis after Israeli tanks withdrew, but Israeli snipers remained. The children, all aged five to eight,

“had single sniper shots to the head”.

Not one of them survived.

For the last 137 days, Gaza has been subjected to indiscriminate assault. More than 29,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 10,000 children, with many more buried in the rubble. More than 70% of Gaza’s homes have been destroyed, and all 2.3 million inhabitants are now classified as facing either crisis, emergency or catastrophic levels of food insecurity.

As I have said in the Chamber before, what is truly horrifying is that Israeli politicians and officials have said that they would unleash this atrocity on Gaza. At the start of the assault, an Israeli defence official said that Gaza would be reduced to a “city of tents”. Remember the American doctor’s description of Rafah. An Israeli Government Minister said there are “no non-combatants” in Gaza. Remember the number of children killed.

Another official said that the aim was to make Gaza a place where no human being could exist. Remember the number of people starving in Gaza. What Israeli officials said would happen has happened. The Government, to their eternal shame, have given Israel the green light, refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire and continuing to arm the Israeli military. That could change today. Voting for an immediate ceasefire—I mean immediate—would tell the word that Britain demands that the war, this brutal assault, must end now. In the face of the moral calamity we are witnessing, that is the bare minimum that the House must do. We must call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and all those unjustly imprisoned, and a lasting peace, respecting the fundamental rights of all Palestinians and Israelis. I say to my colleagues and those across the House with a conscience: history will remember this. I urge and implore them to vote for an immediate ceasefire.

17:51

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am heartbroken and horrified alongside my constituents about the terror attacks and hostage taking, and the horrendous death, suffering and destruction in Gaza. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have been on two trips to Israel and Palestine in the last six months. One, last September, just before the attacks, was with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestine. The other was last week, along with many other hon. Members, with Yachad. We visited the Kibbutzim attacked on 7 October, Jerusalem and the west bank. I met Rachel Goldberg, the mother of Hersh, a 23-year-old, similar to my 21-year-old. He loves travelling and music festivals. He waved his mum goodbye and went off to a music festival on 6 October. At 8.20 in the morning on 7 October, he sent his mum two text messages: “I love you” and “I’m sorry”. She has not heard from him since.

Rachel, Hersh’s mother, is an extraordinary woman. She summarised the war this way: it is not a competition of pain and tears; it is just a bunch of pain and tears. We should learn from this. We should learn about solidarity both for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people, and find words to say that here and across our country.

In the short time I have, I want to highlight issues in the west bank. There can be no peace in Gaza without peace in the west bank. I went to a village destroyed by illegal settler occupation. The term “settlers” sounds like a nice farming fringe activity, but that is not the case; it is an illegal and violent occupation movement that undermines peace on the west bank and in Gaza. They must be stopped now with more sanctions and calling out and dismantling the illegal outposts. What needs to happen now? We need an immediate ceasefire, with no attacks on the 1.5 million people in Rafah, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of the hostages, a freeze on the demolition of Palestinian homes in the west bank, and the dismantling of settlement outposts.

The people of south Israel and Gaza must be able to return to their homes and rebuild. There must be international recognition of the state of Palestine, and we need resolution of the contested holy sites in Jerusalem. The Israel Defence Forces has said that it is planning 2024 to be a year of war. We are here today to say no.

17:53

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

The list of babies killed in Gaza before their first birthday is beyond heartbreaking. This week, at least four were killed before they had even got to the stage where they had a name. At the same time, footage emerged this week from Khan Yunis of Israeli hostage Shiri Bibas and her sons, aged four and nine months, still being held by Hamas. When we debate this issue, we should keep in mind all those innocents caught up in the conflict. The debate has certainly not risen to the occasion at all times.

The fighting must stop. We must have a ceasefire, I think there is now cross-party agreement. I have heard many people in this House and outside say that the situation is not complex but simple: “Vote for a ceasefire. It’s symbolic; it is sending a message. It doesn’t matter if you agree with every word of a motion, just vote for it so you vote for something.” They have said, “Think of the headline on BBC News, not the detail.” How debased our politics has become, that that is what passes for foreign policy. Words matter. Detail is important. Not mentioning something in a motion matters. That is why tonight I will vote for the Labour amendment. It matters that we say what is important. We all know that the only way to get to the peaceful resolution that we need is through the hard yards of diplomacy, and for both sides—Israel and Hamas—to agree to stop.

[Steven Bonnar]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I do not have time. This conflict is raging far beyond this place, and the tone and the tenor of the debate matters. In a week filled with politics, it is important that we have the chance to vote tonight for a ceasefire and, more importantly, that we spend time after this debate trying to build a consensus—which was starting to emerge on the Conservative side—on what this looks like going forward. We need a ceasefire, but we need to build a consensus for it. Dividing this House will not achieve that and it will not save lives in Gaza.

17:56

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

On Sunday I returned from four days in Israel and Palestine as part of a cross-party delegation with Yachad. We met hostage families, displaced Palestinians, NGOs working in Gaza, peace activists on both sides of the conflict, and Israeli and Palestinian official spokespeople. It was a distressing, moving and humbling experience.

The conflict in Israel and Gaza has brought unimaginable horror on Israelis and Palestinians. It has intensified the violent displacement of Palestinians by Israelis in the west bank. In the very short time that I have, at the end of this debate, I want to bring to this House the words of an extraordinary young man, Yotam Kipnis. We met Yotam in the Be’eri kibbutz, which he returned to with us for the first time since 7 October, to visit the home from which his parents were abducted and subsequently murdered by Hamas. As we stood outside the rubble of Yotam’s home, he said “Vengeance is a valid feeling. It is not a valid policy.”

In Israel and Palestine, they talk about the day after this conflict: to get to the day after, we must first have a ceasefire. We must have a ceasefire now, before more atrocities are committed in Rafah. We need a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get into Gaza. We need a ceasefire for people like Yotam, who are working for peace. If they can set aside their differences and focus on what really matters—the future that Israelis and Palestinians can build of peace and security—we can put aside our differences in this House tonight and vote for a ceasefire.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

17:58

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the speakers who have come and raised their voices on behalf of the people of Gaza today.

We are here today in condemnation of the atrocities committed against innocent people in Israel by Hamas on 7 October. We are here today in condemnation of the atrocities committed by Israel against innocent people in Gaza every day since then. We are here today in condemnation of the taking of hostages, indiscriminate violence, maiming, use of snipers, rape and sexual assault, starvation, and attacks in places of worship, schools and hospitals. It must stop now. A pause is not enough. Filling the bellies of starving weans one day just to bomb them the next is not acceptable.

Pregnant women—those who have not miscarried or suffered stillbirth due to the unimaginable strain of living in a war zone—cannot time their labour for whenever that pause might fall. ActionAid has reported that Al-Awda, the only functioning maternity hospital in northern Gaza, was hit three times in the past week. It is intolerable.

Members on both sides of the House have outlined the horrors in Gaza. We have heard of wee Hind Rajab, aged only six; of the poet Refaat Alareer; and of Dima Alhaj, who lived in Glasgow and was killed alongside her six-month-old baby, her husband and two brothers. Dima was a health worker for the World Health Organisation. Dr Abdullatif, a colleague of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), lost 50 members of his family, including children and grandchildren, when their home was bombed. The journalist Wael al-Dahdouh lost his wife, his daughter, two sons and other family members.

I highlight those stories because when we get beyond the more than 100 journalists, the 150 United Nations workers, the estimated 400 health workers—the 30,000 of our fellow human beings who have been killed—their stories become a cacophony of tragedy. It cannot be anything other than collective punishment. As the International Court of Justice has found, there is a plausible risk that genocide is being perpetrated by Israel. More deaths will follow without a ceasefire and without the full flow of humanitarian aid, which Israel has been holding up, being allowed in. The Palestinian Red Crescent has seen its lifesaving work disrupted by Israeli forces. There is a real fear for the people now sheltering in Rafah—1.4 million of them—if a further attack lands on them.

There are many ways to die in Gaza, from disease or starvation as well as from bombardment. And what of those who survive—the 1.9 million displaced, homeless and destitute, left among the rubble of their lives; those who are orphaned; and the 70,000 injured and suffering enduring trauma? We must not forget those people either.

I have listened carefully to activists from the Gaza Families Reunited campaign who want to allow those with families in the UK to be reunited with them, and to bring families to sanctuary here. The UK has granted very few visas to Palestinians over the years—only 1,300 since 2014. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has talked previously about Dr Lubna Hadoura. In Glasgow, there is my constituent Sama. There is Reem, to whom I listened on a call yesterday. There are Grace Franklin and Alison Phipps, who have Palestinian friends. None of them have found a safe and legal route, because none exists. People are fundraising to bribe their way out of Gaza for lack of a safe and legal route, all the time worrying and waiting for news of whether their relatives are dead or alive. There has been a scheme for Ukraine. Why is there, as yet, no scheme for Gaza?

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Some of the questions that have been asked of us today have been about how we can know what will happen if there is a ceasefire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that we know exactly what will happen if there is no ceasefire, and that that alone should be enough to ensure that we vote for one tonight?

[Alison Thewliss]

That point is crucial. We know what the consequences will be if there is no ceasefire and we continue as we are now: thousands more people will die. We do not need to question that, because we know that it will happen, and it will be on our conscience if we choose not to act.

I have never received more emails about an issue, and I know that I have that in common with many other Members in all parts of the House. So far, more than 3,000 people have contacted me about this issue. The ongoing demonstrations outside the House and in towns, villages and cities across these isles show the strength of feeling about the conflict in Gaza, which brings together people from all backgrounds—people who have never protested before, but who see an injustice happening and want us, as parliamentarians, to do something about it.

We all know that peace can be possible, but that it starts with tentative steps. Ceasefires are not easy. The hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) described their experiences, and others brought dispatches from their conversations and visits to the region. We are under no illusions about the challenges, but we must try. In this place we have a duty. We have an obligation, a very special obligation, when it comes to the middle east. During every moment for which we delay and equivocate, more people die. It could not be more crucial than that. This is not a debate about semantics or procedures; it is about principle. It is about the people of Gaza. It is about saving lives.

The hostages must be released. Aid must be allowed in. Negotiations must begin. It is on all our consciences here in this place if we do not stand with our international partners, with countries around the world, with international aid organisations and with the United Nations. We must have a ceasefire, and we must have it now.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that Mr Speaker is a servant of this House and that he takes his responsibilities to us extremely seriously. It is that duty towards us and our rights as Members in this place that commands our respect of him.

We all have obligations in this place to ensure that all views can be expressed, and that individual Members and parties of all colours and sizes can have their say. As a Member on the Government Benches, sometimes that is difficult during Opposition day debates, as motions are always deliberately confected to try to engineer the greatest possible backlash against Members. But we on the Government Benches have never asked that the procedures of this House be upturned to militate against such pressures, even when we have faced extreme abuse. Mr Speaker has stated in the decision that he has taken today, and that he is entitled to take, that he wished for all propositions on the Order Paper to be put to the House.

However, that decision has raised temperatures in this House on an issue where feelings are already running high, and that has put right hon. and hon. Members in a more difficult position. It also appears, from the advice of his Clerk, that the decision was taken against the long-standing and established processes and procedures of this House, and that the consequence may be that the Government are not able to respond to Opposition day motions. As such, the Government do not have confidence that they will be able to vote on their own amendment. For that reason, the Government will play no further part in the decision this House takes on today’s proceedings.

I would like to stress that the Government’s position on Israel and Gaza remains unchanged, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined today. We want to see the fighting in Gaza end as soon as possible, and we never again want to see Hamas carry out the appalling terrorist attacks that Israel was subject to. We know that just calling for an immediate ceasefire now, which collapses back into fighting within days or weeks, is not in anyone’s interests. We will be reiterating the Government’s position via a written ministerial statement. I fear that this most grave matter that we are discussing this afternoon has become a political row within the Labour party, and that regrettably—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I want to hear the point of order.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I fear that, regrettably, Mr Speaker has inserted himself into that row with today’s decision and undermined the confidence of this House in its ability to rely on its long-established Standing Orders to govern its debates—long-established conventions that should not be impaired by the current view of a weak Leader of the Opposition and a divided party. I ask that Mr Speaker take the opportunity to reassure all right hon. and hon. Members that their Speaker—our Speaker—will not seek to undermine those rights in order to protect the interests of particular Members, and that future Opposition day debates will not be hijacked in this way. I say that for the benefit of all Members. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I thank the right hon. Lady for alerting me to her point of order. I will take further points of order, but I think it will be helpful if I explain that if the Government do not move their amendment, the Questions will be first on the current amendment, and secondly on the motion itself, either as amended or in its original form. I hope that is helpful. [Interruption.] It would be helpful if I could be heard, thank you. [Interruption.] Order. I will first take a point of order from the shadow Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I did not have advance notice of the point of order from the Leader of the House, so I am responding in terms. Of course, we support what Mr Speaker was intending to do today—[Interruption.] Hang on a minute. [Interruption.] Hang on a minute. We support—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are going to listen to the points of order. The Leader of the House was heard. The shadow Leader of the House will be heard, and then I will come to the SNP leader. I expect everybody to be heard with respect.

[Lucy Powell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last time I looked, those on the Government Benches had a majority in this House. If they do not like the amendments before them, they could vote this evening to defeat them. [Interruption.] But they have now decided, I understand, not to vote on them, so perhaps we have to ask whether they do still command a majority in this House and whether they are trying to hide behind some other reason. [Interruption.] Keep shouting, keep shouting. You’re just embarrassing yourselves, quite honestly.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

You’ve given up governing.

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely given up governing. Mr Speaker is trying, I think, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is so bad just to be shouting the shadow Leader of the House down. Right hon. and hon. Members should think about what they are doing in behaving like that. The shadow Leader of the House will be heard, and I am sure she is coming to the point of order that she wants me to rule on.

[Lucy Powell]

There are a large number of Opposition Members who want to express their view this evening by being able to vote for an amendment in their name. [Interruption.] Government Members are still shouting me down, Madam Deputy Speaker. They have an amendment in their name, which they clearly do not have the numbers to get through the House. It is astonishing that the Conservative party suddenly finds itself standing in defence of the Scottish National party—something I did not think I would see. If they have the numbers to command a majority in this House, they should vote for their amendment.

Mr Speaker had every right to let us have a say on our amendment this evening and to have the maximum number of options. The Leader of the House might want to consult the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), who said that Mr Speaker had in fact taken the right decision in making sure that the maximum number of options were available to the House this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me just confirm again that if the Government do not move their amendment, the other amendment and the main Question will be taken.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by re-emphasising that we are all here tonight to vote on a motion on the civilian deaths in Gaza and the appalling situation that is being faced by nationals in Israel, too? We all must remember that.

First, if I have listened correctly to what has just been said, on an SNP Opposition day, should the Labour party’s amendment be carried, the SNP’s vote will not be held. Secondly, if I have correctly read the Clerk of the House’s letter to all Members, which was sent to the Speaker, this was a consequence that the Speaker was warned of. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you please advise me: where on earth is the Speaker of the House of Commons, and how do we bring him to the House to explain to the Scottish National party why our views and our votes in this House are irrelevant to him?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. [Interruption.] Order. For as long as it takes, I will answer the point of order and then I will take other points of order, but I suggest that Members allow me to speak first.

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I have explained that, as I understood it, there were going to be three votes tonight. The Government have withdrawn their amendment. The consequence is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that if the Labour party amendment is passed, it will be added to the SNP motion. He is right to say—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. He is right to say that if there is a Division, there will be just one vote, but if it goes through, we move on to the next business.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me first take the point of order from the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. My understanding from the advice I have seen is that Standing Order 31, whereby the motion is put first, did not apply because there were two amendments. If there is now only one amendment, surely we should revert to Standing Order 31.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for her point of order, but if the Government amendment is not moved, we revert to the amendment from the Labour party and that amendment has been moved. If it is passed, the SNP motion is amended and then the Question is put on the SNP amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will come back to Stephen Flynn, and then I will come to Mr Wragg.

[Stephen Flynn]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to my earlier remarks, and on the back of the remarks that have just been made, I am afraid that you did not provide me with clarity in relation to, first, where the Speaker of the House of Commons is and, secondly, what mechanisms are available to Members to bring him to this House to explain why the SNP Opposition day has turned into a Labour Opposition day. Thirdly, and most importantly, I must insist to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the SNP motion is voted on first, as the Chair of the Procedure Committee has just outlined.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

First I am going to take the other member of the Procedure Committee, then I will come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn).

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On such a serious debate and topic and on a personal note from me, having given Mr Speaker a great deal of support in his election to the House on the basis that we were going to have a fresh start and that the conventions that govern our proceedings would not be meddled with to seek one particular political view at any one time, I am hugely disappointed by what has transpired. We as a House are not showing ourselves to the country as anywhere near our best or what we are capable of. I wonder if you can advise me on the nature of the early-day motion tabled in my name and those of a number of my colleagues, which will appear live at the close of proceedings today, and on whether those in receipt of Government payroll are by convention eligible to sign such an early-day motion?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I imagine the SNP Chief Whip wants to add to what has already been said on this.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say I am slightly confused. I do not want to break any confidences, but I was assured that I would have a vote on the SNP motion today. As I understand the advice from the Clerks, if the Labour amendment were to be put first and passed, that would amend the text of our motion. Given that that amendment would remove all of the text of our motion, we would not have a vote on the text of our motion, on our Opposition day. How can that possibly be allowed to happen?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me first address the point from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, the leader of the SNP. The Speaker set out very clearly this morning the reasons for his decision to give the widest possible scope for different views to be heard and voted on. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), the SNP Chief Whip, knows that we would have been able to vote on all three propositions. However, because the Government motion has been withdrawn, that is not possible—[Interruption.] That is the correct position. We finished the wind-ups at 6.15, and there would have been the opportunity for three votes. Because the Government are no longer participating, I will put the Question on the Labour amendment—

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am responding to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—[Interruption.] I am responding to him, so he needs to sit down. I will put the Labour amendment—[Interruption.] No, I am answering his point of order. Sit down. He asked me whether that would amend the SNP motion. Yes, it would. If it is passed but SNP Members do not agree with the wording, they can vote against it. Let us be clear—[Interruption.] That is the situation.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that Mr Speaker was put under intolerable pressure. Nicholas Watt, the political editor of BBC “Newsnight”, tweeted:

“Senior Labour figures tell me @CommonsSpeaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the general election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment.”

Can the—[Interruption.] A Labour figure told him that, so do not say it is rubbish.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can you assure the House that everything will be done to identify who put that intolerable pressure on Mr Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That tweet is wrong. The statement is incorrect, and I know he would want that reassurance.

[Stephen Flynn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I will have to try for a third time. Can you please advise me on where Mr Speaker is? What mechanisms are available to bring him to the House? As we wait for the deliberation on that question, I move that you use the power that I trust you have to suspend this House until Mr Speaker is brought here. [Interruption.] You can do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point of order, which he then interrupted. I will not be suspending the House. We need to put these questions. Mr Speaker will be in his place tomorrow.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Where is Mr Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to make do with me, which I know is a great disappointment. Mr Speaker will be here in his place tomorrow.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, many years ago, Opposition day debates were taken seriously by Governments, and if a Government lost a vote, as happened on the Gurkha motion when Labour was in government, they would put the motion into effect? Successive Conservative Administrations have largely ignored Opposition day debates. They have refused to take part in many votes, and they have widely ignored the result of votes in which they did not take part.

Madam Deputy Speaker, do you agree that it is a bit rich for that lot opposite to give lectures about the importance of Opposition day debates when they routinely ignore them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. First, unless there are very exceptional circumstances, Opposition day votes are not binding. She knows parliamentary procedure, so I think she knows that.

Secondly, the hon. Lady is correct to say that the previous but one Leader of the House said that if an Opposition day motion were passed, even if the Government had not participated, she would come back with a response within 20 days. That is my recollection. I do not believe that is currently followed, but the hon. Lady is right that it is what used to happen.

It is absolutely up to the Government, as it is for any Member of the House, as to whether they do or do not vote. It is their decision.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House and its procedures have descended into absolute chaos, simply because of a decision taken by the Speaker earlier today. Is it too much to ask that the Speaker is asked to come to this House to explain exactly why he took those decisions, the consequences of those decisions and how he intends to get this House out of the mess it finds itself in? For what reason would you not suspend the House in order for the Speaker to come here to sort this mess out?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have said twice already that Mr Speaker set out this morning in detail why he had made his decision, and he will be in his place tomorrow.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, you will listen to the points of order and listen politely. It looks so bad, on such an important issue—[Interruption.] There is no point in shouting me down now. It looks so bad to our constituents if they see Members who are raising perfectly reasonable points of order just being shouted down. It is not good. I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are perfectly legitimate views, on different sides, as to the propriety of today’s proceedings. However, I just say gently to some Conservative Members who have said that we cannot possibly have an Opposition day motion being amended by another Opposition party that some of the Members who are shouting the loudest—[Interruption.] I just remind some of those who have been shouting the loudest on the Conservative Benches that they personally voted on 13 May 1999 for a Conservative Opposition motion amending a Liberal Democrat motion on an Opposition day.

Far more importantly, surely, is the fact that the behaviour of many hon. Members in the Chamber today will have made a lot of people in this country very nervous about the way we conduct our business when dealing with some of the most important matters of state. Most significantly, it has been the tradition of British parliamentary democracy that if a Government lose control of their foreign policy, they have lost the confidence of the House, by definition, and consequently there is an immediate general election.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

[Sir Charles Walker]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will take the point of order from Sir Charles Walker, but I do want to move on and put the Question shortly.

[Sir Charles Walker]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know how we got to this point today, but it does not reflect well on Parliament. His Majesty’s Opposition have clearly behaved—and I do not mean this in any way as an offence—[Interruption.] Please, I do not. They have behaved—[Interruption.] People are frightened. People have weaponised this debate in this Chamber. Whips are frightened for their flocks, because Members of Parliament now feel that they have to vote in a certain way in order to safeguard their safety and that of their family. That is a far bigger issue than the debate we are having tonight, because if people are changing their votes or their behaviour in this place because they are frightened of what may happen to them or their family out there, we have a real problem. So this point scoring off each other is not going to resolve many issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He speaks with his usual passion. He is absolutely right to say that what we now need to do is to move on. I want to put the Question and then we will move on to a further debate.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do hope that Mr O’Brien is following in that spirit.

[Neil O’Brien]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that today the SNP has been treated unfairly. But it is not just the SNP that has been treated unfairly. Those of us who would like to vote for the SNP motion must now, if we want to do so, vote against the Labour party’s amended motion—a motion that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has just said would, if we voted for it, lead to an immediate general election, so we are being placed in an unfair position if we wish to support the SNP motion. We have now seen the exit of SNP Members and many Conservative Members from the Chamber. We are clearly in an intolerable situation. It is a sad situation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I believe that the current Speaker is a man of honour who has done a great deal over recent years to restore the reputation of the Chair after a dark period for this House. However, even if he believes that the constitutional innovation that he has introduced today is a good one, this was not the time to change the rules. We have heard from the Chair of the Procedure Committee that there is a serious question about the order here and the constitutional propriety of the order in which these questions are being taken—a question being put by the SNP too. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you are not prepared to suspend the House, we at least defer the Divisions that are supposed to be happening this evening until we can resolve these issues?

Finally, because in this House it is courteous and traditional that the person about whom one is talking is always in the Chamber when they are discussed, we should defer those Divisions so that we can hear from Mr Speaker himself before we come to vote on these issues, because otherwise a great injustice is being done to the SNP and to other Members of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I just want to be clear again that there was the ability to have a vote on all three motions that were before the House. The situation has changed, but that does not mean that I would then withdraw the questions and not put them, because they are still before the House, and I intend to proceed with them in the way that I have suggested.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to suggest that the Speaker displayed immense flexibility this morning, and that that flexibility was exerted again to enable us to have a separate vote. However, now that the SNP Members have gone, there is no other way that I can do this to ensure that my constituents know that I will be voting for the Labour amendment, but I would also have voted for the SNP motion. I want that on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am going to take a point of order from the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I gently suggest that right hon. and hon. Members restrain themselves. I think the Chair of the Procedure Committee may have something to share with us about what she is looking at, at Mr Speaker’s request, I believe.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is correct that in the precedent there was a Conservative amendment to a Liberal Democrat Opposition day motion, but there was no Government amendment, and that is the difference. As there is no longer a Government amendment, I am confused about why we are not returning to the order of precedence set down in Standing Order No. 31.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Because of Standing Order No. 31, I am bound to take the Labour party amendment first and then move on to the SNP motion. That is all the advice that I have received, and I am sure when the hon. Lady—

[Mr Wragg]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Lobbies?

18:39

Division 79

Ayes: 20

Noes: 212

Amendment (a) agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

19:04

[Mr Speaker]

I wish to respond to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House.

Today’s debate was exceptional in the intensity with which all parties wished to secure a vote on their own proposition. It took decisions that were intended to allow the House the widest range of propositions on which to express a view. I wanted to do the best, and it was my wish to do the best, by every Member of this House. I take very seriously—[Interruption.] No, the danger—that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members. [Interruption.] I was very concerned, I am still concerned, and that is why the meetings I have had today were about the security of Members, their families and the people involved.

I have to say that I regret how it has ended up. It was not my intention. I wanted to ensure that all could express their views and all sides of the House could vote. As it was, in particular, the SNP was ultimately unable to vote on its proposition. I regret with sadness that it has ended up in this position. It was never my intention for it to end up like this. I was absolutely convinced that the decision was made with the right intentions. I recognise the strength of feeling of Members on this issue. It is clear that today has not shown the House at its best. I will reflect on my part in that, and of course I recommit myself to ensuring that all Members of this House are treated fairly.

I did not want it to have ended like this. I want to say to the House that I will meet with all the key players of each party. I think it is right that I meet with each one. [Interruption.] To correct that, I have not met with Sue Gray—I did not bump into her today; I am offended by that comment, and I think the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) would like to withdraw it. That is the danger; the House has ended up with speculation over what is not factual. I am honest to this House, I am true to this House, and I believe in all Members of this House. I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise for a decision that did not end up in the place that I wished.

I say now that I will meet all the—[Interruption.] Just be quiet, please. I will meet with the leaders and the Chief Whips. Let us have a discussion on what is the best way forward. I say again that I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret, and I apologise for, how it has ended up. I do take responsibility for my actions, and that is why I want to meet the key players who have been involved.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank you for coming to the House, for saying you will reflect on what has happened today, and for offering your apologies and to meet with Members of this House. You are our Speaker and we wish you to defend the rights of all Members of this House. I thank you for recommitting yourself to those responsibilities today and for coming to the Floor of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

To respond, that is what I tried to do in the first place. It ended up in the wrong place, and I do apologise to all and in particular to the SNP. That it is not where I wanted to be, but it is where I am. I will leave it at that for the moment, but I want to meet as soon as possible.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I begin by echoing your sentiments in relation to the debate that was had in this Chamber on the most important of matters with regards to the safety of civilians in Gaza and, indeed, in Israel? There has been a difference of view in the House today, but I think that difference of view has been expressed in a way that we can all agree has been in a positive fashion and the best fitting way of any functioning democracy.

Mr Speaker, while I acknowledge your apology, the reality is that you were warned by the Clerks of the House that your decision could lead to the SNP not having a vote on our very own Opposition day. As a result, we have seen the SNP Opposition day turn into a Labour party Opposition day. I am afraid that that is treating me and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt, and I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.

[Mr Speaker]

To respond to that, quite rightly, I understand the feeling. As I said, I would like to have that conversation in private. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition was this evening passed unanimously, and therefore—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. [Interruption.] And therefore—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that now is the time. What I want to do is move on and meet with the important players. I am now going to hand over to the Deputy and leave it at that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will take one more point of order and then I really think we need to move on.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two points in what Mr Speaker just said on which I seek your clarification. First, he implied that the proceedings of the House were manipulated by outside intimidation, with regard given to things said outside on social media and reacted to within the House. Quite an important Rubicon has been crossed, and it may have been crossed without the consent of Members. I would like to know where the processes of the House are likely to go, given the outside influences that may be brought to bear. I would be grateful for some clarification on that.

Secondly, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you, but, bluntly, you seem to have rammed through two decisions that were quite important to a lot of Members in which no individual vote will have been recorded. A number of us had thought quite carefully about how we were going to vote in those Divisions. Essentially, we were—forgive me—taken by surprise by those two decisions being rammed through. I wonder if it is possible to either void them or run them again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The fact is, I put the Question and nobody called against it—[Interruption.] No.

[Hon. Members]

Not true.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear from the level of noise when the Question was put that the view of the Deputy Speaker was being challenged. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that that noise level was deemed to be “Aye”. It is inconceivable that anybody hearing it would have thought it was “Aye”. It is quite clear from all our Standing Orders and all our traditions that when the Speaker or Deputy’s decision is challenged, it should go to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am extremely sorry. I took it on the voices. I was quite clear where we were. [Interruption.] The whole thing would have been considerably clearer if the Government had not withdrawn at that position.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if the House has considered how this looks to people outside. It looks like chicanery. I rise to ask a question on behalf of the small parties. What precedent has been set today in the way this Opposition day has been handled? How can we ever have faith in the future that our voices and our votes will actually be heard, or will it always be about the two big parties here?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think that the hon. Lady heard what Mr Speaker said—that he intends to talk with people. I also understand that the—

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me, I am answering this point of order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

I also know that the Chair of the Procedure Committee will look at some of the issues that have been raised, at Mr Speaker’s request.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on how I can make my views more known to my constituents. I was one of the first Members of Parliament to call for the release of hostages, combined with a permanent ceasefire. I lost my Government job as a result. Because people misrepresented my position, someone suggested on social media that they would show my wife a real man. Someone else suggested that they would attack me and my family. Already today, Labour councillors in my patch are tweeting that I have not supported a ceasefire. I wanted to vote with the Scottish National party motion on a ceasefire. Can you advise me how I can make my constituents clear of my views, given that I was not able to vote?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record by what he just said.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will Mr Speaker tell the House how many Labour Opposition day debates have taken place since 7 October in which no motion on a ceasefire was tabled? Why did Mr Speaker think, suddenly today on an SNP Opposition day, that it was really important that a Labour amendment be selected, even though Labour Members had their own chance—several times—to bring forward a debate and a motion on a ceasefire in Gaza?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker has said that he will meet the leaders and the Whips of the parties.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for hearing all our points of order. I cannot be alone in this place today in being utterly embarrassed at how Members have conducted themselves— [Interruption.] Particularly those on the Government Benches—[Interruption.] I continue to be shouted down, which is a perfect example. And this, on an issue as serious as the one we have discussed today.

I am asking for clarification, because people in this Chamber clearly are not aware of the rules and what is going on. One former Leader of the House made a complaint, when he was not even in the Chamber to hear what happened. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you please give us some clarity: had the Conservative Government not withdrawn from the process today, would we have had three votes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am quite clear that there was the opportunity for three votes.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

That’s not true.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman may not know of all the discussions. I was very clear that there was the opportunity for three votes.

I will take one more point of order.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could provide me with some clarity on two points of procedure, because you are a much more experienced Member of Parliament than me. First, my understanding is that Mr Speaker made his decision earlier today on the basis that there would be three votes rather than two. Once the Government withdrew their amendment and there were two votes rather than three, was the decision to put the Labour amendment before the SNP motion made by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or Mr Speaker? Secondly, it is routinely the case that if a Division—in this case on whether to sit in private—is completed after 7 o’ clock, as this one did, the motion would fall. Can you explain why it did not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

First, it is Standing Order No. 31 that ruled on the order in which the votes were to be taken. I said that very clearly in responding to the Leader of the House, who also knew what the order of the votes would be. Also, with reference to it coming after 7, once an amendment is before the House, it has to be decided on. I assure the hon. Lady that, as I know she would expect me to, I did seek proper and thorough advice on both points. I hope that gives her some reassurance, and I hope she accepts that that was the case and that was the advice, because I certainly would not do anything that went against the order that I had said.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I really am going to move on now, I am afraid. [Interruption.] Okay, I will take one more point of order, from Marion Fellows.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Back in October, as soon as I could after the heinous actions of Hamas, I called for a ceasefire, and I have held firm to my belief since. My constituents have written to me in huge numbers telling me to vote for a ceasefire. I carry five proxy votes, and today I have not been allowed either to vote on my own behalf or to use those five proxy votes that I hold. Let me ask the same question that was asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow): how do I ensure that the way I would have voted, which was for a ceasefire, is recorded in the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady has made very clear what she would have done, and I am sure that she and all colleagues here will find ways in which to express that view.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Banks and Banking

That the draft Bank of England Levy (Amount of Levy Payable) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (Pension Scheme Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2023, be approved.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Question agreed to.

Ceasefire in Palestine

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

19:24

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk on the ceasefire in Palestine. I have never had as much correspondence on a single issue as I have on this matter; I said that before, when I presented a petition calling for a cease in the arms trade to Israel, but it is doubly the case now.

I hope my constituents have been watching today. If they have, they will have learned a number of things. First, they will have learned, as we saw from the Clerk of the House’s letter, that Britannia waives the rules. Secondly, they will have learned from the shenanigans we have seen from the British parties that this is no place for our country to be governed from, and the sooner Scotland gets out, the better. It seems to me—I hope my constituents will agree with me—that the difference between the positions across this House is the argument over whether there was a collective punishment of the Palestinian people, and by God, there has been.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to join with others in the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, so that the processing of rebuilding and finding a lasting peace with a two-state solution can commence.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

Declares that the attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7th October 2023 were acts of terror, and unequivocally condemns the taking of hostages and the loss of innocent lives in those attacks; condemns the disproportionate response of the Israel Defence Forces, including acts which the International Court of Justice have said are plausibly genocide; mourns the growing death toll of women, men and children; further that the petitioners declare for the urgent release of all hostages and an end to the siege of Gaza to allow vital supplies of food, fuel, medicine and water to reach the civilian population; and notes the calls by the United Nations for an immediate ceasefire on all sides of the conflict and the global consensus in support of a two-state solution.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to join with others in the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, so that the processing of rebuilding and finding a lasting peace with a two-state solution can commence.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002917]

Water Pollution: East Durham

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Fletcher.)

19:25

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is quite interesting that the subject of my Adjournment debate is dirty water; it might be appropriate. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to have this debate.

I want to start by correcting the parliamentary record. In a previous Opposition day debate on water quality, on Tuesday 5 December, I said:

“athletes fell ill from swimming in waters contaminated with E. coli”

and

“we know the source of the problem.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 288.]

Subsequently, in a letter dated 11 January 2024, Heidi Mottram CBE, the chief executive of Northumbrian Water, said my statement was factually incorrect. I am advised by Heidi Mottram CBE:

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) investigated the causes of illness in participants of the World Triathlon Championships Series in Sunderland, reporting in August 2023 with their preliminary findings. They found that 19 of the 31 of those affected had evidence of Norovirus infection, while the remaining samples either tested negative or were found to be positive for other infections, including sapovirus, astrovirus, and rotavirus. No evidence of E. coli O157/STEC was found, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Four samples of other E. coli were found, but it was not possible to link its presence with participation in the triathlon, and these strains can be carried naturally in the gut. The UKHSA report, concludes that ‘the predominance of Norovirus makes it the most likely explanation of illness in participants.’”

I am happy to share those comments from the Northumbrian Water chief executive in the interests of fairness.

However, the Environment Agency’s sampling at Roker beach on Wednesday 26 July—three days prior to the event—showed 3,900 E. coli colonies per 100 ml, which is almost 40 times higher than a typical reading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is right about the water pollution in east Durham; he is also right to underline the medical circumstances. I, too, represent a constituency with an enormous coastline that is highly reliant on the fishing and tourism sectors. Water pollution is a vital issue because it has an impact on our environment, as well as a direct impact on livelihoods. Does he agree that it is imperative to have Government support to deal with small pockets of pollution before they turn into large-scale environmental crises and medical problems, like those he referred to? To make that happen, it takes funding and a Government initiative.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My personal belief is that the privatised water companies have more than sufficient resources to address the issues if they prioritise infrastructure repair work and do the job that we, as customers, pay them to do.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be more than familiar with this, but in previous debates we heard about correlation and causation: one is a kind of coincidence, and the other is a direct link between one event and another. The samples I referred to, which were 39 times above the average level, were not in the body of the water that was used for the swim. That is absolutely correct. I am therefore sure that it is only a coincidence that high levels of E. coli were detected in a body of water near the swim event. There are no such things as tidal movements, are there? I do not know if they have them in Northern Ireland. There are no such things as prevailing winds, which would move a large body of E. coli into the swim area. I refer to the comments of the Australian triathlete Jake Birtwhistle. They are slightly unparliamentary, but he said:

“Have been feeling pretty rubbish since the race, but I guess that’s what you get when you swim in” —

S-H-1-T—

“the swim should have been cancelled.”

I hope Mr Birtwhistle is reassured by the comments of Northumbrian Water that the high levels of E. coli detected in the waters near to where the swim event took place had nothing to do with the sickness he experienced on the day of the racing.

I am disappointed that, in her letter to me, Heidi Mottram CBE failed to address any of the other issues that were raised in the debate on Tuesday 5 December. They included the issues of debt and dividends, investment, and how to regulate water companies to implement some level of corporate responsibility. The Guardian, which studied financial documents of all the privatised water companies from 1990 to 2023, said that Northumbrian Water is far from the worst-performing water company, which I think makes the following statistics really rather worrying. The Guardian found that 19% of Northumbrian Water’s consumer bill is spent servicing debt. The debt owed by Northumbrian Water is £3.5 billion. Over the same period, it paid £3.7 billion in shareholder dividends. Does the Minister think it is acceptable to use debt to pay shareholder dividends? As a consumer I am outraged, as I am sure are a large number of my constituents.

If this were any other product or service, I could choose to change suppliers. Even in the rail industry—heaven knows, I have been a critic of poor service—I at least have the opportunity to highlight to Ministers failing train operating companies and to advocate that they should be stripped of their contracts for failing to deliver for the travelling public. But water is unique. I can think of no other essential public service that has been privatised where there is no consumer choice or accountability. Water is a private monopoly and a natural monopoly that is essential for life. It is vital national infrastructure. The Government are entitled to impose a strict level of oversight and scrutiny.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister, I am sure, that I personally believe that water should be publicly owned, run in the national interest and deliver public policy goals. However, I accept that neither the Conservatives nor my own Labour Front Benchers have an appetite for a publicly owned water industry, so I want to propose an alternative. First, end the use of debt to pay for dividends. Secondly, prohibit the payment of dividends until debt goals are met. Any profit in the system must go towards water sewerage infrastructure and lowering debt.

Water companies are major polluters. Although Northumbrian Water is adamant about the Sunderland triathlon, there is no doubt that it is routinely polluting rivers and seas. In my constituency, the Safer Seas and Rivers Service app shows that there are three sewage overflows in my constituency, from which there were 184 sewage discharge alerts in 2023—almost one every third day. Northumbrian Water is not limiting these sewage overflows to rare and extreme weather conditions; it a matter of routine disposal of waste. My third proposal is that there should be no dividend payments until clean water targets are met. We need all available resources going towards improvement, upgrades and new infrastructure.

The promise of privatisation is always about improved standards, lower bills and more consumer choice, but experience suggests that the reverse happens: we get lower standards, higher bills and no choice. Therefore, the Government should put an expectation, or indeed a requirement, on private monopolies to deliver for the taxpayer. I am not telling the Government to block profits and shareholder dividends forever—quite the reverse. Private water companies that deliver public policy goals and lower consumer bills, and that make real profits rather than artificial profits funded through debt, could reasonably argue that they deserve to be rewarded, but I have no trust or confidence in the private sector to deliver essential public services in the public interest.

The list of disasters is there for all to see, and it is far longer than just water. It includes probation, prisons, NHS dentistry, bus services, rail, social care, Royal Mail, the Post Office Horizon scandal and energy. Everything seems to be broken, and there are no-risk rewards for the private sector. Failure does not affect companies, with services and contracts handed back, even when they fail to deliver, having already extracted their profit. The Government take a hard line against the poorest in society, with stringent rules, benefit sanction regimes and limits on social security. However, when it comes to billions of pounds of public contracts, they allow the taxpayer to be exploited and systematically milked. Frankly, it is not acceptable.

If the law does not allow the Government to hold failing companies accountable, we must legislate and change the law. I believe that we need a corporate responsibility Bill—a Bill with teeth—to ensure that the Treasury is the guardian of public money, not a cash point for corporate greed and irresponsibility. Our water companies are the epitome of corporate greed and irresponsibility. As an industry, they have extracted immense profits while ramping up debt and failing to invest in order to end the dumping of raw sewage into our rivers and seas. Where is the risk? It lies not with these irresponsible companies, but with the taxpayer. When a company collapses under the weight of its debt after decades of underinvestment, who has to step in? The taxpayer, who is forced to clean up the mess of corporate irresponsibility and get these services up and running to an acceptable standard, only for a Conservative Government to sell them off again.

I am deeply sceptical. Water is privatised, with companies collecting their rewards and paying out dividends. However, there is no free market; there is a private monopoly. As a consumer, I am appalled that, at the first sight of rain, our local network hits peak capacity and sewage is dumped into our rivers and seas. I want to penalise water companies that fail to protect our environment. If their business is clean water, the product of our privatised water companies is defective.

The Government can continue to back corporate greed over public interest and maintain an indefensible system of privatisation that denies the public consumer choice, which is the ultimate tool of accountability. But I hope the Minister will explain to my constituents how he will deliver a zero-waste, zero-pollution policy and end the routine dumping of raw sewage on the east Durham heritage coastline.

19:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)]

I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate and welcome the opportunity to respond to some the points he has made. As we all know, our waterways are a precious resource and their management is something on which this Government have been leading the way, in taking incredibly serious action against those who pollute. In April 2023, the Government introduced our “Plan for Water”, which marks a step change in how we manage our waters. This will deliver more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement to tackle pollution and clean up water. The Government have also set stringent targets to tackle sewage spills, prioritising bathing waters and sites of special scientific interest just like the Durham coast SSSI.

To improve our waterways, the Government are clear that we need to hold to account robustly those who pollute, including our water companies, as customers rightly expect us to do. Yesterday we announced that we are significantly increasing our oversight of the water industry. Every water company should expect their waste water treatment sites to be regularly inspected, which includes unannounced inspections. The number of inspections will rise to 4,000 by the end of March 2025, which is a 370% increase.

Also, on 12 February the Environment Secretary announced that Ofwat will be consulting on banning water bosses receiving bonuses if a water company has committed a serious criminal breach. Ofwat will take forward a consultation to define the criteria for a ban, which could include the prosecution of a category 1 or category 2 pollution incident—such as causing significant pollution at a bathing water site location or a conservation area—or where a water company has been found guilty of a serious management failing. The ban would apply to all executive board members and the chief executive who sits on that board, and we expect it to come into effect later this year. The Government are clear that no one should be rewarded for a serious criminal breach while managing and operating a water company, should that serious breach take place on their watch. This builds on Ofwat’s announcements last year to tighten restrictions on bonuses, using powers given to the regulator through the Environment Act 2021.

Let us be clear: tougher enforcement requires more monitoring. To ensure that robust action is taken, we are holding the water industry to account on a scale that has never been seen before. This Government are driving up monitoring and transparency to ensure that the public can see what is going on, and this starts with monitoring. This Government have achieved 100% monitoring of England’s storm overflows, which is a vast improvement on the just 7% of storm overflows that were monitored under Labour in 2010. This is a major step forward in protecting our precious water bodies as well as the communities and wildlife that rely on them. Meeting this target is a significant achievement in creating positive environmental change and an ability to hold to account the water companies that pollute.

Regarding Northumbrian Water, the water and sewerage company servicing the east Durham area, I am aware that no serious pollution incidents were recorded in 2022 or 2023. However, I am aware that there has been a concerning increase in the number of pollution incidents that have taken place over a longer period. Since January 2015, Northumbrian Water has faced three prosecutions and a total of £807,000 in fines from the Environment Agency. The most recent prosecution followed two consecutive days in March 2017 of raw sewage being released from manhole chambers in Bishop Auckland, which was completely unacceptable. Northumbrian Water is one of six water companies with live cases for potential failures at sewage treatment works that may have led to unpermitted sewage discharges into the environment. I am happy to meet the hon. Member if there are other matters that he wishes to raise.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for his response but, in terms of serious notifiable incidents, there were 184 sewage discharge water alerts in 2023, which is a huge number. I am not sure of the established definition of “serious”, but what is his view of the level of dividends being paid and of the business plans being operated by Northumbrian Water and, presumably, other privatised water companies? They are securitising assets, including Kielder Water, the biggest reservoir in western Europe, and using the proceeds to pay shareholder dividends, rather than to repair infrastructure. What is his view on that?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Gentleman will have noted what I said about wanting to tighten up the bonuses paid not only to chief executives but to executive board members. Earlier this year, the Government announced tighter measures, relating specifically to environmental performance, for Ofwat to be able to challenge dividends.

Last year, to tackle storm overflow discharges, we updated our storm overflow discharge reduction plan, which sets stringent targets to reduce storm overflows. It prioritises action on overflows that discharge into ecologically sensitive sites such as SSSIs, areas of outstanding natural beauty and bathing waters. It will also drive water companies to deliver their largest ever infrastructure programme, an incredible £60 billion over the next 25 years. We are already seeing many water companies accelerating their investment in increasing the assets they oversee.

Moreover, I am aware that there are three designated bathing waters on the County Durham coastline in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency: Seaham Hall, Seaham beach and Crimdon. Substantial improvements have been made to English bathing waters in recent years. Almost 90% of designated bathing waters in England met the highest standards—good or excellent—in 2023, up from 76% in 2010, and that is despite stricter standards being introduced in 2015. These bathing waters are routinely monitored by the Environment Agency during the official bathing water season from May to September.

In 2023, two of the bathing water sites in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency were classified as good, and all met the minimum standard of sufficient. However, I recognise that two had deteriorated from the previous year’s classification. The Environment Agency will investigate the reasons for that deterioration in the region’s bathing water.

We are working closely with Ofwat and the Environment Agency to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to hold water companies to account. We have provided an extra £2.2 million a year to the Environment Agency specifically for water company enforcement activity. Furthermore, in May 2023 Ofwat announced that its enforcement capacity will be trebled following the Government’s approval of an £11.3 million budget increase.

We have legislated to introduce unlimited penalties for water companies that breach their environmental permits, and to expand the range of offences to which those penalties can be applied. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes criminal.

In our “Plan for Water” we announced the water restoration fund, which will channel environmental fines and penalties collected from the water companies into projects that improve water environment. Further details of the water restoration fund will be announced.

This Government are going further and faster than any Government to protect and enhance the health of our rivers and seas. We expect water companies, including Northumbrian Water, to use the next five-year price review period, PR24, to set bold and ambitious plans to deliver for the people and the environment. That means security of supply, cleaner rivers and beaches, fewer leaks, fewer supply interruptions, greater water resilience—so that we see a fit future for our rivers and coastal environment—and substantial improvements to tackle storm overflows. In turn, this investment will boost economic growth and create more jobs.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am, exceptionally, going to take a point of order, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has been asked by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to correct the record as soon as possible, and that he has given a commitment to do so. I would not normally do this, but I will this time because it is about a speech that was made earlier today.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, who pointed out to me that I had got something completely wrong in the speech I made earlier. I said that she had presented a ten-minute rule Bill, the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, but that was not introduced by her at all; it was in fact introduced by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who is quite a different matter. I heartily apologise to the right hon. Lady—I am terribly sorry—and I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to do that as swiftly as I could, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I heard the right hon. Lady say that she was grateful that the hon. Gentleman had done this as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

19:50

House adjourned.

Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024 Draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Wednesday 21st February 2024 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: James Gray

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

† Baker, Mr Steve (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office)

† Baron, Mr John (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)

† Byrne, Ian (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

† Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

† Creasy, Stella (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

† Dixon, Samantha (City of Chester) (Lab)

† Doyle-Price, Dame Jackie (Thurrock) (Con)

Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)

† Fletcher, Nick (Don Valley) (Con)

† Grant, Mrs Helen (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)

Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Jenkinson, Mark (Workington) (Con)

Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

Jonathan Finlay, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 21 February 2024

[James Gray in the Chair]

Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024

09:25

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.

[Mr Baker]

I am glad to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I am grateful to all members of the Committee for being here this morning to consider these substantial and important draft statutory instruments. This Government are committed to protecting the integrity of our democratic process, and we continue to deliver on that commitment by introducing measures included in our manifesto to prevent postal vote harvesting. That is the practice of third parties collecting the votes of large numbers of postal voters.

The Elections Act 2022 included a number of changes to ensure that UK elections remain secure, fair and modern. The statutory instruments, which I am pleased to bring before the Committee, flow directly from that Act. One instrument applies the measures for parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, and the second instrument mirrors those measures for local elections in Northern Ireland. Equivalent legislation that will bring the changes into force for Great Britain has already been passed by Parliament. Taken together, the instruments and the legislation for GB provide a package of measures covering non-devolved elections in GB and Northern Ireland and will ensure that the absent voting system in Northern Ireland benefits from the same protections as elsewhere in the UK. If approved, the instruments will ensure that the changes will come into force at the same time for both GB and Northern Ireland.

The measures contained in the instruments before us set a limit on how many postal votes any one individual can hand in directly to the returning officer. That implements recommendations set out in the report on electoral fraud published in 2016 by Lord Pickles, which was designed to improve the security of absent voting and make it less vulnerable to potential fraud. The measures also complement other provisions for Northern Ireland in the Elections Act to protect the integrity of the absent vote process. They include a ban on political campaigners handling postal voting documents issued to another person and measures ensuring the secrecy of absent voting through the extension of secrecy provisions. The provisions apply to elections on or after 2 May 2024. One of the instruments before us contains some technical amendments relating to the changes to EU voting and candidacy rights, which I will touch on briefly later.

I come on to the limit on the handling of postal votes of other persons. The instruments set out that an individual, in addition to their own postal vote, will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors to the returning officer. In Northern Ireland, postal votes can be handed in to the chief electoral officer’s staff at the electoral office. The chief electoral officer is the returning officer for all 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland. Unlike in GB, where postal votes may be returned to the polling station, in Northern Ireland, due to additional security checks, handing in postal votes at polling stations has never been permitted. The ban on handing in at Northern Ireland polling stations is not changed in any way by these measures.

Currently, there are no restrictions on who may hand in postal votes or how many may be handed in by any single person. There is also no record of who has handed in postal votes. That situation creates opportunities for the integrity of postal voting to be undermined by unscrupulous individuals. We are determined to deliver the manifesto commitment to tackle the harvesting or collection of votes in that way. Even if their actions are legitimate, people seen handing in large numbers of postal votes create the perception and suspicion of impropriety, damaging public confidence in the electoral system. That is particularly true in Northern Ireland.

The instruments aim to strike the balance between the security and integrity of the process and ensuring that the electoral process is accessible. Under the regulations and order, a person will be able to hand in their own postal vote and the postal votes of up to five other people, including any for whom they are acting as proxy. We consider that to be a reasonable limit that will support the integrity of postal voting. A person handing in postal votes will be required to complete a form setting out information, including their name and address, the number of persons whose postal votes they are handing in and the reason for that. If an individual hands in postal votes in excess of the limit, they will be rejected. Any postal votes that have been left behind in the electoral office without an accompanying form, or those pushed under the front door out of hours, will not be counted, as they will not have been returned in accordance with these requirements.

These instruments will also update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure the new limits and procedures are set out clearly for electors. That information should help electors to plan accordingly and return their postal votes via post where possible. If they are handing them in, they will know the permitted number they can submit.

After the poll, the chief electoral officer will put together a list of postal ballot papers that have been rejected because the handing-in limit was exceeded and, where possible, will write to those whose postal votes have been rejected to notify them and give the reason why. That will ensure postal voters are informed of the rejection of their postal vote and can, if necessary, act to avoid it at future polls.

These instruments make provision for the storage and destruction of accepted and rejected postal voting documents, the return of postal voting document forms and the list of rejected or left-behind postal votes. In line with the arrangements for other electoral documents, they will be destroyed one year after the poll. The new postal vote handing-in requirements will, as with the changes banning political campaigners from handling postal votes and the extension of secrecy provisions, apply to elections on or after 2 May 2024.

Turning to the technical amendments relating to the changes to EU voting and candidacy rights, the draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make some small changes in relation to EU voting and candidacy rights. The Elections Act 2022 amended the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU. The Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 amended existing legislation to implement the changes in the Elections Act.

The 2023 regulations provided for a one-off review process so that EU citizens on the register can be reviewed by the chief electoral officer and removed from the register if no longer eligible under the amended franchise. The regulations before the Committee amend the 2023 regulations so that, where the eligibility of EU citizens to remain on the register has been reviewed, duplicate notices do not have to be issued. Without this amendment, the chief electoral officer would be required to send a notice under existing review procedures and a notice under the new one-off process when removing an EU citizen. Some minor technical amendments are also made to reflect the new franchise.

Additionally, these regulations make transitional provision to ensure that candidates and other registered EU citizens remain eligible to stand and hold office in elections that might need to be re-run on or after 7 May 2024, the date on which the changes to EU voting and candidacy rights otherwise come into effect.

Having set out the detail of these statutory instruments, I hope the Committee will appreciate that they have been carefully designed and well considered to reduce the opportunities for individuals to exploit the process and steal the votes of others. I am open to questions. I am proud to bring these instruments forward, and I commend them to the Committee.

09:33

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

The statutory instruments would bring about changes to postal and proxy voting in Northern Ireland and to EU citizens’ voting and candidacy rights. As elected Members of this House we should support all aims to make our elections as free and fair as possible and not to allow for any fraud at all. I think about why I got involved in politics, and why I stood to be a local councillor and an MP: it was because I wanted to represent my community, and I know every vote matters.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that we do not seek to refight the battles that took place over aspects of these regulations during the passage of the Elections Act 2022—I was on the Bill Committee and part of those discussions—and we do not intend to oppose these measures. However, I would still like him to consider what some of the serious potential unintended consequences could be if these regulations are not implemented with sufficient attention. First, I should make it very clear that for many years the Labour party has been signed up to the Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners, which bans campaigners from handling completed postal ballots. Our internal guidance also states clearly that under no circumstances should campaigners handle completed postal ballots, unless electors have absolutely nobody else to return them for them.

I remain concerned about the definition of political campaigners. In my constituency party, we have a thousand Labour members. During elections, many of them lent a helping hand by putting posters in their windows, by delivering leaflets on their block or road, or even just by commenting online. Some join the Labour party, as with every other party, and maybe do no more than that. Others do not join a party, but may still get involved in political activity at election time. These simple acts may be enough to draw them into the definition of a political campaigner.

A lack of clarity may have a chilling effect. If someone knows they are going to be handing in a postal vote, maybe further down the line, that could prevent them from getting involved in political activity. It may have unintended consequences for both sides. It is easy to imagine a party member in Northern Ireland who is inactive most of the time but willing to help in a small way during an election being caught by, or not being clear on, these regulations because they want to hand in a postal vote for a sick housemate or partner.

I am not sure how far the regulations draw a distinction between a political campaigner with a rosette who knocks on doors with a group of other people who are campaigning politically and someone who may happen to be an ordinary party member, or not even a party member, who is doing something political at an election time in a personal capacity. There may be times when it is difficult for electoral officers to adjudicate on this. What will the definition of a political campaigner be for the purposes of enabling electoral officers to adjudicate? Can the Minister outline what safeguards are in place to ensure that that would not be the case, and what efforts are being made to ensure that legitimate voters do not lose their voice because of these regulations?

The pressure on local authorities is significant. We have stretched electoral administrators up and down the country, who are getting their heads around the changes that the Government are making—we pointed that out several times in the Bill Committee—and sometimes rectifying errors along the way. Will these electoral officers be further resourced in Northern Ireland? Will they be strengthened to deal with the impacts and changes that have been outlined?

I would also like to know what will happen about communications and the postal vote packs being dropped through council letter boxes. The Minister outlined clearly that postal votes dropped through electoral offices without an accompanying form will be discarded or left behind, but will that be very clearly communicated to the electorate so that they will not be told afterwards that their vote was not counted? They may be under the impression that their vote would have been counted because they have gone to the office and dropped in the form. I hope that the Minister agrees that the right to participation in the democratic process requires a bit more careful planning. Maybe he can assure us of that, either in this Committee or afterwards. Though these layers may have security advantages, they risk overloading election officers who are already stretched by changes elsewhere in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

09:38

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her speech. We all completely share her commitment to free and fair elections and believe that every vote matters. That is certainly something that we can put on the record together. I had occasion once to report one of my own candidates to the police, and I would gently say to police forces that every vote does matter and that it is a serious matter if a vote is undermined or, in that case, stolen from a woman. But that is another story for another day.

I had the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament on these matters and, if colleagues are struggling to sleep, perhaps they might refer back to it. Let me turn very clearly to what the hon. Lady has asked me. First, I would like to give her a full answer on the issue of the definition of a party campaigner. The provisions for Northern Ireland and the definition of a political campaigner for the purpose of the new postal vote handling offence, and the exemptions that apply to that offence, are set out in section 4(2) of the Elections Act 2022. The Electoral Commission issues guidance to candidates at elections as a caution, and we expect that it will cover the new postal vote handling and handing-in requirements. We also expect that political parties will bring the new requirements to the attention of their members. We intend the changes to be communicated to electors directly through forms, including the declaration of identity form and poll cards, and through information made available to electors via the electoral office website and gov.uk.

Since the hon. Lady pressed me on the definition of a campaigner, broadly speaking, the rules set out in the legislation are that a

“person is a political campaigner in respect of a relevant election”

if at that election they are a candidate, an election agent or a sub-agent, if they are “employed or engaged” by a candidate for the purposes of assisting the candidate’s activity, or—this is the point that the hon. Lady will be most concerned about—if they are a member of a “registered political party” and conducting activity

“designed to promote a particular outcome at the election”.

Of course, that will catch all our activists. They need to know that if they are a member—that is a crucial point —of a registered political party and conducting such activity, then they are a campaigner. Next, they are a political campaigner if they are

“employed or engaged by a registered political party in connection with the party’s political activities”,

or if they are “employed or engaged” by a person within any of the previous categories

“to promote a particular outcome at the election”.

That applies to anyone whom such a person employs or engages to help promote such an outcome. That is the definition. Some of it is quite a mouthful. We will need to ensure that as political parties, including in Northern Ireland, we are clear with our members about where the regulations apply to them.

The hon. Lady asked about the danger of losing votes. It is worth saying that this is about the handing in of postal votes. Normally, all of us would expect postal votes to be posted, but this is about the handing in. We think that the limit is reasonable. We are clear that it will be necessary to say, for example, on the front door of the electoral office that people must not post the votes through the letterbox themselves or put them under the door, and they will not be counted if they do, so that is covered.

On resourcing of electoral officers, I do not have the figures with me today, but we will stay in frequent contact with the relevant authorities in relation to their resourcing. The hon. Lady raised a good point. I think I have largely covered the point about communications on packs and the Electoral Commission. We need to ensure that the text is right, as set out in the instrument. We need to ensure that the Electoral Commission communicates with voters, and that the packs themselves are clear about what is required of people.

I hope that, taken together, all these things will ensure the integrity of the electoral process. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied. She is right to be concerned about ensuring that everyone gets their vote. We share that concern, and as political parties, I am sure that we will all do our utmost to ensure that everyone understands how this should work and gets their vote counted fairly.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Mr Baker.)

09:43

Committee rose.

Draft Carer's Leave Regulations 2024 Draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Wednesday 21st February 2024 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Philip Hollobone

† Ansell, Caroline (Eastbourne) (Con)

† Chamberlain, Wendy (North East Fife) (LD)

† De Cordova, Marsha (Battersea) (Lab)

† Dixon, Samantha (City of Chester) (Lab)

† Fuller, Richard (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

Gardiner, Barry (Brent North) (Lab)

† Grundy, James (Leigh) (Con)

† Hall, Luke (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)

Hamilton, Mrs Paulette (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Kniveton, Kate (Burton) (Con)

† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con)

† Stafford, Alexander (Rother Valley) (Con)

Stephens, Chris (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

† Throup, Maggie (Erewash) (Con)

† Wood, Mike (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury)

Susie Smith, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended (Standing Order No. 118(2)):

Clarke, Sir Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 21 February 2024

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 24 May last year. These accompanying regulations were laid on 11 December 2023. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has played a role in taking these measures through Parliament. I thank in particular the promoters or sponsors of the private Members’ Bills that enable these regulations: the hon. Member for North East Fife, who is with us today, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), Lord Fox, Baroness Tyler and Baroness Bertin. The legislation that they helped to enact recognises the importance of unpaid carers and the significance of providing improved job security for pregnant women and new parents.

Statistics from the family resources survey 2021-22 showed that there were 4.9 million adult informal carers in the UK. Just over half of those are also holding down a job. That is about 2.5 million people trying to balance work with their caring responsibilities. According to research by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, one in nine mothers reported that they had been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant where others had not been, or treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave work. If scaled up to the general population, that could mean that as many as 54,000 mothers a year are pushed out of the workforce. Although that data is from some time ago, we know that the problem persists. Put simply, that situation is unacceptable.

Delivering both these sets of regulations will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitments to introduce one week of leave for unpaid carers and to introduce new protections for pregnant women and new parents. I will turn first to the carer’s leave regulations. Before getting into the substance, may I use this opportunity to flag a correction slip? The first line of regulation 5(1) on page 2 of the SI previously read “is entitled one week”, but now reads “is entitled to one week”.

Unpaid carers play a vital role in our society. There can be real challenges in balancing work with caring responsibilities. These regulations acknowledge some of those challenges and put in place measures that will help to ease the situation for a group of people who we know can be time-poor.

Carer’s leave will be a day one right for employees, who can then provide care, or make arrangements for the provision of care, for a dependant with a long-term care need. The definitions of care and care need have deliberately been kept wide to encompass a broad range of circumstances. Unpaid carers will be able to take their leave in a flexible manner, spanning from half a day to an entire week. That flexibility gives carers the most choice of how to manage their leave, based on their specific needs.

When applying for the leave, there will be no need to provide evidence indicating how the leave will be used or for whom. That will help to minimise any pressure on the carer, including any apprehension they might have about disclosing potentially sensitive third party information. It will also reduce the administrative burden for employers and eliminate red tape. Unpaid carers applying for the leave will have to provide advance notice, similar to the situation with the existing annual leave requirements, subject to a minimum notice period of three days.

Employers will not be able to deny the request for carer’s leave. However, they may postpone it. When doing so, they must let their employee know as soon as reasonably practicable and, following consultation, confirm a new date on which they can take the leave within a month of the original date. Lastly, on carer’s leave, safeguards will be in place, such as protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken carer’s leave.

Turning to the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations, as I said, it is not right that for a significant number of pregnant women and new parents, fearing losing their job unjustly is another worry they have to deal with. Under existing regulations—the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, often referred to as MAPL—before making an employee who is on maternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave redundant, employers have an obligation to offer them a suitable alternative vacancy where one is available, not just to invite them to apply for a role. In effect, that gives a parent taking one of those forms of leave priority over other employees, who are also at risk of redundancy. The point of these draft regulations is to extend that additional redundancy protection into pregnancy and for a period once the parent has returned to work.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

To start, I am 100% behind all the important measures that the Minister has outlined. I was pleased to work with the hon. Member for North East Fife on the Bill Committee to bring forward carer’s leave. Is the Minister aware of the active consideration of, and some of the challenge around support for, kinship carers? A recent study shows that 50% of kinship carers have been forced to give up their work, and that there are 130,000 kinship placements. I support every measure that he is outlining, but will he reassure me that active consideration is being made for that important and significant group? The needs of children are well met by the support of their wider family, but it is generally in traumatic and difficult circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. I, too, have kinship carers in my constituency. I know the important work they do and the saving they make to society, but also the help they give to children in such a situation. I am sympathetic. I have met the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing on a number of occasions, and I continue to do so. We are engaging to see what extra workplace entitlements we might make available to people in that situation, while trying to ensure that we do not add too many extra burdens to employers, in particular at this time when many face some difficulties. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and am keen to continue to work with her on this particular area.

The provisions will help to alleviate some of the anxiety about job security that a pregnant woman or new parent may face. For the purposes of the draft maternity leave regulations, pregnancy is defined as the period from when a woman informs their employer of their pregnancy until two weeks after the pregnancy ends, for whatever reason. The additional redundancy protection continues for 18 months after the birth of the child, encompassing any period of relevant leave.

The 18-month period serves two purposes. First, it ensures that a mother returning from 12 months of maternity leave will receive six months of additional redundancy protection when she goes back to work. That meets the commitment that the Government made in their consultation response. Secondly, a single, consistent and clear period of protection is a simple way to accommodate the flexibility of shared parental leave and the interaction between shared parental leave and other types of parental leave. Creating a bespoke approach for those and other scenarios would have introduced considerable complexity into the regulations. That is why we opted for the simplicity and clarity of a single period of protection.

The period of protection for redundancy on return to work is activated immediately someone returns to the workplace following a period of maternity or adoption leave. However, the new draft regulations will introduce a minimum qualifying period for those taking shared parental leave alone—by “alone”, I mean that they have not previously taken a period of maternity or adoption leave. That is to avoid the situation where a parent who has taken just a few weeks of shared parental leave receives 18 months of additional protection in a redundancy situation. When we spoke with our stakeholders, they considered that it would be disproportionate to extend that level of protection to someone who had taken only a short period of shared parental leave. For that reason, the draft regulations require a parent to have taken a minimum period of six continuous weeks of shared parental leave—unless they have taken maternity or adoption leave—to activate the additional redundancy protection once they have returned to work.

Together, these measures will provide additional support and protection for pregnant women and new parents, and for those with caring responsibilities beyond childcare. The Government were pleased to support the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023, which were introduced as private Members’ Bills. We are pleased to have laid these regulations and look forward to their coming into force.

14:40

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his introduction. We will not be opposing the regulations today, although that is not to say that I do not have a few questions and comments—I know the Minister would have been disappointed if I did not have anything to say. Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for their work on the private Members’ Bills that led to these regulations.

As the Minister highlighted, the draft carer’s leave regulations will provide employees from day one—we in the Opposition certainly like day-one rights—the right to a maximum of one week’s leave per year to care for a loved one, without any requirement to provide evidence. As we know, the entitlement can be taken in chunks as small as half a day or as one week’s continuous leave, and it cannot be refused by an employer, nor can an employee be detrimentally treated as a result of taking such leave, in common with many other protections in employment law.

Campaigners have pushed for many years for the right to statutory care leave, but until now there has been no such right. We know that there is a whole range of reasons why carers might need to take time out; the regulations will hopefully allow them to provide assistance with a doctor’s appointment or recovery after surgery, for example. The regulations are undoubtedly a step forward, and they should make a difference to those with caring responsibilities who are in paid work.

As we heard, the number of people potentially affected by the regulations is not insignificant. There are millions of people who are both in work and responsible for caring. Carers UK found that before the pandemic almost 5 million people were juggling work and caring, and that increased to 7 million during the pandemic. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimates that the figure is closer to 3.7 million people, while the impact assessment published alongside the regulations states that the total number of carers—not just those who are in work—stands at 4.2 million. There are, therefore, several different estimates of the number of people who will be impacted by the regulations, and I will return to that briefly later on, but whatever figure we choose, it represents a substantial proportion of the total population, let alone of the number of people actually in work. Given that, at the latest count, there were about 33 million people in work, around 11% to 15% of the overall workforce may benefit from the regulations.

There is a large amount of evidence that good employers already have informal care leave practices in place, but of course many employees do not have that option and, unfortunately, often take caring leave in the form of annual leave or sick leave. That was uncovered during the Government’s 2020 consultation, which found that two thirds of carers had had to use annual leave to provide care for their dependants. In essence, until that point the issue was hidden: carers would use annual leave or find another way, by hook or by crook, to take the time out that they needed. We should make it very clear that annual leave is meant for rest and recuperation, not caring responsibilities.

A 2018 report by the Work and Pensions Committee summed up that unfortunate practice as “detrimental” to carers’

“own physical and mental well-being,”

and said that, in the long run, it would increase

“the risk of sickness, exhaustion and ‘burnout’.”

Those warnings appear to be accepted in the summary of the “do nothing” approach in the impact assessment published alongside the regulations, although I cannot help but point out to the Minister the irony of the Government’s being alive to the importance of a worker having the option and the ability to take annual leave in the context of caring, just a couple of months since the introduction of reforms to rolled-up holiday pay, which will have the opposite effect.

All hon. Members here will appreciate how taxing such caring efforts will be for workers, and many will, of course, have personal experience of such difficulties. Research published by the CIPD in 2021 found that almost one third of working carers provide at least 30 hours of caring per week, meaning that they are effectively undertaking another full-time job on top of their full-time caring responsibilities. Of those working full time, 28% provided at least 30 hours of care. Understandably, for many that can take a huge physical as well as psychological toll, not to mention the need to balance such personal challenges with the development of a career.

For many the situation can seem insurmountable, and people often reduce their working hours or give up work entirely. I hope the regulations stop that happening as much as it has been to date, but according to research 9% of the population have had to do that: the impact assessment notes that 5% have left the workplace altogether and a further 4% have had to cut their hours. Carers UK claims that this translates to 600 workers leaving the workplace per day. If that is correct, it is a staggering figure and clearly something that we should all want to do something about. It is clear that informal care needs can impact on one’s career, leaving many working people in a state of economic inactivity in order to provide care. When so much potential and experience is lost to the labour market, we need to address that; I hope the regulations will help in that respect.

It is important to note that the burdens do not fall on all sections of society equally. The impact assessment notes that the impact of caring while in work hits those aged 45 to 54 hardest—I declare an interest at this point as I am in that age group; I know it is hard to believe, but I am under 54—with more than a quarter of people reporting that it had taken a toll on their work. There is also a gender aspect to this, with women more likely than men to be responsible for caring. The family resources survey found that 9% of women, as opposed to 6% of men, are in this position. If we put the facts together, it is no surprise that women aged between 45 and 64 years old are most likely to be carers. As we know, with such added responsibilities they are more likely to be leaving the workforce, which exacerbates the existing gender pay gap.

All this shows that not only are many making a massive personal sacrifice, but there are societal consequences as well. The inequalities in terms of who is responsible should trouble us all, but there are also profound financial impacts. The impact assessment notes that the potential cost incurred to the Exchequer alone is around £2.9 billion per year. Analysis suggests that better carer’s leave policies could save businesses a cumulative £4.8 billion per year in unplanned absences, and a further £3.4 billion in improved employee retention. Clearly, those figures may need to be tested by experience, but it is clear that some businesses have caught on to the benefits of providing carer’s leave and introduced voluntary policies. Sadly, though, that applies only to a small proportion of businesses overall—Carers UK report that it is around 12% of existing employers.

It is an understatement to say that a very strong case for carer’s leave has been made for a number of years, but we do have concerns about some of the aspects of the regulations. Most significantly, the calls made during the passage of the Carer’s Leave Act for the Government to consider making such leave paid have fallen on deaf ears. It was not just the Opposition who called for paid leave; the Government’s own response to the consultation on the matter, which was published in September 2021, stated:

“There were strong calls from charities and individuals for this leave entitlement to be paid.”

Despite those strong calls, the space allocated to considering them in the consultation extended to just 162 words, in which the Government said they were “sympathetic” to the calls but judged that the impact on businesses would not be “proportionate”. There is no analysis to support that position, and no further evidence. I know that finances are tight, but we already know about the potential positive financial impact, so I would have expected some form of analysis in the impact assessment—which took a year to come out—of the costs and benefits of making the entitlement paid. The Government should at least have considered that as an option.

Why have the Government decided that it would be disproportionate to make the entitlement paid without offering any supporting evidence? Has the Minister looked at costings at any point? Indeed, has there been any consideration of that point at all? Given the evidence that there is an economic benefit, it is important that there is an explicit acknowledgment in the impact assessment that keeping the leave entitlement as unpaid will discourage some carers from taking up leave. The impact assessment says that

“as this is an unpaid leave entitlement some carers will be disincentivised to take the full entitlement of leave, as they do not want to lose more of their income. Existing survey evidence shows that one of the key reasons for not taking leave is because of affordability.”

Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen a policy which, according to their own analysis, appears to limit the take-up?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is implying that we should make the entitlement paid, which is a perfectly reasonable position. As he makes that assertion and that policy decision that the Labour party will presumably adopt, does he understand how much that decision will cost and where the money will come from?

[Justin Madders]

As the Minister knows, we will publish our proposals with costings when we get to the general election. However, as the Government have been considering the regulations, I want to know whether they have undertaken such an exercise. It appears they have not, and I think, given that there is apparently some financial benefit, that it is perfectly reasonable to ask why that question has not been addressed at all. I further point out that the impact assessment states that

“some employees may prefer to use their annual leave for caring responsibilities, as this is an unpaid entitlement and annual leave is paid at full-pay.”

That undermines the purpose that the regulations are trying to achieve, so I hope the Minister can address that in a little more detail when he responds.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a question about how many people will actually benefit. I quoted figures from Carers UK and the CIPD, which place the number of people in work who are carers at more than 5 million or at 3.7 million, respectively. The Government’s estimate of those who will benefit is substantially lower, at 1.9 million, according to page 13 of the impact assessment. That number is also alluded to in the explanatory memorandum, which states that the number of in-work carers is roughly half the total number of informal carers, which is 4.2 million. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why we have such discrepancies on the figures; after all, there are several million people between the Government’s and the CIPD’s estimates. One possibility is that many carers do not qualify for the assessment because they are not employees. I do not know whether that has been part of the issue.

I have some concerns about the mechanics of the entitlement and will ask the Minister to address those when he responds. The particular issue is the ability of an employer to postpone the leave for a period of up to one month. The regulations state that an employer is entitled to delay the take-up of leave if

“their business will be unduly disrupted if the employee took carer’s leave during the period identified in the notice”.

That appears rather open-ended. What constitutes a business being unduly disrupted? Will the Minister help us with that? Will there be guidance issued on that point, alongside the regulations, to clarify the circumstances in which it can be invoked?

It is also worth noting that if an employee provides less than one week’s notice, the leave could be postponed before the earliest day or part day requested in the employee’s notice. That means that there are asymmetrical notice requirements. Where an employee must provide adequate notice to proceed with their entitlement, the employer can seemingly postpone at a moment’s notice. We can all see why that that might not necessarily align with people’s caring responsibilities. Most of the time, the leave will be dependent on the care needs of the recipient, and it might not be possible to rearrange cover in such a fashion, so will the Minister accept that a balance must be struck between the needs of the carer and of the employer?

I suggest that the way the draft regulations are framed means that the employer could, if so minded, refuse a request for whatever reason they chose, as long as they use the wording of regulation 8(b). On the face of it, under the draft regulations, there is no mechanism to challenge an employer’s decision. On reasons to postpone carer’s leave rather than refuse it—it is supposed to be operational in a month—what explanations does the Minister expect a business to produce? What measures can the Government take to ensure that consent is not withheld unreasonably?

Before I move on to the second set of regulations, I will say that it is a little disappointing that we have had to wait such a long time for regulation. It is now not far off seven years since the Government promised to

“give workers a new statutory entitlement to carer’s leave, as enjoyed in other countries”,

in the 2017 Conservative general election manifesto. That was repeated in the 2019 manifesto, which stated that they would introduce the

“entitlement to leave for unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women, to one week.”

A promise to introduce the provisions as part of the now mythical employment Bill was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. A consultation was launched in March 2020, followed by a Government response a year later, but then we heard nothing more.

As we know, throughout the passage of the Carer’s Leave Bill there was no opposition to its principles and no amendments were made. I think it was universally accepted that it was a positive step forward, which poses the question of why we have had to wait seven years for this to be delivered. Why did we have to rely on a private Member’s Bill for it to come into law? Hundreds of thousands of workers could have benefited from the protections in the legislation had it been issued earlier. It is positive that we have finally got there, but it is reasonable to ask the Minister why it has taken us so long.

I now turn to the second set of regulations, the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave, and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations. As the Minister stated, they are about the protections against being made redundant that are afforded to workers who take maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. The rights stem from the MAPL regulations of 1999 and similar provisions in the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 and the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014.

All the existing regulations state that if a worker’s job is being made redundant during their maternity, adoption or shared parental leave period, they are entitled to be offered alternative employment that is not substantially worse than their previous job. As the Minister said, the new regulations will expand the time during which those protections apply up to 18 months after the birth of the child. That will mean that a mother taking the full 12-month entitlement to maternity leave or a parent taking the full 12-month adoption leave will be protected for at least six months after their return to the workplace. For a parent taking shared parental leave, protections apply only if they take off at least six consecutive weeks of parental leave.

We absolutely support the Government on increasing protections and, as the Minister said, a range of evidence that has been available for a long time indicates that new mothers have been pushed out of jobs and discriminated against. The Minister referred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2015 estimate of about 54,000 new mothers being forced out of their jobs, equating to about 11% of the women responding, who had

“been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their jobs”.

In 2020, a Pregnant Then Screwed a survey of almost 20,00 women also found a figure of about 11% of women on maternity leave who had been made redundant or expected to be made redundant. The Government recognised that position and made positive noises following a 2017 Women and Equalities Committee report, but did not launch a consultation on the issue until 2019. Again, a commitment to act was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, but here we are in 2024 before we finally have some regulations.

It must be stated that the second set of regulations will address only one element of the challenges that women and other parents face: that of being made redundant while pregnant. On page 7 of the impact assessment, it is estimated that the measure will likely cover about 7,500 people. Clearly, that is a not insignificant number of workers, and it is a welcome step that additional parents will have the protections, but that is only a small proportion of those who start a family each year, and it is certainly a drop in the ocean compared with the 11% figure in the surveys to which I have referred.

There is concern, then, that the regulations will not take us all the way to where we want to be in protecting women and new parents from discrimination during and after pregnancy. I think we can all agree that the surveys and the evidence show us that there is currently an unacceptable level of discrimination, but it is important to remember that that has all been happening under the current rules on maternity, adoptive and shared parental leave, so it is reasonable to ask this question. What do the Government think will happen, when the extension of the period comes into force, to actually ensure that all discrimination in the workplace is eliminated? We know that tens of thousands of women are already being forced out of their jobs, through reasons not associated with redundancy, during pregnancy or within six months of their return to work. I fear that the measure will not go far enough, so does the Minister have any thoughts or suggestions about what else could be done to reduce the very high numbers?

The regulations on which the statutory instrument builds are reliant on awareness by the employer of the rules and on the ability of the worker to enforce their rights. The impact assessment noted that 70% of employers reported a high level of awareness of female employees’ rights, but it also noted that deeply concerning biases were held by an unacceptably large proportion of employers. Reportedly, 70% of employers held the belief that women should declare a pregnancy during the recruitment stage, and 25% thought it was acceptable to ask a woman about their plans to have children when hiring. Those statistics are concerning and should be setting off alarm bells about the latent discrimination that still exists. I started work nearly 30 years ago and even then those sorts of questions were simply unacceptable, so the fact that the impact assessment reveals that that kind of prejudice is still alive is worrying to say the least.

The concern is reflected in the part of the impact assessment that raises concerns that the effectiveness of the regulations could be blunted through an employer’s adherence to them. I will draw to the Committee’s attention two passages in the impact assessment. The first is the comment on the wider landscape, where it says:

“The legislation in this area is complex and thus businesses may struggle to understand their obligations. As a result, employees may find it difficult to exercise their rights.”

The other, which is a surprisingly candid comment about how the current system is not robust enough to adequately protect workers, says:

“Employers are currently not incentivised to provide sufficient employment protection for pregnant and new parents, and are likely to prioritise their costs and bottom line.”

It would be useful to hear the Minister’s reflections on those comments, because they allude to a wider problem. Will he reassure us that there will be adequate support for businesses to understand the new protections and that they will be accompanied by a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that the protections actually benefit the people they are intended to benefit?

In closing, I remind Members again that the Select Committee report with actions in relation to where we are with the regulations today was published in 2016. We know that a week is a long time in politics, so eight years must seem like an eternity, particularly to those 54,000 women who we can estimate have been forced out of work each year during that period. The total is more than 400,000 women during that time. As I said, I will conclude on those points. We support the regulations, but there are some questions that I hope the Minister will address when he closes the debate.

15:03

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am conscious that being present at a delegated legislation Committee is more of a novelty for me than it may be for other Members present, but I do think it is fitting that regulations arising from the Carer’s Leave Act are progressing alongside those in relation to the work done by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), because our private Members’ Bills seemed to progress pretty much in tandem through all their steps.

I am very grateful to the civil servants, some of whom are here today, for their support, and to the Minister. Although we saw several Ministers along the way, I am very glad that we have reached a conclusion today. I am also very grateful to noble Lords, including Lord Fox, who took the Bill forward in the Lords. I also want to mention Baroness Pitkeathley—the former chief executive of Carers UK—and others who took part in the process in the other place, as well as the all-party parliamentary group on carers, many members of which took part. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who took part in the Bill Committee.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, made a good point about regulation 8 and the postponement of carer’s leave. I firmly believe that the regulations and the Carer’s Leave Act are a win-win: they are a win not just for employees who have unpaid caring responsibilities, but for employers. In relation to regulation 8, we need good communication with employers about the benefits of the Act. The fact is that people who work for them now are caring and will be caring, whether or not the legislation exists. We must allow people to bring their whole selves to work and to have honest conversations with their employers. Yes, that might come with an associated risk that we need to guard against, but if employers have the right relationships with their employees—during the progress of my Bill, I met many employers who already go above and beyond—they can demonstrate that unpaid carers are assets to their workforce.

When working on the Bill, trying to find constituents in North East Fife who would benefit from it was quite challenging, because many unpaid carers had already given up work to fulfil their unpaid caring responsibilities. The shadow Minister said there was a need to address this issue because of the gender pay gap. However, we need to look not just at the gender pay gap, but at the gender pension gap. Many people, generally women, are leaving the workforce to undertake caring responsibilities. As a result of their absence from working life, they are losing out not only financially but in terms of affording a more comfortable retirement. The Government have made crystal clear that they want to work on returning over-50s to the workplace. I do not want to give up on support for unpaid carers, but we should look at, for instance, keeping in touch days and recognise that the caring journeys of many unpaid carers will come to an end because the person they are caring for very sadly passes away.

I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time. I want to hear what the Government are doing to promote the regulations and the Act, which comes into force on 6 April, so that as many employers and employees are aware as possible, and so that employees can ask for and ensure that they have their rights. Otherwise, they will continue to take annual leave to fulfil their responsibilities. I am hugely grateful to all the charities that have supported me and the passage of the Bill, and thereby the draft regulations. I particularly note Carers UK, Carers Trust and, in my constituency, Fife Carers Centre.

15:08

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Government are very pleased to bring forward these two pieces of legislation and to deliver on two of our manifesto commitments. Let me touch on the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North East Fife.

The cost of carer’s leave to business is already around £33 million annually. Whether to extend it so that it is a paid right is an interesting question. As I said in my intervention, that would clearly mean a cost either for the taxpayer or for business, and we do not think, at this time, that that is the right burden to place on businesses, which are already facing difficulties from a number of sources, not least covid and the cost of living crisis.

Indeed, we have legislated in a number of areas. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned the employment Bill, but he will be aware that there are six private Members’ Bills that will have some impact on businesses. As well as the draft regulations we are considering, we introduced flexible working legislation, neonatal care leave and the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. Those are a number of requirements on business, and we always want to maintain a balance in relation to the impact on business and jobs. We think that this change strikes the right balance.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many people will be affected. Our statistics came from the family resources survey 2021-22, which states that there are 4.9 million adult informal carers, and half of those hold down a job. That is where we got the figure of 2.5 million from. A lot of the discrepancies he referred to may be a result of the kind of question that is asked. The questions are not necessarily the same, but the numbers are around the same ballpark. There may be a few hundred thousand either side, but in the context we are probably in the right place.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife made a good point about postponement and who judges what is unduly disruptive. Our perspective is that it is right that the business—the provider of employment—determines that. Hopefully, most people acknowledge that most employers in the UK are decent businesses that do the right thing by employees. That is good businesses, and most are run by decent people. Of course, where things go wrong, there is a natural recourse to the employment tribunal, which can determine whether a business has been reasonable or whether a person has been inappropriately discriminated against. We could potentially look at guidance in this area; we will take that away.

On the time it has taken for us to get to this point, of course we seek to deliver these things as quickly as possible, but there has been a series of disruptions to our legislative programme over the past few years—not least covid and the cost of living crisis. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation, as we discussed earlier.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to further protections, and of course we always look at that. Part of what we do in legislation is set a baseline that encourages cultural change. We will continue our work with the Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Advisory Board to develop improved guidance, which may provide the further protection that he seeks.

The hon. Member for North East Fife rightly asked how we can promote this legislation. We constantly work with stakeholders and various employer groups to talk about legislation that we are introducing, and we will continue to do that to ensure they inform the employers—their members—about the regulations.

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, not least the hon. Lady, who has done incredible work in taking forward her private Member’s Bill. It is always a pleasure to be involved in legislation that receives cross-party support, and I am very pleased that that is the case today. We very much hope the new carer’s leave right will improve the lives of carers who are juggling their caring duties and work commitments. The extension of additional redundancy protections to pregnant women and new parents will reduce the number of parents who feel they are being unjustly pushed out of the workplace. We want the regulations to succeed because we have an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of those who may rely on these changes in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024.

DRAFT MATERNITY LEAVE, ADOPTION LEAVE AND SHARED PARENTAL LEAVE (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

15:14

Committee rose.

Petitions

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Petitions

Wednesday 21 February 2024

Teddington Direct River Abstraction project

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Petitions

The petition of residents of the constituency of Twickenham in London

Declares extreme concern regarding Thames Water’s proposed scheme to build the Teddington Direct River Abstraction (DRA) project; notes that this would involve extracting up to 75 million litres of water from the River Thames in Teddington and replacing it with treated effluent from Mogden Sewage Treatment works; further notes that this project would involve the construction of tunnels and shafts starting in Isleworth and passing through Twickenham and Ham; further declares the potential risks this presents to local areas, both in terms of the impact on human health, the environment and biodiversity, and in terms of the disruption caused by construction in residential areas, as well as in nature areas in Moormead Park and Ham Lands; further notes the opposition conveyed by local community groups and residents; further declares concern that feedback submitted through Thames Water’s initial public consultations has not been adequately reflected in Thames Water’s response so far; and further declares that more viable alternatives to the Teddington DRA, with broader public support, have been discarded.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Government to remove the Teddington DRA as an option in the Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), which is currently under review by DEFRA.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Munira Wilson, Official Report, 12 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 867.]

[P002888]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay):

Thank you very much for sharing your petition with me, as Secretary of State at DEFRA. We appreciate the concerns of local residents in Twickenham, which is why on 19 December 2023, DEFRA Minister Robbie Moore met with Munira Wilson and Sarah Olney to discuss the Teddington Direct River Abstraction (DRA) scheme proposed by Thames Water. I would like to reassure local residents that a full environmental impact assessment will be undertaken—to cover both construction and the future operations of the scheme—before development consent is granted. The Environment Agency is also a statutory consultee, and will ensure that any development complies with environmental requirements and appropriate mitigation is taken.

As set out in our plan for water, there is a need for water industry action to improve resilience of water supplies to drought and respond to future challenges including population growth, climate change, and to protect the environment. Water companies must act now to tackle these challenges.

The need for new water resources infrastructure is determined through the statutory water resources planning process. Water companies must consider a wide range of new supply and demand management options to evaluate how best to secure future water supplies as part of their analysis to inform their plans, which are consulted on. DEFRA, supported by the Environment Agency and other water regulators, is currently assessing whether Thames Water’s plan meets the water company’s obligations before Thames Water can finalise its plan.

The design and specific location of the Teddington DRA and its associated infrastructure is being developed by Thames Water, and the construction and operational impacts have not yet been fully defined. The investigation into the feasibility of this scheme, along with other strategic water resources schemes across the country, is being supported by RAPID—Regulators Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development—which is a partnership made up of the three water regulators: the Environment Agency, Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

The Teddington DRA scheme has been granted a direction under the Planning Act 2008 to appoint it a nationally significant infrastructure project. Therefore, for Teddington DRA to proceed, Thames Water will still need to apply for and be granted development consent, as well as obtaining the relevant environmental permits. As I previously mentioned, an environmental impact assessment will be required to support a decision on development consent and the Environment Agency will scrutinise the proposals to ensure it is acceptable from an environmental perspective.

Road freight rates

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Petitions

To the House of Commons.

The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,

Declares that the road haulage industry contributes to approximately £13.5 million annually to the UK economy; further that everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services and the companies and drivers that operate them; notes that 98% of all food and agricultural products in the UK are transported by road freight; further that road freight rates have seen their biggest increase in almost a year, with UK rates climbing by 3.3%, month on month, in September, which is the sharpest rise since December 2022, according to the TEG Road Transport Index; and further that, this in part has been propelled by the reintroduction of the HGV levy, clean air changes, rising fuel prices and higher business charges.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consult with the road haulage industry to introduce tailored support to ensure that companies can continue to operate.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Martyn Day, Official Report, 6 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 219.]

[P002907]

Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman):

The Government understand the significant role that the road haulage industry plays in keeping goods flowing across the country and our borders, and in supporting the wider economy.

Following publication of our “Future of Freight” plan, the Government set up the Freight Council, which is jointly chaired by industry and the Minister for Roads and Local Transport. The Freight Council is an established forum providing a direct channel for industry’s concerns to be heard and to work with the Government on future policy for the sector.

Rates charged by the industry, as measured by the TEG index, are market driven and not set by Government. It is worth noting that the latest data, for January 2024, has shown a decrease of 10.8 points, marking the lowest overall price since March 2023, and lies 2.5 points lower year on year— https://transportexchangegroup.com/road-transport-price-index/road-transport-price-index-january-24.

The road freight sector provides key transportation services to other sectors of the economy. Consequently, demand for its services is linked to domestic consumption and production levels. There are currently no plans to consult with the road haulage industry to introduce tailored support.

However, the Government acknowledge the pressures that the industry has faced in recent years and have taken decisive action to support the sector. This has included a range of HMG interventions in response to the acute HGV driver shortage, including the £34 million investment from DfE to train up to 11,000 drivers through skills bootcamps and the motoring agencies’ work to increase driving test slots. Lorry drivers will also soon benefit from improved roadside facilities and safer rest areas as a result of significant investment from industry and Government via the “HGV parking and driver welfare grant scheme” and National Highways funding.

Moreover, at the 2023 autumn statement, the Government announced that they are continuing their support for haulage companies by freezing HGV vehicle excise duty and the HGV levy in 2024-25. This results in a tax saving for one of the most popular HGVs— a 38-44 tonne rigid lorry with 2 axles, EURO V-l—of a total of £47 per annum. These measures form a package of support for hauliers, alongside the freezing of fuel duty as announced at the spring Budget 2023.

Clean air zones are set by local government and the sector engages directly with local authorities on this issue.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Sheryll Murray

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)

† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)

† Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

Daly, James (Bury North) (Con)

† Double, Steve (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Harris, Rebecca (Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household)

† Hobhouse, Wera (Bath) (LD)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Morris, Grahame (Easington) (Lab)

† Nichols, Charlotte (Warrington North) (Lab)

† Philp, Chris (Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

Strathern, Alistair (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)

Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)

Katya Cassidy, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 21 February 2024

[Mrs Sheryll Murray in the Chair]

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes.

My selection and grouping for the sitting are available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled; we will have a single debate on both clauses.

Clause 1

Procedure for making licensing hours orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to bring the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to Committee.

Clause 1 will amend section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, “Regulations and orders”, by deleting subsec-tion (3)(d), deleting the cross-reference to subsection (3)(d) in subsection (4) and deleting subsection (5). The effect of those deletions will be to change from affirmative to negative the parliamentary procedure for a licensing hours extension order, meaning that the Home Secretary and Ministers will have powers to make licensing hours extension orders without the long parliamentary approval process that is currently in place.

Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for those events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the 2003 Act makes two provisions for licence extension.

First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved. That provision is not designed for scenarios in which a large number of venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so the 2003 Act makes a second provision under section 172, which enables licensing extensions for

“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

That allows the Government to make a blanket relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation and not exceeding four days.

Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation and then for both Houses to debate the order, but that can take up to six months to implement. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.

Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that the Lionesses had made the final, which was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney with an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, when many pubs were just opening their doors. There was no time for them to apply to their local authority for a TEN and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue a blanket extension. Our communities and pubs missed out on all that pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.

Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and will extend to England and Wales only. As no amendments have been tabled, I hope and am confident that Committee members will agree to clauses 1 and 2.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to add a few words of support for the Bill from the Liberal Democrats and myself.

In Bath we love our pubs as much as anybody else. I am sure that we have all heard from the hospitality sector in our constituencies about how tough the past few years have been. We are lucky to have a thriving hospitality sector in Bath, but businesses still face many challenges.

Clause 1 is integral to preventing pubs from missing out again on opening early, as happened when the Lionesses reached the World cup final last summer. In Bath we have Bath Rugby and Bath City football club, of which I am a fan. Our women’s team is doing very well, too; it is always good to have an opportunity to praise them and to repeat our admiration for what all our women’s teams achieve.

The change from the affirmative to the negative procedure is important because sporting events often happen in the summer when Parliament is not sitting. A change in licensing procedure would have enabled many pubs in Bath to open earlier during the women’s World cup final, allowing fans to take in the atmosphere before the game and allowing the pubs to take in more profits. However, the Bill will fix only a small part of the inadequate statutory framework, the basic flaws of which have, if anything, been compounded by subsequent piecemeal amendments. The House of Lords Liaison Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny follow-up report in 2022 found that flaws in the licensing system remained unresolved and that significant reform was required.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for this Bill, which will go some way towards improving the law. However, we need to take another look at the licensing system and consider whether it is fit for purpose.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

As always, Mrs Murray, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields on corralling such support for the Bill: it is rare to hear such a strong outpouring of unanimity across the House, but on this topic I think we are all on the same page.

The hon. Member has done a very good job of explaining the statutory background, the context in which such orders have been used, and how the Bill will enable the power in section 172 of the 2003 Act to be exercised: it will amend section 197 of the Act to change the procedure from affirmative to negative, so that the power can be used quickly, even when Parliament is not sitting, in the event that one of the home nations teams reaches a final. Some people may say that that is more a triumph of hope over expectation, but hopefully there will be many occasions to use the power in the years ahead as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do well in various tournaments.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Speaking of the devolved Administrations, I know as a Welsh MP that nothing brings Wales together more than supporting our Welsh rugby team while having a pint or two, as the hon. Member for South Shields can attest—possibly of Wrexham lager. The Bill will bring people together, support our hospitality sector and cut bureaucracy. That can only be a good thing. With St David’s day coming up, does the Minister agree that a fast passage for the Bill will be appreciated by Wales?

[Chris Philp]

We would all appreciate a fast passage for the Bill. If somebody wishes to make an application regarding a particular event of international, national or local significance, they can obviously do so, and each will be considered on its own terms. The condition in the 2003 Act is that the event should be

“of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

No doubt many hon. Members will have ideas about events that might meet the criteria.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the Bill. Could the Minister clarify two points about the scope?

Who would make the application, for example for an extension of the licence on St David’s day or for some other occasion? We might have a St Aidan’s day extension or St Bede’s day extension for South Shields.

Secondly, will it be all licensed premises? Will it include working men’s clubs as well as pubs? I am very much in favour of supporting local businesses; we have had terrible problems in my constituency with the Conservative/Lib Dem-led council introducing car parking charges, which will undermine local businesses, so this is a great opportunity to give them a boost.

[Chris Philp]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, yes, the extension applies to any licensed premises—presuming he means a premises licence for consumption on the premises, rather than off-licences—so that would include working men’s clubs. On his first question, essentially anyone can approach the Home Office with an idea for an event that might qualify for the criteria.

[Grahame Morris]

Even individuals?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, even individuals could make an approach to the Home Office. It is not a formal application; they just approach and say, “There’s an event coming up and we think it meets the criteria. If you agree, will you make the relevant negative statutory instrument?” It would be for the Home Office and the Government to decide whether the criteria were met, and the SI would then go through the normal negative process, potentially quite quickly.

The hon. Gentleman reeled off a number of saints’ names. Just to manage expectations, it is worth putting it on the record that this is intended to be a rarely used power. I do not know how many saints there are in total, but I think there are quite a lot, and we would not want this to turn into a back-door extension of licensing hours from 11 pm to 1 am, or whatever it might be, as a matter of routine. I do not think the intention is that this will be used for every single saint in heaven, if that is the right turn of phrase.

[Grahame Morris]

We could do it for Armed Forces Day.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is mentioning ideas from a sedentary position. There are a lot of ideas, but we should have quite a high threshold. It should be a rarely used power, and it would not be right if we had 20 or 30 extensions a year. That would be effectively moving the closing time for pubs on a semi-systemic basis. We should be reserving this power for relatively rare and relatively significant occasions.

I am here as the police and crime Minister, as well as the Minister responsible for licensing. The police have expressed some concern about extensions relating to sporting events—particularly football, but it might apply more widely. They are worried that disorder might result if people get more drunk than they otherwise would. We have listened to that concern and decided that on balance this is worth doing. We will consider each application on its merits as it is made. However, there are two sides to the coin, and before we attempt to unleash a tsunami of applications we should keep in mind that there is a balance to strike.

The hon. Member for South Shields has set out the technicalities very well indeed. I thank her for her diligence and application.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I entirely support the Bill, but on my right hon. Friend’s point about the expectation that this power will be rarely used, my mind is drawn to the Olympic games. We could say that they are rare, happening every four years, and we have enormous British talent in the Olympics, which people will want to watch. The next iteration in Paris does not suffer a big time difference, but the one after that in Los Angeles does, and people may want to watch British talent in the Olympics over multiple weeks. How does he anticipate this Bill—this future Act, hopefully—applying to the Olympic games?

[Chris Philp]

It will depend on the circumstances. My hon. Friend mentions the time zone. I am trying to think this through on my feet. If the games are taking place during the day in Los Angeles, they would be likely to take place during the afternoon, the evening and the early hours of the morning in the UK. The Olympics last for two or three weeks. Whether it would be appropriate to have all pubs, working men’s clubs—everything—open until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning for two or three weeks is a question that would have to be carefully considered at the time and viewed through the prism of public order and so on.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister clarify that the power is to be used at exceptional times and for exceptional events, and that forward planning will not be dispensed with? For events that are already known about, the usual consultation will take place with licensed premises, the police and local authorities, and they will be planned for in the usual way. Will the Minister clarify that this power is for exceptional circumstances that cannot be forward-planned?

[Chris Philp]

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Member has put it correctly. As she says, the power is designed for exceptional circumstances where at short notice—I stress “at short notice”—something happens like a team getting into a final that takes place only four or five days later. Obviously there can be more thorough planning for things like the Olympics, which we know about five or 10 years in advance. The Bill is for exceptional circumstances. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of the position.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Has this short discussion not illustrated my point that we should look more widely at changing the licensing regime, because it is not really fit for purpose? We now live in a global world, and sometimes there are events, even if they are planned, that do not fit in with our licensing regime.

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure I agree. When there is plenty of notice, as with the Olympics, there is plenty of time to plan and make arrangements if appropriate. The Los Angeles Olympics are a number of years away. As I say, I am not convinced that having all the pubs and bars open until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning for three or four weeks over the summer would be a good idea.

There is plenty of time to make such arrangements under the current licensing regime. The only problem that we have found is with very short-notice situations, particularly when Parliament is not sitting. With the men’s Euros semi-final, Parliament was sitting and it was possible to make an arrangement at short notice. In my view, the circumstances that arise when Parliament is not sitting are the only lacuna. All other circumstances can be accommodated within the current licensing regime.

I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended, as I wanted to take interventions, but my voice is now getting a bit croaky. I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields again on taking the initiative and shepherding the Bill with such charm and aplomb.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his words of support, and I thank all members of the Committee. It might be worth noting, even though it has not come up in the discussion today, that we are not removing Parliament’s say on these matters. Under the negative statutory instrument procedure, hon. Members can pray against an order once it is made. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct? [Interruption.] The officials are nodding. I thank them for their support with drafting the Bill and getting it to this stage.

This is a small, technical piece of legislation, but it will give a massive boost to our hospitality venues and to our communities coming together at times of national celebration. I very much look forward to joining my constituents in one of our many locals to celebrate the next important national event.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

09:43

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21 February 2024

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Steel Industry: Wales

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 31 January 2024, on The Steel Industry in Wales, HC 508.]

09:30

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the steel industry in Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. First I want to express my gratitude to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate on the very important matter of the future of the steel industry in Wales, particularly as we were limited by time constraints during our debate on steel four weeks ago.

The news that we have had over the past few months has been devastating, with Port Talbot set to bear the brunt of Tata’s plans to shed 2,800 jobs across the UK. With so many jobs going in such a short time, the effect will reverberate right across south Wales, because the number of people affected will be far greater. That will include all the families of the workers, the loss of work for the contractors and the suppliers connected to the plant, and the massive loss of spending power in the community, with the knock-on effects that that will have on local businesses.

I pay tribute to the trade unions that have been working hard to present alternative plans to preserve jobs, keep primary steelmaking in the UK and facilitate a just transition to the green primary steel of the future. I urge both Tata and the UK Government to look again at those plans.

We stand today at a real crossroads for the steel industry in Wales and the UK. We have the opportunity to be at the forefront of the new green industrial revolution, or to allow ourselves to slide into a second-rate position to be left behind as the only country in the G20 that does not have primary steelmaking facilities. I will return to the bigger picture of steelmaking across Wales later. I know that many of my hon. Friends will talk about it, but I want to focus specifically on the future of the Tata tinplate plant at Trostre in my constituency of Llanelli.

Wales has a proud industrial history. Llanelli has thrived on the production of coal, iron, steel, copper and tinplate. The tinplate industry was already established in Llanelli in the 18th century. By the 19th century, 80% of the world’s tinplate was produced in south Wales, with Llanelli the tinplate capital of the world. Today’s Tata plant at Trostre in Llanelli makes a variety of different materials that go on to be used in a range of products—from the tin can that contains the baked beans that we buy to the compounds used to make the aerosol cans on our bathroom shelf.

Forgive me if I sing the praises of the humble tin can: a practical, versatile and green product. It is eminently recoverable and recyclable. Food in sealed cans keeps for months and does not need to be in the freezer or even the fridge—a great advantage for those who cannot afford to run a freezer or have no access to one. Food in tin cans tends to be cheaper than food in other forms of packaging. Furthermore, those in dire straits can even resort to eating tinned products cold without the need to afford the energy costs to heat them. It is little wonder that in hard times, covid and the cost of living crisis, sales of tinned products have held up. By the way, back in 1935, Felinfoel Brewery in Llanelli was home to the first canned beer in the UK and one of the first canned beers in Europe.

Trostre currently receives its steel from Port Talbot, just 20 miles down the railway track. That makes good economic and environmental sense. Most importantly, Trostre workers know that they can depend on the consistency and quality of the steel that comes from Port Talbot. Tata tells us that when it closes the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in the short term before the electric arc furnace is built, it will import steel to supply the Trostre plant. That will be imported steel made in blast furnaces abroad, so there will not be any saving in carbon emissions—quite the opposite. Processes abroad might be dirtier, and then there are the costs and emissions associated with transporting the steel to Trostre.

The challenge will be to source the appropriate quality of steel to satisfy Trostre’s needs. As Trostre makes a number of products and serves a number of different customers, that means steel of the right quality to satisfy all those requirements. As we can imagine, workers at Trostre are very anxious to know that deals for supplies of quality steel have all been sorted out before anyone even thinks about switching off the blast furnace in Port Talbot. They and I know that the works manager and his colleagues at Trostre are doing all they can to assess potential sources, but inevitably, instead of the security that we currently enjoy with our supply from Port Talbot, people are feeling worried.

Importing steel means that there are far more unknowns. We will be more vulnerable to logistical difficulties or price fluctuations; if there is a shortage of supply, foreign producers may prioritise their home customers. What talks has the Minister had with bosses at Tata about where they will be sourcing the imported steel for Trostre, what guarantees they can give that the quality will satisfy all the requirements at Trostre, when they expect the first shipments to arrive, and what risk assessments and contingency plans they have drawn up to cope with challenges such as price fluctuations or a tightening of the market if other countries want to prioritise their own needs? Will she also tell us how imported supplies will be affected by the carbon border adjustment mechanism?

The Government have promised half a billion pounds for Tata to develop an electric arc furnace. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any conditionality attached to that loan in respect of Trostre? In other words, is its availability to Tata contingent not just on building an electric arc furnace but on securing short-term supplies for Trostre—and, indeed, Shotton—and safe- guarding jobs there?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to say that the job losses at Tata Steel affect Wales, but they also affect the ability of the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to manufacture steel for our businesses. Does she agree that the production of British steel, which is of the highest quality, needs greater governmental support to ensure it can compete with steel imports from other nations? Does she further agree that the steel sector can provide employment throughout the UK, and that it should be encouraged to do so?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been five asks from the steel industry over many years, which encompass those issues.

Tata says that for safety reasons it is not possible to keep the blast furnace going until its proposed large electric arc furnace is up and running. However, there have been other suggestions, including starting with a smaller electric arc furnace, which could be built while blast furnace is maintained. What discussions has the Minister had with Tata about keeping at least one blast furnace going in Port Talbot until an electric arc furnace is up and running?

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We are all aware of the risk to the 2,800 jobs at Port Talbot and elsewhere. We need to be highly alert to the fact that the one blast furnace is part of ensuring that there is a just transition for the community. Other communities in Wales are facing losses—including the farming community, which will face 5,500 job losses if the Welsh Labour Government bring in the sustainable farming scheme, and the just transition is exactly the same issue.

I am sure the hon. Lady will join me in asking the Minister and other Governments to ensure a just transition for communities across Wales that have experienced decades of suffering because transitions have not been carried out properly as a key part of ensuring the industries of all our communities.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions should be brief and on the subject of the steel industry in Wales.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed, we do seek a just transition for the steel industry.

Of course, it is not just Trostre that Port Talbot supplies. If, as current plans indicate, the idea is to close the blast furnaces several years before the electric arc furnace is ready, all the downstream customers will need supplies. The Government could argue that if Tata closes the blast furnace in 2024 or 2025 but does not have an electric arc furnace up and running before 2027, how it bridges that gap, how it sources supplies elsewhere and how it keeps its customers happy are its problem. However, if those supplies are not there, downstream businesses could go out of business, causing huge job losses. It would be catastrophic for us in Llanelli to lose Trostre. Because the Government are putting half a billion pounds in, and because of the worry about job losses, they should seek assurances from Tata about Trostre, which is why I asked the Minister that question.

We accept that the electric arc furnace has a role to play. Indeed, CELSA Steel UK in Cardiff, a very successful business, produces steel from an electric arc furnace. However, there is work to be done to assess the suitability of the steel produced in electric arc furnaces to meet all the requirements of the products produced in Trostre. It is not as simple as throwing any old scrap into the electric arc furnace; clearly, the quality of the source material is important. I understand that a certain amount of metallics are required, which are not necessarily easy to source. We currently export scrap steel, and it is easy to see the logic of recycling that steel here in electric arc furnaces. However, we cannot assume that all that scrap steel will just turn up at the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot or at the one that I understand is planned for Scunthorpe: it must be sourced.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. Picking up on her point, there is a need to sweeten the mix in an electric arc furnace with iron ore-based metallics; otherwise, there is no way that we can make the high-value products such as those for the automotive sector and tin cans. Is she aware that only 3% of the world’s iron ore-based metallics are in a pellet form that can be transported across the world and put into an electric arc furnace? Does she therefore agree that by far the best option would be to keep blast furnace 4 going so that we can continue to produce the ore-based metallics for the electric arc furnace, because with 3% of the global supply there is no way that that will be possible?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I absolutely agree.

The Minister has previously referred to steel as “infinitely recyclable”. It is indeed a marvellous material, which is so much easier to recover and recycle than many other materials. However, while the lifecycle of a tin can may be a matter of months, steel used in car manufacturing or construction will be tied up in those products for many years to come. I very much hope that we will see an increase in investment in infrastructure projects.

We on the Opposition side have plans to make the UK a clean energy superpower. We have so much potential in Wales, with the prospect of building floating offshore wind farms in the Celtic sea and using Port Talbot and Milford Haven to deliver and service those projects. It is just a pity that through either incompetence or stubbornness the Government have wasted a year failing to get any takers for floating offshore wind because of the unrealistically low strike price offered.

Increased renewables and increased use of electricity mean upgrading the national grid structure. We need investment in our railways, housing, hospitals and so on. Have the Minister or her Department made any assessment of how much steel the UK is likely to need in the coming decade? How much of that steel will be used for short-term products that will reach the scrap market fairly quickly, and how much will be locked in infrastructure that we hope will last for decades?

Returning to the broader picture, while I recognise the contribution that the electric arc furnace can make, it is bitterly disappointing that the Government plans look likely to leave the UK as the only country in the G20 without primary steelmaking. While countries across Europe have been working on greening the primary steelmaking process using technologies such as direct reduced iron and green hydrogen—indeed, Sweden will start production in 2025—the UK Government have not supported any such venture.

There is huge competition out there to woo investment in the green technologies of the future, whether it is the US Inflation Reduction Act or similar incentives in the EU. When we look at the €2.5 billion that Germany has invested in developing green primary steel, hon. Members will understand why we in the Labour party say that that is the sort of sum needed and why, if we were in government, we would look to invest a total of some £3 billion in the industry, rather than this Government’s £500 million.

The reasons why we now face the end of primary steelmaking in the UK must include the failure of the Government to respond adequately to the asks of the steel industry, which it has set out so clearly time and again. We have pointed out, time and again, how much cheaper energy costs are in countries such as France and Germany, while in the UK there have been specific negotiated packages.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and on her leadership on the issue. It seems that the only hope is to try to persuade Tata to delay some of the implementation of its plans until the change of Government, we all assume, by the end of the year.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, there is an alternative proposal from the Labour party for investment in the steel industry. Does she agree that there is a potential role for the Welsh Government to negotiate with Tata? As they sit on the transition board, they would have close relations with Tata executives to put forward the Labour plan, which would be ready to be implemented this time next year.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Anyone who can have influence over Tata would be welcome to make those suggestions.

A moment ago, I was talking about specific negotiated packages that this UK Government have offered. Although there have been those packages, we can see why when steel and high-energy industries make decisions, they cannot rely on limping from package to another but need long-term security with low energy prices, requiring substantial measures from the Government such as massive investment in renewables and reform of the energy market. We in Llanelli look across at IJmuiden in the Netherlands, where Tata has a tin plant works similar to ours. However, in close proximity to IJmuiden, Tata will keep a blast furnace open and develop a direct reduced iron facility. This is the reality we are facing: greater investment for the future going elsewhere. The UK Government need to ask themselves why. I hope that in responding today the Minister will answer my specific questions about the challenges facing Tata’s tinplate works at Trostre, as well as the broader issues facing the steel industry across Wales.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call Christina Rees —and happy birthday!

09:45

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Sir Gary—21 again! As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the wonderful Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on securing this vital and timely debate. As we contemplate the future of the steel industry in Wales, we are discussing not merely the fate of an industrial sector but the heartbeat of a nation’s economy and identity, and nowhere more so than in the Swansea bay region generally and Port Talbot specifically. The area that includes my Neath constituency and its town has long been synonymous with steel production, its history intertwined with the rise and fall of coal and the resilience of its workforce. Today we stand at a pivotal moment in that narrative, poised to script the next chapter in the saga of Welsh steel.

The challenges facing the steel industry are undeniable. Global competition, fluctuating market demands and environmental concerns loom large on the horizon, yet alongside those challenges lies the opportunity to bring about transformation and renewal. The industry cannot do that against a backdrop of uncertainty and a diminished workforce. The idea that 2,800 jobs will be lost from Tata Steel operations across the UK—the majority from Port Talbot—is unthinkable. The rejection of well thought out union plans for a gradual transition to decarbonisation means the almost immediate closure of two blast furnaces. The single electric arc furnace replacement will obviously produce less carbon dioxide, but also fewer jobs.

First and foremost, innovation must be at the fore- front of our endeavours, from embracing advanced manufacturing techniques to investing in research and development. We must harness the power of technology to drive efficiency and sustainability. Innovation will always be the cornerstone of a vibrant steel industry in Wales, but electric arc furnaces do not produce virgin steel and the difference must be considered. The UK has only two sites that use conventional blast furnaces—Scunthorpe and Port Talbot—which collectively produce 5.9 million tonnes of steel per year and make up 82% of UK steel production. Despite the UK importing most of its virgin steel, the notion that we become a country that produces none is beyond the pale. British Steel, the owner of the Scunthorpe plant, is also planning to replace its virgin steel production by 2025. Should that happen, the UK will become the only G20 country that does not produce its own virgin steel. The consequences need to be fully understood.

Secondly, collaboration is essential for success. Alongside partnerships forged between industry, academia and the community, the UK Government need to step up to the table. A £500 million grant is welcome, but much more can be done on energy prices, R&D support and fiscal leverage. In addition, neither the Welsh Government nor the unions were involved in discussions prior to the announcement of the investment deal. The multi-union plan called for an additional investment of £683 million, involving a two-stage transition that would protect a further 2,300 jobs for over a decade, and not involving a single compulsory redundancy. The plan accepted that one blast furnace, and potentially the coking ovens, would close during a managed transitionary period that involved producing iron for use in the new electric arc to be installed by 2031. The second blast furnace would close in 2032.

It is clear that sustainability must be a guiding principle. We are all aware that the steel industry has a significant environmental footprint, and we cannot ignore our responsibility to future generations. By investing in clean technologies, reducing carbon emissions and promoting circular-economy practices, we can minimise our impact on the planet, while maximising our long-term viability. Sustainability is not just a moral imperative; it is also a business imperative, as consumers and investors increasingly demand ethical and eco-conscious products.

Although I appreciate the need for decarbonisation, we must remember that steel accounts for only 14% of industrial emissions in the UK, which in turn is around only 2% of total national emissions. Importing virgin steel simply transfers the emissions and decarbonisation responsibility. Such overseas manufacturing is also far more carbon-intensive.

Lastly, we must never forget the human element at the heart of the steel industry. Our success is built on the dedication and skill of the men and women who toil day in, day out. As we navigate the challenges of the future, we must prioritise the wellbeing of our workforce today, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions and opportunities for growth and advancement. A thriving steel industry is not just about profits; it is about empowering communities and enriching lives. Employment in the steel industry is not what it used to be, but a quarter of all steel industry employees work in Wales. As such, job losses are disproportionately felt in Welsh communities.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I commend the hon. Member on her excellent contribution. Is the reason for the backlash to this announcement not the fact that it appears that the UK Government are providing £500 million to lose 3,000 jobs in Wales, which has been a massive PR disaster for them?

[Christina Rees]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for his important point.

The future of the steel industry in Wales is not predetermined; it is ours to shape and define. By embracing innovation, fostering collaboration, championing sustainability and prioritising our people, we can build a future where Welsh steel shines brightly on the global stage. The story of steel should not feature uncertainty, job losses and community adversity. Let us write the next chapter in the industry’s history: one of resilience, renewal and prosperity for generations to come.

09:54

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Happy birthday to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for securing this important debate. Its importance was highlighted for me and other hon. Members on Saturday, when we marched in solidarity with the workers of Port Talbot and Newport and the unions, which I praise for their work. There was a lot of strong political support on both marches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones).

We should never underestimate just how difficult a time this is for these highly skilled workers and their families. I should point out to the Minister that the average age of a steelworker in Llanwern is now 34, so they are people with mortgages and families to support. That will also be true for those at Port Talbot, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). In my time as an MP, I have seen year after year just how workers in Llanwern have repeatedly had to adapt and innovate to keep the business alive. I pay tribute to them for that. These are well-paid jobs and, as we often say, for every one job in the plant, there are estimated to be three more in the wider community.

I am sorry that the Government and the company have put the workers in this position. We feel deeply for them and we commend the unions for all they are trying to do, because this is a bad deal for steel. We need the best deal for steel, not the cheapest deal for steel, which is what the Government are offering. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) said, no matter how the Government dress it up, they are giving £500 million to Tata to make redundant up to 3,000 people—300 in Llanwern. In doing so, they are in effect ending our history of making virgin steel—we will be the only country in the G7 and G20 not to do so—at a time when we will need this steel to build our green infrastructure.

At a time of global insecurity, we will be reliant on imports. The Secretary of State for Wales claimed on Monday that closing the blast furnaces will make us “less dependent on imports”, when he knows that Tata will have to import steel shipped in diesel-fuelled vessels from India. As the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy, Vaughan Gething, has said, the UK Government are alone in seeking to propel the steel industry off a cliff in this way. In the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada, we see Governments working in partnership with their steel industry.

The UK Government are not contemplating the multi-union plan, which promises a fairer, just transition to a greener future for the sector. The UK Government shut the Welsh Government and unions out of decision making on this matter, and the Secretary of State has claimed that those proposing credible alternatives to protect jobs and virgin steelmaking for the future are “unconstructive”. These are plans that his Conservative colleagues in the Senedd backed in a vote very recently. Then we have the Secretary of State for Business and Trade calling plans to make up to 3,000 people redundant a “good news story”.

We are now in the third week of the formal consultation period, and Ministers continue to signal that this is a done deal. Will the Minister confirm today that she will not undermine the consultation and that she is still willing to engage constructively with Tata and the trade unions should the opportunity for an alternative approach arise? Will she also set out whether she has had assurances from Tata that the consultation will be given as much time as it needs—beyond the 45-day mandatory minimum, if necessary—for a path forward to be agreed? There is still little detail available about how the funding available to the transition board is planned to be spent. Will she also elaborate on that and confirm whether steelworkers, supply chains and communities that may be affected beyond Port Talbot, including in my own constituency, will be supported?

We have often said this, but we have had 12 Steel Ministers and 14 years of inaction, with this Government vacating their role as the champion for our steel industry in a green industrial future. It is the Labour party that is filling the void of ambition by committing to accelerate a £3 billion green steel fund to invest over the next five years in the future of our sovereign steel industry. I strongly urge the Government to look again at the deal. If they will not step up and look again, they should step aside and let us have a Government who will.

09:58

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on securing the debate and on making such a powerful case both for the Trostre works in her constituency and for the entire Welsh and British steel industry.

It has been said many times, but merits repetition, that the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency is the beating heart of our community and our economy. For generation upon generation, the people of Aberavon have made the steel that has built our country. Quite simply, steel is who we are. This debate is not just about what steel means to my constituents; it is about our entire national story, because Britain as we know it today simply would not exist were it not for our steel industry. Steel makes everything from the cars we drive to the houses we live in and the offices we work in. It even makes the knives and forks that we eat our meals with, and the humble tin can, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

But our pride never slips into sentimentality or nostalgia. Steel is not a sunset industry, and the steelworks is emphatically not a museum. Steelworkers have experienced enormous technological change over the last 30 years, and every time they have risen to the challenge and adapted to it. When a customer asks for a new grade or quality of steel, our steelworkers deliver it. Indeed, most of the grades of steel being made in the Port Talbot steelworks today did not even exist 10 years ago. It is a hotbed of innovation, and every time I go into the steelworks—I have been many times—I am truly impressed and inspired.

When I go into the works, I also see a workforce that is deeply frustrated. The steelworkers know they are making the best steel that money can buy, but for 14 years they have been competing with one hand tied behind their back. They face almost twice the energy costs of their competitors in France and Germany. Government contracts are going to foreign steelmakers, and Royal Navy ships are being made with foreign steel. Our steelworkers are forced to look on helplessly as other Governments around the world bring forward policies, strategies and billions of pounds of investment to support their steel industries, while our Government sit on their hands. We are not here to plead for special treatment or charity; we simply demand a level playing field.

That brings me to the deal between Tata Steel and the UK Government, which is based on £500 million of taxpayers’ money being spent on making 2,800 people redundant—and that is not counting the huge impact on supply chains and contractors. As I have said, nobody is burying their head in the sand. Everyone can see that our planet is burning, and that customers around the world are looking for zero-carbon or low-carbon products. Even countries such as India and China will ultimately be forced to phase out their blast furnaces. The question is not whether the transition is coming, but how to make it work for jobs, our planet and national security.

It is crystal clear that the plan that is being pushed by Tata Steel and the UK Government fails on three counts. First, it fails on jobs. In the US, Joe Biden’s £290 billion Inflation Reduction Act is creating 170,000 green jobs. In Europe, national Governments are investing billions of euros in decarbonising their single steel plants. The UK is the only country that is throwing thousands of steelworkers on the scrapheap.

Secondly, the plan fails on decarbonisation. The Tata-Tory plan is based on importing millions of tonnes of semi-finished products from India, where steel production is 30% to 40% more carbon intensive than in the UK. The deal is based on exporting jobs from Wales to India, and importing carbon from India to Wales. You could not make it up.

Thirdly, the deal fails on our national security. Electric arc furnaces alone are not capable of making all the grades and qualities of steel that are required to meet the current order book, let alone to embrace the opportunities of the future. The result, in this dangerous and turbulent world, is that the UK will be the only country in the G20 that is unable to make its own steel from scratch. That is madness.

Tata has a choice. It could carry on with both blast furnaces for the foreseeable future, which would mean losing customers, making big losses and eventually closing. Nobody wants that. It could go for the 3 million tonne electric arc furnace-only model, which forces a dependency on scrap steel and on imports while making 2,800 people redundant. Let us call that the cliff-edge option.

The final and best option is to adopt the compelling multi-union plan, which would protect 2,300 jobs nationwide over a decade and would see no compulsory redundancies at Port Talbot. In that plan, blast furnace No. 4 would continue to run until the end of its lifecycle in 2032, and a combination of new technologies, such as direct reduced iron, would reduce reliance on scrap and enable Port Talbot to produce the iron ore-based metallics that are vital for the electric arc furnace to function and deliver the entire customer portfolio. Let us call that multi-union plan the bridge from where we are today to where we need to be.

I urge the Tata leadership and the UK Government to walk back from the cliff edge. Choose the bridge to 21st-century steelmaking. Choose the bridge to a committed workforce that will strain every sinew to deliver. Choose the bridge to long-term commercial competitiveness and profitability. I also say this to Tata: remember that a general election is coming, after which, I hope, Labour can deliver a new Government that will replace the chaos and incompetence with stability, predictability and diligence. In place of the laissez-faire negligence of the last 14 years, it will find Labour’s £3 billion steel renewal fund to drive and support the transformation of our steel industry in a way that sustains jobs and bolsters our national security.

Once a blast furnace is extinguished, that is it—there is no turning back. So I urge Tata not to take any decisions now that cannot be reversed following the general election. Tata and the Government can either take the path of managed decline, or they can get behind the multi-union plan. They can either take the cliff edge, or choose the bridge. Let us hope they make the right choice. We need our steel—let us value and fight for it.

10:05

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Gary. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in this debate, and to acknowledge the contributions by my colleagues who are expert in this area. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) a happy birthday, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for bringing such an important debate to this place today.

Last Saturday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has already highlighted, I had the honour of marching through Newport city centre in solidarity with steelworkers from Llanwern. The strength of feeling among steelworkers and their families, and the wider community across Newport and south Wales, cannot be overstated. My home town of Newport was built on steel, and we all know someone who works in Llanwern, whether they are family, friend or neighbour. We are here not just for the steelworkers of today, but for the steelworkers of tomorrow. We all know far too well in south Wales that once these sorts of industries are closed down, it is very unlikely that the skilled, decently paid jobs they provide will ever return.

Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East, I made a promise on that march last Saturday to stand up for the steelworkers and ensure that their fight on the production lines for the future of the industry is heard loud and clear here in Westminster. It is vital that we fight for them and all our communities. Wales’s future depends on those of us here speaking out and protecting our steel foundations, whether they are at Llanwern or Port Talbot steelworks, or at suppliers such as Island Steel or recyclers such as Sims Metal in Newport West. Our country relies on the steel industry, and this Conservative Government, with their five Prime Ministers in 14 years, have let them all down.

I do not have time to list all the ways in which this Tory Government in Westminster have endangered the future of steel in Wales, but I will highlight just a couple. Island Steel, a smaller supplier that employs 100 people at Newport docks, regularly finds itself hampered by the current quota system, which locks it out of business. That is yet another example of this current UK Government being unwilling to engage with industry or even to make an effort to understand the impact of their indecision and lack of strategy.

Another area in which I have little faith in the Tories at Westminster is their negotiations for a trade deal with India. In principle, we would all welcome a deal, but the one negotiated by the current Government is years overdue and their record on trade deals is not encouraging. They have repeatedly and consistently sold British workers short and undermined vital environmental and workplace standards that we value here in the United Kingdom. The Labour party believes that trade deals should not seek to undermine our core values, such as workers’ rights, environmental protections and fair trade. The long-overdue deal, of which we still do not have the final details, must ensure access for UK manufacturing or it will be yet another bad deal authored by the Tories and will strike another hammer blow to the prospects of our domestic steel industry. We have had a catalogue of failures and bad, short-sighted decisions from this Conservative Government. They have degraded and endangered the UK steel industry.

I do not want to end on a negative note; after all, this is a debate about the future of steel, not the past. There is hope for steel, because a UK Labour Government led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would start by earmarking up to £3 billion for investment in green steel alongside the industry. We must retain our strong and viable steel industry because our automotive, defence, renewable and construction sectors depend on it. The next Labour Government will work with, not in opposition to, our steel trade unions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, we will build a bridge—not a cliff edge—to a just environmental transition using a blend of technologies. We will not leave anyone behind. We saw what Margaret Thatcher did to our miners in the ’80s. That will not happen on our watch.

Decarbonisation cannot and should not mean deindustrialisation, as we know that that increases costs and pushes the environmental burden on to developing countries. With a Labour Government in Westminster working together with a Welsh Labour Government in the Senedd, we will ensure that steel production continues to play a key role in the growth and prosperity of Wales, for our economy and our people.

10:09

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on securing a debate on this issue, which is so important for the people of south Wales and for the economy of Britain as a whole.

I will limit my contribution to asking the Minister two short questions, based on what the Welsh Affairs Committee heard in its evidence sessions on Port Talbot last month. During those sessions, I asked Tata:

“If the funding were available, would you reconsider your decision?”

Tata’s response was:

“If somebody were to give us money…fine: we can look at other options going forward.”

I also put questions to the trade unions representing the workforce—and I commend the trade union movement in Wales for the work it does in unity with the steelworkers. I asked:

“What levels of investment are needed for the plans and where should that come from? ... Should the Government have a stake in steelmaking?”

In response, the representative of Unite, the main steelworkers’ union, said:

“The need to retain virgin steel production in the UK is too important to be left to the decisions of one multinational company,”

and:

“We think that there is a role for the Government to take a stake in the plant as well”.

My first question to the Minister is this: since Tata said it would be open to other options, have the Government considered that, and have they discussed finding additional funding to save thousands of jobs at Port Talbot? Secondly, in relation to the nature of funding, have the Government considered taking a public stake in the steelworks to ensure the continuation of our virgin steel manufacturing capacity?

In conclusion, as my hon. Friends have already stated—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I know that my hon. Friend is reaching the end of her speech, but something just occurred to me. I was very pleased to join the Welsh Affairs Committee evidence sessions, and during the second session I asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether the UK Government have attached any strings to their £500 million in the form of job guarantees, and whether he was clear that the electric arc furnace model is going to work without access to iron ore-based metallics. In response, he referred me to the Department for Business and Trade, and said, “Well, they struck the deal, so they should be able to answer your questions.” I wonder whether my hon. Friend might wish to add another question to her list—whether there were any strings at all attached to the £500 million.

[Beth Winter]

That is an extremely important question. Another question that my hon. Friend raised to which we did not get a response was on the timeframe within which the £500 million is going to be paid. A series of questions were asked during the four evidence sessions that day—if the Minister has not seen the transcript, I urge her to look at it—and a number of them remain unanswered. We have brought some of them to light here today.

My hon. Friends have spoken in much more detail about the devastating impact that the closure of the steelworks in Port Talbot, and many other businesses in Wales, is going to have on our communities. Wales was at the forefront of the industrial revolution—our communities were built on coal, iron and steel—but our history is one of wealth being extracted from our country for the benefit of a few, and that continues. This is a prime example of the lack of consideration given to the people and communities of Wales.

We can and will be at the forefront of change. The multi-union deal—indeed, all the deals that have been proposed by the trade unions—offers a solution. Wales can be at the forefront of a green industrial revolution, where the wealth is not only created in Wales but retained in our communities, so that we no longer suffer unacceptable levels of poverty and deprivation. We are a wealthy nation in terms of our natural resources, and we deserve a different future. We will continue to stand in solidarity with our workers as well as our trade unions to say that we are not going to put up with the continued extraction and exploitation of our communities in Wales. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my specific questions. Diolch yn fawr.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We now turn to our Front-Bench speakers. I call Sarah Jones.

10:15

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) was able to secure this debate, and I want to congratulate her on such an excellent speech. She is right: we stand at a crossroads and we risk being left behind. She painted a lovely picture of the tinplate factory—as she knows, that is where my grandfather worked—and how long that has been there.

I also want to mention the other speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who told us that this is not about the past; this debate is about the future and what the steel industry can become. My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Christina Rees) for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made, along with others, really brilliant speeches that highlighted the problem incredibly well. I listened carefully to the debate, and I am very proud to have such Members on this side of the House standing up for workers in south Wales.

My main takeaway from considering everything that has been said is: what is this Government for? What are they usefully doing? What is their plan on steel? The challenges we face in Wales have been excellently set out, but let me set out the broader context. The steel industry is badly broken. It has been lurching from crisis to crisis for more than a decade, and there are two fundamental points where the system is not working.

First, the steel industry does not serve the needs of the UK—of our economy or of our security. Companies pursue completely legitimate corporate objectives, but those are no longer aligned with what we need as a country for our security or our economy.

Secondly, the steel industry is not serving the needs of private investors either. Companies are struggling to make money or find opportunities for growth. We have seen investment in the steel industry in other equivalent countries—big investment—but it has been staggeringly low for many years in the UK. It is not working for anyone.

What have the Government done in the face of this challenge? Well, we have the worst of all worlds. They do not know whether they want to be interventionist or not. They do not know whether they want to encourage competition or not. They do not know whether they want to have a plan or not. They dither; Ministers change; obsessions lie elsewhere, so this Government end up treating each crisis in isolation. They support existing players in the market rather than encouraging new ones, failing to tackle the lack of competitiveness and pouring billions of pounds of public investment into the steel industry without any improvement in the sector or any increase in capability. The result has been a significant fall in the amount of steel we are making. What is the overall outcome? Our steel industry is now smaller than that of Belgium, jobs have been offshored and we have damaged our communities.

Labour’s approach could not be more different. We will not pour billions of pounds into an industry without being clear what it is for, what the outcome will be or how the security and economy of the UK will be enhanced. We will not stifle competition; we welcome competition. We will go after new entrants to the market to encourage investment. We want the UK to be the most attractive country in western Europe to invest in steel. Labour’s £3-billion investment in steel will unlock billions of pounds of private sector investment. We will not just shore up a broken model, as this Government are doing. We will not dither. Our industrial strategy will clearly define the objectives for UK growth. We will identify the space in which UK national objectives align with corporate objectives, and we will be agile enough to respond to the different scenarios facing the industry by the time this wretched Government have finished their work.

Labour also has a commitment to primary steel making, unlike this Government. We will not jeopardise the security of our nation.

[Jonathan Edwards]

This is a genuine question—I am not trying to catch the hon. Lady out. As I alluded to earlier, there will be a change of Government before the end of the year and the hon. Lady will effectively be the Minister. Are the Labour Front Benchers now in a position to negotiate directly with those steel producers about the plan that will be in place in a year’s time? They are essentially a Government in waiting, are they not? Are those negotiations happening, or is there no chance of them happening at all?

[Sarah Jones]

Obviously, we need to wait and see if there is a change of Government, and we would not assume that. Many of us are in constant conversation with Tata and the unions about the way forward, and we are also talking to the Government about a different approach. We are doing everything we can from an Opposition point of view, but obviously the Government hold the reins at the moment.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes mention of talking to Tata, and presumably that has been ongoing for some time. Can she be very clear whether her understanding is that Tata would have removed all its UK-based jobs had it not been able to reach a deal with the Government for some support at Port Talbot?

[Sarah Jones]

That is not my understanding—no. What we are trying to focus on in any conversations we have about any industry on steel is what the future is and where we go from here—that is the important question.

My advice to the Minister is to go to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and talk to him about when he worked down the mines, and what happened to his communities when the mines shut—the cliff edge, the redundancies, and the closure of all the community assets that went with it. That is what we risk doing in Port Talbot with the cliff edge that we face—nearly 3,000 jobs, as well as the huge knock-on impact of one job in the plant linked to three jobs in the community. Let us not lose 3,000 jobs in Port Talbot. Do not spend half a billion pounds on that. Let that not be the Government’s legacy.

It is not too late; there is an alternative that we could all work towards. The multi-union plan helps us to transition in a way that protects jobs. That is what the Government should be talking about to Tata. It is not too late for the Government to have a steel strategy, to spend taxpayers’ money in a way that works for the UK, our economy and our security, and to listen to their own work, if not Labour’s. The Government’s 2017 review, “Future capacities and capabilities of the UK steel industry”, identified the barriers to growth: supply chains, competitiveness, skills, and research and development capability. Has the Minister read that? What is the Government’s response to that review from 2017? It could do with an update now but the basics are there. The Harrington review is clear:

“The reality is that many of our competitors chase investments via their industrial strategies backed by substantial government support…The UK needs to respond.”

Has the Minister read the Harrington review and what is the response on steel? What is the Government’s steel strategy?

Ministers talk about how important scrap is going to be, and of course it is for electric arc furnaces, but how are they incentivising measures to keep our scrap here rather than exporting it, which is currently the case? Ministers talk about how we need new technology, but electric arc furnaces are not really the new technology any more—they are years old. What are we doing to take us towards a direct reduced iron facility in the UK using hydrogen? What is the plan? What is the plan to grow the steel industry and where is the ambition? What are the Government doing about carbon border adjustment mechanisms? The steel industry will be exposed to unfair competition, so what is the Minister going to do about that? What is the plan on skills, and what is the Government’s view of the multi-union plan for steel in Port Talbot?

Many of the manufacturing industries that I meet across different sectors are at a crossroads. Bills are high, there is no strategy to support them, they are reducing their output and they are struggling to find people to work with them. The steel industry in Wales is a case in point; the Government’s last-minute, chaotic deal was a masterclass in how not to run the transition. Members across the House are worried about the future of the UK steel industry. Members across the House do not want thousands of steel workers to lose their jobs.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is summarising the discussion extremely well. I declare an interest as a member of the transition board. During the board’s discussions, we talked about what the vacancies looked like in the labour market in south-west and south-east Wales, and the vast majority of vacancies are in the retail and healthcare sectors. Those are really important sectors and really important parts of our economy, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is not really a connection between the skills and experience of the men and women who have worked in the blast furnaces, for example, and those required to fill the vacancies in the labour market outside those steelworks, and that that is extremely worrying?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, which is why we keep coming back to this cliff-edge approach and saying that it is not the way to transition. If we think about south Wales and the Celtic sea, we think about the huge opportunities with an industrial strategy and industry working together with Government, including the jobs and growth that we could create, but do we have any of that under this Government? No, because they do not even have the starting point of a plan for steel.

Members across the House do not want to see this country becoming the first developed country in the world without the capacity to produce primary steel. Is the Minister concerned about our defence capabilities if we lose the capacity to make steel here from scratch? Does she think that the Government’s plan is really money well spent? Can she answer the question that was originally put today: what conditionality has been placed on this deal? We keep asking for the answer to that question, but we have yet to receive it.

Labour will have clarity of vision on steel. We will invest to unlock private sector investment and we will work hand in glove with the private sector. We will use our flagship policies—the national wealth fund, GB Energy becoming a clean energy superpower, grid reform and an industrial strategy—to make the UK a place to invest in, not a place to leave.

Once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli for making such a brilliant speech today and I also thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. I hope that this debate serves to raise the Government’s game, but Labour stands ready to step in if it does not.

10:26

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is an absolute pleasure, Sir Gary, to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on securing this important debate and on speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents, many of whom, as she said, are directly affected by the proposed closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. It was lovely to have on the record the importance of the history of steelmaking, especially the creation of tin cans and canned beer, which is something new to me that I will try to take forward somehow.

All hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today have recognised how vital it is that we have a competitive and thriving steel industry, not just for jobs at the Port Talbot and Trostre plants but because of how important steel is to the broader Welsh economy and its future. I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, had to make it so political, but I will try to address as many of the points that have been raised as I can in my reply.

First, however, let me start by expressing my heartfelt sympathy for the hardworking employees across Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom who are affected by Tata Steel’s announcement. Undoubtedly, these are challenging and turbulent times for everyone involved, not only the workers but their families and the communities in which they live. Steel has played a pivotal role in modern Welsh history and Welsh people take immense pride in their industry and workforce. This Government are working hard to secure a long-term sustainable future for Welsh steelmaking and to grow the legacy of this cornerstone industry.

The concerns expressed throughout this debate are indeed our concerns; they are shared by hon. Members across the House. They have been expressed by the Government in our negotiations with Tata. We are indeed holding Tata to account. The transition board has been mentioned and we are ensuring that the transition is managed properly, so that every employee receives the support they deserve.

That is why the Government are making a significant investment of £80 million towards the dedicated transition board; Tata is also contributing £20 million. The board includes representatives from this House, the Welsh Government, the local council and other key areas to ensure that the local community is well represented and supported through this period of change.

In addition, Tata Steel has committed a further £130 million towards a comprehensive support package to assist impacted employees. This Government are indeed working hard to ensure that help and support are there for those who need it throughout this disruptive period.

I will be present at those transition board meetings, as will the unions, which I meet regularly. In fact, I believe I met the unions just this week. I forget exactly when, because my weeks blur into one, but regular meetings with the unions are taking place. The point about ensuring that we are involved in constructive dialogue stands, is noted and is on the record. At the same time, however, we must not forget the context that led Tata to make this decision, because the alternative, regardless of the politics being played out, could have led to no steelmaking at Port Talbot.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister recognise that many of the investment decisions have been taken because over the past few years the difference between energy prices here in the UK and in other countries across Europe, such as France and Germany, have had a significant impact?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Member always makes very thoughtful interventions. It is true that energy prices have spiked, partly because of what is happening in Ukraine, and that is most definitely a challenge, but the support that we are providing Tata is the largest grant that has ever been made available to the steel industry. That was not done under the Labour Government, but under this Conservative Government providing the widest and deepest level of support to the steel sector.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Llanelli and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft).

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister acknowledge that the issue of energy prices pre-dates the events that happened in Ukraine two years ago?

[Ms Ghani]

Energy prices are a component. There is also the challenge that customers and users are seeking cleaner steel and the challenge of managing blast furnaces that are coming to the end of their life. It is a complicated scenario, but, because of the support that we have provided and the transition board that is focused on supporting the staff, there will continue to be steelmaking in Port Talbot.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

Can I be clear in my understanding? In the negotiations with Tata—my hon. Friend has talked about the £500 million support package—did the Government get a deal, an understanding, some certainty over when the blast furnaces would be switched off as part of that deal?

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend is far more knowledgeable on steel plants and steelmaking than I could ever be. The discussions continue. There is a consultation taking place. I was with the unions this week. They will continue to push their plans, which Tata has made clear are neither credible nor economically viable. But within those plans there is a proposal that electric arc furnaces will be upstream, not years away but in a couple of years’ time, which also gives assurances to the supply chains. My hon. Friend knows that the negotiations continue with British Steel and she will probably want to intervene on me later. A huge amount of support was provided by Tata and the transition board, which makes this a far easier programme of work to manage.

Tata has seen a decade of financial losses, with the Port Talbot plant reportedly losing £1.5 million every day. As I mentioned earlier, those challenges stem from complex international dynamics. China’s long-standing practice of flooding the global steel market with subsidised products has been a significant factor. Despite our efforts to mitigate the impact of cheap imports through domestic measures and challenging unfair practices internationally, we cannot ignore the harsh economic reality.

[Sarah Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I will in a moment. Private companies in the UK steel industry are facing immense difficulties in turning a profit. In fact, without the opportunity to transition to a modem electric arc furnace, the existence of the Port Talbot plant would have been in jeopardy. I cannot stress that enough.

[Sarah Jones]

On the point that the Minister makes about China, we know that the cheapest steel from China has been a factor, but major importers to the UK are western European nations: the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Germany. We are not competing with them, either. There is a fundamental problem in the way that we run this economy, which has meant that our industries cannot be competitive when others in the European Union can be.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Lady takes a very narrow view. Steel production in Europe is also coming under huge challenge, which is why they are also considering moving to far greener forms of producing steel. It is not just a UK problem.

[Jessica Morden]

On the issue of competitiveness, we pay 50% more for our energy costs in this country than they do in Germany. The German Government are putting around £2.6 billion into helping the industry transition. That has a major effect.

[Ms Ghani]

I will go on to answer that point. We have provided support for the energy costs of high-energy industries, and the supercharger initiative is coming down the line, but I will reflect on that point shortly.

The reality is that the Port Talbot plant would have been in jeopardy. Its closure would have had devastating consequences for the town and would have posed a serious threat to the UK as a whole, endangering the 8,000 jobs provided by Tata Steel across the country and numerous small businesses in the steel making supply chain.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I will in a moment.

I am on record as having had a regular, constructive relationship, so it disappoints me when Members come to this place and do not accept the reality of what was taking place in Port Talbot. If we had not provided support—the biggest support we have provided to the steel sector—there would have been a devastating effect on the entire 8,000 jobs.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

There is a queue.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

I asked the shadow Minister whether all the Tata Steel jobs in the UK would have been at risk if a deal was not done at Port Talbot—presumably, that is where the “5,000 jobs saved” figure comes from. Will the Minister be very clear that her understanding is not the same as the shadow Minister’s understanding? I think her understanding is that all 8,000 jobs would have gone.

[Ms Ghani]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. I am not sure what evidence the hon. Member for Croydon Central has that the plant would not have been under threat. When Tata circulated information prior to our debates or made announcements, it said that there was an absolute threat to Port Talbot and the company. The reality is that if we did not provide that support, there was a risk of losing all 8,000 jobs.

[Sarah Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

There is a queue.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Surely when the Government entered into a negotiation with Tata Steel, which is highly experienced in the business of negotiation, they considered the possibility that a gun was being held to their head, and that Tata Steel would of course make threats about total closure because that would strengthen their negotiating position. Were the Government completely naive or just incompetent when they went into a poker game dismissing the possibility that they might be getting bluffed?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that these conversations and negotiations have been going on for years. The Labour party had an opportunity to invest in the blast furnaces when it was in government, and it did not do so. He also knows that the blast furnaces are coming to the end of their life, so a decision would have to be made at some time. Tata could have decided to exit completely, which would have resulted in a loss of the 8,000 jobs and certainty in the supply chain. The hon. Gentleman knows that, because he had I have been at meetings with the unions and at the transition board. I know it is very difficult when there are potential job losses in one’s constituency, but the reality is that the model was not working.

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Croydon Central, let me say that Opposition Members constantly want harder, greener net-zero policies, and this is what happens when we flow those through. Customers—end users—want cleaner, greener steel that is made in electric arc furnaces, and this is the outcome of that demand. The reality is that, without the support, there would have been a high risk of Port Talbot and Tata no longer producing steel in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

[Sarah Jones]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I want to return to the point about whether it was this deal or the end of everything. If the Government had paid attention to their own report in 2017, which said, “Here are the problems with the steel industry: the supply chain, skills, R&D and transition,” and responded with a steel strategy, Tata would not hold all the cards and would not be able to say, rightly or wrongly, “It’s all or nothing.” We would not be in this situation. But the unions are supporting a reasonable deal that has a calmer transition and would not lead to job losses. Does the Minister think there is merit in that union plan?

[Ms Ghani]

I will go on to reference that, but not all unions subscribe to the plan, as the hon. Member knows. It was put forward by a collective, but not by all of them. Tata has been clear that keeping open a blast furnace for a very narrow period of time while opening up electric arc furnaces, which will provide the certainty that we need so that we can use scrap steel in the UK, is neither credible nor financially viable. Keeping a blast furnace open also creates difficulties around security and health and safety.

The negotiations continue, and a consultation is taking place. I was asked about what I am doing to ensure that Tata is observing the parameters of that consultation. The transition board is in place, and our focus is on ensuring that the consultation is as wide and deep as it can be, and that the transition board can do the job that it was set up to do, with huge sums of money.

I have already mentioned, and I cannot reiterate enough, the threat that the Port Talbot plant was under. We recognise the vital importance of the steel industry to the community’s heritage and identity. As I have mentioned, the Government have committed £500 million —the biggest sum ever invested in the steel sector—as part of a total investment of £1.25 billion to ensure the future sustainability of Port Talbot steel. That is what we have been able to do, and we should reflect on that. The investment is a huge step towards fortifying UK steel. Sustaining the blast furnaces would entail significant additional losses for the company and compound its current issues. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Llanelli knows, the UK’s blast furnaces, such as those in Port Talbot, are approaching the end of their operational lifespan.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister keeps saying that the blast furnaces—plural—are reaching the end of their lifespan. Yes, everybody agrees that blast furnace No. 5 is very close to the end of its lifespan; that part of the heavy end, with the coke ovens, should shut down, because the investment does not wash its face. The lifespan of blast furnace No. 4 is until 2032. It does not require that additional investment. I would be grateful if the Minister would stop saying that both blast furnaces are reaching the end of their lifespan.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman has been at the same meetings as I have, so he knows that the blast furnaces cannot be going if we are to transition in a period of time to having the electric arc furnaces up and running. However, I know that conversations are taking place with the unions, because I spoke to them this week. They are continuing to put their case forward, which is why a consultation is taking place. The hon. Member also knows that we need to give those conversations time to be followed through.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On a point of information, the multi-union plan is based on a 1.5 million tonne electric arc furnace. Nobody is denying that electric arc furnaces should not be in the mix. We fully support an EAF. We need a 1.5 million tonne EAF, running alongside blast furnace No. 4, not least because that blast furnace could then produce the iron ore-based metallics that are a vital part of sweetening the mix for the electric arc furnace. That would allow us to continue to deliver the current customer portfolio and be ready to embrace the opportunities of the future. I urge the Minister to recognise that we want an electric arc furnace; it is just that a 3 million tonne electric arc furnace is madness.

[Ms Ghani]

Three million tonne electric arc furnaces do exist in other parts of the world; it is not a unique capacity of arc furnace. I spoke to the unions on Monday, so I know that they are continuing to put their plans forward. Let us see what happens in the next few weeks.

I think everyone recognises that a transition has to take place. We have talked not only about supply chain resilience, but about how we can use scrap steel in electric arc furnaces as technology moves forward. Tata has confirmed that it will observe 90% of its supply chain contracts.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

Has the Minister’s Department carried out any work on the quality of scrap in the UK? I keep hearing about tonnages of scrap, but I do not think that anyone knows—or perhaps they do—what that scrap is made up of or whether it is suitable to go in electric arc furnaces.

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. UK Steel and a number of other umbrella organisations have done a huge amount of work in this space, including with universities in Wales, and they have huge confidence that we could retain most of the 11 million tonnes of scrap steel that circulates in our economy and the 8.2 million tonnes that is exported overseas for use in the electric arc furnaces. Technology will move forward as well—it never stands still—but Tata is confident that it can meet 90% of the contracts it has in place at the moment.

[Sarah Jones]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Ms Ghani]

Very briefly, because I am worried that I will run out of time.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

May I make an observation? It is helpful if the Minister can respond to one intervention before people bounce up and down for the next one. Let us take it calmly.

[Sarah Jones]

It has been a while since I bounced up and down, Chair; I am too old for that. Is the Minister exploring incentives to keep scrap steel in this country? Because at the moment we export it all. Is she looking at VAT relief, tariffs or restrictions to help that process?

[Ms Ghani]

I will make some progress before I take any further interventions. If the hon. Lady paid more attention to the business model, she would know that we cannot use more scrap steel in the UK economy because we do not have the capacity. But we will with the electric arc furnaces, which will be the dynamic change that is definitely needed.

Furthermore, by reducing our reliance on raw materials such as iron ore and coking coal, electric arc furnace technology offers a more sustainable alternative. Unlike blast furnaces, electric arc furnaces use scrap materials that are readily available—as I said, we have around 11 million tonnes circulating—from abundant domestic sources in the UK. In fact, the UK ranks among the top exporters of steel scrap globally, second only to the United States. Leveraging our ample supply of steel scrap for electric arc furnace production enables us to create new steel products locally, supporting British and international manufacturers alike. Every tonne of steel scrap that is sourced domestically diminishes our dependence on raw material imports from overseas countries, none of them near neighbours.

Wider support for the steel industry was raised in the debate. More widely, we are backing UK-made steel and, crucially, we are backing it in the right way, investing hundreds of millions of pounds to help the industry to thrive in increasingly challenging global markets. We are launching initiatives such as the British industry supercharger, which reduces electricity costs for the steel industry and other energy-intensive sectors, bringing them closer in line with the charges of other major economies. That is complemented by the £730 million in energy cost relief given to the steel sector since 2013. We have given specific support through our energy bill relief scheme and energy bills discount scheme.

We are, then, ensuring the resilience and prosperity of the UK steel industry in the face of increasingly competitive global markets. This work is preparing UK steelmaking for the coming years, but it is not the final word in future-proofing the industry. The SUSTAIN future manufacturing research hub, which is led by Swansea University, is the largest fundamental research activity centre working right now to decarbonise and improve the efficiency of steelmaking in the UK. I believe it is also looking at the quality of scrap steel and new technologies to ensure that we can make even more products using steel in the UK.

Other points were raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who serves on the Welsh Affairs Committee. I will go through the transcript from that Committee; I am across most of the issues raised. She asked about an unlimited budget; I am not sure that having an unlimited budget is a good use of taxpayers’ money, nor does it answer the question about the demands of customers looking for cleaner green steel.

A question was asked about absorbing further technologies. We are looking at electric arc furnaces at the moment, but that product is just the first step. As other technologies become commercial, they could be considered in future. I thought the question about our taking a stake in the company was curious because that is not something that we do. Regarding the condition on the grant, the consultation is taking place, and agreements are still being finalised and will include appropriate conditions on the grant. That is why the transition board is vital to that conversation. The grant will be paid in arrears against set milestones for the build of the electric arc furnace.

[Beth Winter]

I am not sure you have answered all the specific questions from the Opposition. You made a comment earlier about the consultation process that left me slightly confused. You met the unions on Monday and said you want to wait to see what happens in the next few weeks. Is this a done deal—or does the consultation process actually have some teeth in terms of potential outcomes? The unions are pushing the multi-union deal. You met them this week and just intimated that we should wait to see what happens in the next few weeks so—this is my understanding of a consultation process—are you still open to alternative options? Tata may not be, but the UK Government could be, just as the Labour party has proposed if and when we get into government.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. That was another long intervention. I remind the hon. Lady that any reference to “you” is a reference to me. I am certainly open to further negotiations, but that does not really matter.

[Ms Ghani]

This is a decision for Tata to take. It has made it clear that the offers put forward by the unions are not really credible, because it does not think they enable a transition without a huge amount of losses, so they are not financially credible. However, the consultation is taking place. It is not that I just met the unions this week: I meet them regularly and obviously I attend the transition board as well. The consultation is to ensure that Tata can make the right decision, and one would hope that it does that in consultation with the unions and with their overall support, accepting that it is incredibly challenging when we are talking about any level of job losses.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

The Minister says it is a decision for Tata to make, which I absolutely understand, but as the UK Government are putting in half a billion pounds of funding and investment support, do we not have some say in that decision as well?

[Ms Ghani]

We cannot force Tata. We put the support package in place when Tata said that it was struggling and making losses of over £1 million a day, but we cannot insist that Tata continues. We have provided an offer of support, and we want to ensure that the least amount of people are impacted, that the transition board provides support for those impacted, that supply chains continue to be resilient, and that any decision Tata takes to transition is one that meets the framework it puts forward. For example, if Tata plans to continue with its plan for a 3 million tonne capacity electric arc furnace by 2027, we need to ensure that all the milestones are met.

I want to touch on the issue of procurement, which we really have to address. First, less than 1% of UK steel is needed by the defence industry, and it has nothing to do with Port Talbot. This Government have implemented the procurement pipeline, which I was committed to doing when I became the steel Minister, to encourage our steel producers to access more contracts. In the last reporting year, there was an increase in the value of UK-sourced steel, from £97 million to £365 million. It is important to put that on the record, because Ministers say that they will try to increase UK procurement and we have most definitely done so.

I am worried that we are going to run out of time. The reality is that without our support there would have been a serious conversation fundamentally about the loss of 8,000 jobs at Port Talbot. I appreciate that the Opposition cannot understand the realities of business, but under Labour employment in the UK steel industry was cut back by more than half, or 40,000 jobs. Obviously, the Opposition do not appreciate the number of jobs that we hope to have saved.

We understand that Tata’s announcement will come as a heavy blow to the people of Port Talbot, but I recognise that everyone present accepts that we cannot stop the clocks. Technology has moved on. There has to be a transition, and this is a transition in which the majority of jobs will be supported with a substantial sum of money, and of course by the transition board as well. The transition we are talking about is one that enables us to adopt new technologies, with even more allowed to be adopted further down the line. It prevents the further loss of profit and prevents a dependence on imports going forward because we can use scrap steel within our own economy.

I assure the hon. Member for Llanelli that we are committed to working with Members throughout the House to realise a brighter future for our steel-making industry. If the options proposed by Opposition Members—whether it is the £28 billion or the £3 billion—were seen as serious and credible, I am sure that Tata would have taken heed of those support packages. Obviously it thought either that they were not credible or that they would not enable it to continue to do what it wanted—to transition to electric arc furnaces—and that they could have meant even more job losses in Wales and across the UK.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

This is the last intervention.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. She said that the Tata plan would enable us to be open to new technologies. In fact, the opposite is the case because the 3 million tonne electric arc furnace negates the possibility of direct-reduced iron capability, of an open slag bath furnace and of a plate mill; the plan is closing down routes to other technologies, not opening them up.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Minister, this is the last two minutes.

[Ms Ghani]

We can look at the reality of a DRI plant at Port Talbot, as well as examples across the rest of the world. A DRI plant requires even fewer people. I was looking at a plant in Texas that ended up having a 2 million tonne DRI plant, and it only requires 190 jobs. It is possible to transition; the opportunity to transition is there. There is often talk of hydrogen. That technology has not been tested to the capacity needed for this particular plant or for the levels of steelmaking that we need in the UK.

Let us deal with the matter in real terms. These conversations have been going on for years. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Aberavon, who represents Port Talbot, and I know that we could have continued the conversations and had a cliff edge, with Tata leaving; or we could have come up with the biggest settlement for steel and a consultation to make sure that the least amount of jobs are impacted—and that is going to provide certainty and security for steelmaking at Port Talbot for years to come.

I fear I have run out of time.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Dame Nia Griffith will have the final word.

10:56

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank all my Labour colleagues for a comprehensive picture of the steel industry right across south Wales. We are all very concerned: from Llanwern through to Port Talbot through to Trostre in Llanelli, and all our communities across south Wales. I thank the Minister for her responses, but I hope that she will take away and reflect on our points and questions, and look again at what more can be done to make us a steelmaking champion of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the steel industry in Wales.

A14: Junction 10A

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

10:57

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering.

May I say what a pleasure it is to see you, as such a distinguished and experienced member of the Panel of Chairs, in the Chair for our proceedings today, Sir Gary? I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate, and welcome the Minister to his place; he is an assiduous, diligent, hard-working and energetic Minister, and I am sure that he will listen closely to my constituents’ concerns.

This is not the first time that the House has heard about junction 10A on the A14. I have asked a series of oral and written parliamentary questions, and have had two debates in this Chamber on the same subject—in November 2020 and February 2023. I suspect junction 10A is unique amongst the road projects that the Department for Transport is considering, because it has three defining characteristics: originally, the scheme was in the road investment strategy 1 for the period 2015 to 2020 and it has now been resubmitted for RIS3; it is 50% developer funded; and it has a benefit-cost ratio of 3:1. Those are all impressive and unique characteristics that make the scheme distinct.

I also know that the scheme has the personal attention of the Secretary of State for Transport himself, because I met him in March last year and he was kind enough to write to me to say:

“I was taken with the fact that”

junction 10A is

“significantly developer-funded, had a high benefit-cost ratio, and was originally scheduled for RIS1.

As a result, I am happy to continue progressing the scheme as previously planned during the RIS3 period, subject to business case.

I also agree with your suggestion that National Highways and DfT officials should cooperate intensively with the local planning authority and the developer to progress the scheme as quickly as possible.”

Given the many items that the Secretary of State has to deal with every day, I am pleased that he has personally taken an interest in the scheme.

I know that the Minister knows Kettering: in his previous guise as Pensions Minister he was kind enough to visit in summer 2022 to support our local older persons’ fair in the Corn Market Hall in Kettering, as part of the drive to encourage pensioners to take up pension credit. I thank him for his interest and for having already visited Kettering.

Junction 10A does not actually exist—at the moment it is just a blob on a DFT map—but it is a junction that local residents very much need if Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford are not to grind to a halt because of all the traffic generated by the new house building taking place locally.

In short, junction 10A is critical road infrastructure. Originally, it was set to cost £40 million—the figure is probably is now nearer to £60 million or even more—with financial contributions split between the DFT and the developer, and it is required to deliver phase 2 of the Hanwood Park development which, in Government planning terms, is designated as a garden community that will comprise an eventual 5,500 dwellings and employment land covering 328 hectares to the east of Kettering. Local land values will not allow the junction’s development to be funded without Government intervention, so public funding is required.

In line with planning conditions, junction 10A must be in place by the time that between half and two thirds of the dwellings on the development are occupied. Just under 1,400 dwellings are already occupied, and the developer’s current housing trajectory shows that the dwellings trigger for the junction will be reached some time in 2026 or 2027. There is therefore a significant risk that without the new junction the development will grind to a halt in three or four years’ time, so my ask of His Majesty’s Government and the Minister today is for a firm commitment to include junction 10A in the Department’s road investment strategy 3, which is the programme for major road programmes in the period from 2025 to 2030. Junction 10A is already in the pipeline for RIS3, but we now need a definite funding commitment to include it.

The continuation of the sustainable roll-out of the Hanwood Park development can happen with confidence only if there is a definite Government commitment to the junction and a tangible Government commitment to the funding. What we are talking about is the need for joined-up government. If His Majesty’s Government are to get anywhere near their objective of 300,000 new dwellings built each year in England, they need to ensure that the requisite roads infrastructure is in place. The funding of junction 10A and the enabling of Hanwood Park to continue to be developed beyond 2026-27 will be a key test of the dovetailed Government housing and road strategy.

I know that the DFT already recognises the importance of the junction, because funding for it was originally included in RIS1 for the 2015-to-2020 period. The slow roll-out of housing development amid the national economic conditions at the time meant that the programme was not activated then, but housing development on the site is now proceeding at pace, with up to 400 new dwellings a year, and the funding commitment is now required.

Importantly, the Hanwood Park development is the fourth largest sustainable urban extension in the whole country. It is one of the nation’s flagship housing extensions and sits within the strategic Oxford to Cambridge planning arc. For local people, the Hanwood Park development is the equivalent of bolting on to the town of Kettering itself another town the size of Desborough. We have to ensure that the homes built on the development form a vital, liveable community and do not simply become one big, soulless housing estate. To make that happen, we must ensure not only that the infrastructure is in place to serve those new dwellings, but that there is no adverse impact on the quality of life of existing residents in other parts of Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford.

Outline planning permission was originally granted in April 2010 for 5,500 houses; a range of employment uses; a mixed-use district centre, including shops, local services and a health clinic; three local centres; a secondary school; four primary schools; hotel and leisure development; and extensive formal and informal open spaces.

Work is well under way to deliver development in the first phase of Hanwood Park, with 2,117 homes benefiting from reserved planning matters approval, and these are either built out, currently under construction or about to be commenced. Reserved planning matters approval has also been given for roads, green spaces, sustainable urban drainage systems and utilities infrastructure. Hayfield Cross Church of England Primary School—the first school on the site—is fully operational and serves the needs of Hanwood Park and the surrounding area. A free school bid has been successful for the delivery of the secondary school.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic and the associated economic downturn, delivery continues across the scheme, with David Wilson Homes, Barratt, Bellway, Orbit, Persimmon, Avant, Taylor Wimpey and Grace Homes, which is a local small and medium-sized enterprise house builder, progressing on site. As of early December 2023, about 1,126 dwellings were occupied, with a further 300 under construction. This includes the successful delivery of more than 20% affordable housing, which meets a key requirement of local housing needs, as well as more recently adapting to changes in the energy system, with the latest developer at Hanwood Park, Grace Homes, delivering 100% electrically heated and powered homes, which are well insulated and using heat pumps ahead of the introduction of the future homes standard.

Further confidence has been expressed in Hanwood Park, including proposed investment in non-residential facilities, including for a health centre and an anchor food store. These investments will be subject to receipt of planning permission, which in turn requires progress to be made on the junction 10A road scheme. The fact that such investment has been made—in effect, conditional on securing the junction improvement—places an increased focus on the RIS3 programme and demonstrates again the strong fundamentals in place at Hanwood Park and the additional benefits that the RIS3 investment will bring.

Hanwood Park is also proposed as the site of a much needed mixed-sex secondary school, which His Majesty’s Government have done much to support. The delivery of the school is also, in practical terms, contingent on the junction project being committed to.

The rate of delivery during the past few years, including throughout the pandemic, has at times reached an impressive 400 units a year. This, against a backdrop of mixed performance elsewhere in the country, demonstrates the significance and substantial contribution that Kettering can make to the UK’s growth prospects.

A new outline planning application has been submitted for the remaining 3,383 dwellings, as well as the remaining schools, formal and informal open spaces, district and local centres, a hotel and employment. The application has reached an advanced stage, with North Northamptonshire Council’s planning committee targeting this spring, in a few months’ time, for a decision on it—but certainty on junction 10A is critical to the scheme.

The development of Hanwood Park forms a key component of housing to be delivered in North Northamptonshire and Kettering in the adopted “North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031”. Housing growth will be in parallel to the delivery of employment land and other uses. The development as a whole is estimated to create an amazing 8,100 new local jobs. Without a Government commitment to junction 10A, 2,000 new homes, including 400 affordable ones, simply will not be delivered. Without junction 10A, there would be significant and unacceptable traffic congestion at the existing junction 10 roundabout and elsewhere, as well as untenable residential amenity issues caused by large vehicles accessing the employment uses located in the south-eastern area of the new development. That means that the traffic would be forced to travel through the new residential areas.

In addition to the continued housing delivery, the new junction will unlock employment land, which is key for local sustainable growth. The new junction is essential in enabling the delivery of some 10 hectares of employment land in the south-eastern quadrant of the development. The market delivery of those employment sites would be extremely challenging and may not be possible without junction 10A. The same position is true of land situated in and around junction 10A. There is therefore a significant risk that the development as a whole will grind to a halt. Thousands of jobs could be at risk, and further homes simply will not be built.

At the moment, 2026 remains the target date for the delivery of junction 10A, in line with the DFT’s RIS3 programme, but that requires detailed planning approval to be achieved and procurement to commence concurrently. That can happen only if there is confidence in the Government’s commitment to junction 10A and a tangible commitment to RIS3 funding. Hanwood Park now faces the unwelcome prospect of beginning to halt the development in the next two years unless there is clear and unambiguous confidence in the ongoing support for the project. The challenge will increasingly become a question of supply rather than demand, as there are a little more than 700 homes left to construct and occupy.

Against that backdrop, local residents on site are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of delivery of further amenities and facilities, which is leading to more journeys by car to alternative locations to meet basic needs and undermines the principle of the original sustainable urban extension programme. Any further loss of momentum will damage long-term confidence in the scheme and create discontent among the new residents, who are beginning to question whether it will ever be completed. Developers and investors alike need as much certainty as possible to be able to plan and have confidence in the route ahead, and recent progress is now in danger of stalling.

I know that National Highways is progressing junction 10A through its approval processes and considering the part-funding solution for the new junction. North Northamptonshire Council is fully engaged and supporting the process, together with the developer of Hanwood Park. My view is that the process now needs to be expedited so that there is certainty around the delivery of the new junction, which is critical to the delivery of Hanwood Park as a whole. A firm commitment to RIS3 funding is now imperative to ensure continued housing delivery, including vital affordable housing, along with the significant employment opportunities and economic growth that the local area needs, and to give the market confidence that delivery will not be stifled.

I invite the Minister, on one of his regional road tours, to come and see Kettering for the second time in his ministerial career and to see the site of the proposed new junction. For local people, the tragedy is that we could have had as many as 3,500 new homes built on Hanwood Park without the necessary road infrastructure to take us beyond that level. That presents the real risk of gridlock in the town of Kettering, with initial houses already provided but the Government not coming up with their share of the funding for the new junction 10A.

My plea to my hon. Friend the Roads Minister, on behalf of local people in Kettering, is that he recognise the fundamental importance of the new junction to people in the local area, and that the Government make the commitment to fund it that we badly need and expedite the process to deliver the junction on the ground.

11:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

What a pleasure and joy it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I put on record my thanks for your work in the House of Commons and our sadness that you are departing; those massive shoes will need to be filled.

It is an honour to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Before I get into the nuts and bolts of junction 10A, I should say that, even though it does not exist as yet, it is probably the most debated junction in the House of Commons in the history of roads and transport. There was a debate on 4 November 2020 and then another debate exactly one year ago, on 21 February 2023. I thank my hon. Friend, because he is a fantastic campaigner. Every single Member of Parliament looks up to him because of the work that he does on behalf of his constituents, and he is nothing if not determined and persistent. He is a worthy local champion for the fine town of Kettering.

My hon. Friend is right: I was privileged and honoured to attend on 1 July 2022—I looked that up—during the dog days as the Minister responsible for pensions, the older persons’ fair at the Corn Market Hall in Kettering. That is a delightful building, and that was a fantastic opportunity to meet dozens and dozens of people who are doing amazing community group work and amazing volunteering but also providing older persons’ work and opportunities, part time and full time, in a variety of ways. It was credit to my hon. Friend and his local council, which was co-running that fair, that I was able to see the massive enthusiasm for community, above everything else, but also the jobs that everybody was trying to provide.

I then enjoyed a particularly fine lunch at 27 Crown Street, where I was talking about all those matters—older workers, pensions and the like—and was only slightly taken aback when someone said, “You really do look too fat to be a steeplechase jockey.” That is something that one has to bear when one is a long way off racing weight. Such is life.

Now I come to the nuts and bolts of the issue today. As my hon. Friend is utterly aware, the A14 is in effect a modern-day Watling Street. It is the key junction, key connection, between so much across the country. It is an integral part of the road network, and it is utterly key to his constituency of Kettering. I totally get that. That point is utterly well made.

The Hanwood Park development is also genuinely groundbreaking. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the scale of ambition, the number of developers individually, as corporate entities, and the scale of the desire to build a proper garden city that has all the amenities, schools and free schools, and the business development that follows are genuinely game changing. It is something that has been going on for a long time, dating back, as we my hon. Friend and I are acutely aware, to the planning application successfully going through in 2010. It has then had various iterations as the houses have been built.

It is also very much the case that this project has the full support of the Department for Transport. I want to assure my hon. Friend of that, first in outline and then by getting into the nuts and bolts of the details. First, he rightly makes the point that he has met many roads Ministers. He also had a specific meeting with the present Secretary of State, who stated unequivocally that this is a unique development because it is something with a high degree of contribution by developers. On 22 March 2023, the Secretary of State stated:

“I am happy to continue progressing the scheme as previously planned during the RIS3 period, subject to business case.

I also agree with your suggestion that National Highways and DfT officials should cooperate intensively with the local planning authority and the developer to progress the scheme as quickly as possible.”

There have been a number of developments since then, and I want briefly to go back over the planning and the memorandums that have been engaged in before I get to the final points I wish to make. The first issue, clearly, is what has happened in the passage of time since the 2010 planning approval. In April 2021, the developer resubmitted a planning application for the full 5,500 homes, as my hon. Friend is acutely aware. The key issue will be the trigger point in respect of when certain conditions apply. I take it from his assurances in the House that we are to have the final resolution of that planning application in the next couple of months. There is a degree to which this is chicken and egg, and I fully understand that point, but I can certainly confirm that this project is and will be in RIS3.

There are two provisos to that. The first is the business case, but I think my hon. Friend and I know that this project probably has the best business case in the country, as far as I am aware, because it has significant developer contribution and is absolutely in support of all our other objectives. Personally, I see no difficulty whatsoever, but these things have to be assessed on an ongoing basis.

The second key point is that the project is subject to planning permission. If planning permission were to be refused, that would make things complicated. However, I want to convey to my hon. Friend and his constituents, particularly the Hanwood Park residents, and to this House and, most importantly, the local authority that will determine the planning condition that, provided the planning condition is satisfactorily passed, all the conditions in RIS3 will apply. It seems to me inevitable and entirely right that this project should be built as part of RIS3.

Clearly, I cannot pre-judge the decision of my hon. Friend’s local authority in the next couple of months, but there is no doubt in my mind that this project should proceed. Commitments have been made for this project in the past, and, subject to those two preconditions, both of which are eminently resolvable, it should unquestionably be achieved in the next few years.

I wish to try to make clear a couple of other minor points. As I understand it, in the summer of last year—in July 2023—following the steer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, a memorandum of understanding between National Highways and the developer was signed that set out various protocols, including the role of National Highways in ensuring the works by the developer associated with junction 10 on the A14. Those technical works are already under way as part of stage 1, led by the developer and its technical team. There is also a full transport assessment of the updated proposals, and National Highways is supporting that work and undertaking necessary checks and assurances.

While it is true that this junction does not exist at the present stage, I have some very impressive plans of said junction, and it is way more advanced than many things that are ethereal in the mind and insubstantial in the action that we often discuss in this House. The utterly key thing is that the local authority needs to progress the planning application, and National Highways needs to put all hands to the pump to ensure that it is ready to proceed. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance, as previously expressed in writing by the Secretary of State, that this project is part of RIS3.

[Mr Hollobone]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for his detailed and assiduous response. Once the planning permission is granted—hopefully in the next couple of months—would the Minister be kind enough to come and visit the site so that he can see it for himself and we can then progress the expedition of this scheme on the ground?

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend has prejudged the point I was going to make, which is that it would unquestionably be a delight, an honour and a privilege to return to the good people of Kettering and to spend some time with him. That was my intention. I do not think there is much point in me coming until the local authority has made its decision, but when that happens it would seem entirely right and proper for me, my hon. Friend, the local authority and National Highways to meet on site. I could come and visit the site and give the proper direction, oomph, and various other steers that this project needs to be proceeding apace. I hope that reassures him. I look forward to coming to visit Kettering on another summer occasion, and to the local authority making the right decision so that we can then progress junction 10A. That is something the Government support in its entirety.

Question put and agreed to.

11:24

Sitting suspended.

Access to Education: South-East Northumberland

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to education in south-east Northumberland.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson, as we discuss an incredibly important issue for many in my constituency of Wansbeck, and indeed in wider south-east Northumberland. I understand that it might be complicated, because I will be mentioning the different schools, areas, towns and villages, but myself and my staff are happy to discuss the geography with the Minister and his team following the debate.

At the outset, it is important to put on the record my thanks to the school leaders, trustees and governors, the parents, the kids—everybody who has worked extremely hard in my constituency. For quite some time, the Ofsted ratings have not been where they should be, but they are on the turn for the first time in a quite a while. I want to assure the people involved in the schools in every part of the educational structure that they have my full support and sincere thanks for turning the worm with regard to qualifications in the constituency. They have all been at the forefront of turning around the fortunes of the children. For far too long, we have seen what can only be described as less than acceptable educational results.

The crux of this debate is the concept of parental choice in education—something that sounds so reasonable, but has had a disastrous impact on some children. At the 2019 general election, the Government pledged to

“continue to ensure that parents can choose the schools that best suit their children and best prepare them for the future.”

That is something that parents in south-east Northumberland will consider with utter confusion. In the time I have been a Member of Parliament, education in south-east Northumberland has largely been converted to a two-tier system from a three-tier system. I do not intend to make any comment on the effectiveness of either system—that is for another time. The change was certainly opposed by many people, but implemented after consultation, and it will not have been seen by those opposing it locally as upholding parental choice.

The upshot of the change was the closure of middle schools in some of the larger villages of south-east Northumberland. Specifically, it meant that Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Guide Post lost their middle schools and that children who would previously have been schooled in their community are now travelling to secondary schools in neighbouring towns at a much younger age.

Parental choice in special educational settings is an incredibly important topic, too, but I do not intend to dwell on that today. That topic deserves its own debate, and is something we can return to at a future date.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my great and hon. Friend and I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Henderson. Is the population of my hon. Friend’s constituency sparsely distributed? Mine has got 23 separate villages, and there are probably four or five high schools, so making a choice is limited by the geographic spread of the secondary schools especially. That impacts communities like my hon. Friend’s in the north east, and mine, and those elsewhere, too. In that respect, competition between secondary schools and academies does not necessarily help parental choice in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he suggests, it is basically the semi-rural and rural villages—small villages—that have had children travelling to certain schools as feeder schools for years and years, indeed decades and decades, and choice is now being taken away from parents. That is a massive issue—basically, it is the crux of this debate we are having here today.

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Has he had the experience of some entrepreneurial secondary academies excluding kids who have issues about attainment in an effort to drive up the average result for those schools? And if he has, what does he think happens to those children—those young people—who have been excluded?

[Ian Lavery]

Again, that is an important issue with regard to what has happened to a number of, shall we say, allegedly problematic children in education. It has proven to be a massive issue, certainly in my constituency in the past, as it probably has across the piece.

In my view, there is a reluctance among some schools and academies to continue to educate some young people. Basically, they should try to nurture them. A lot of these kids are not going to be told what to do; they have got extreme difficulties. They are living in poverty and have problems. They live in socially deprived areas, which are getting worse and worse. A lot of their parents are using food banks. A lot of these kids need somebody to put an arm around them, but a number of them, at a very young age, get kicked into touch far too early by different schools and academies, across constituencies.

[Jon Trickett]

Will my hon. Friend give way again?

[Ian Lavery]

Of course.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not really want multiple interventions by one Member.

[Jon Trickett]

I absolutely take your guidance, Mr Henderson. I have not asked to make a speech, but my hon. Friend is raising a number of issues of national importance. With your forbearance, Mr Henderson, can I make one final intervention, please?

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

I am a very generous Chair.

[Jon Trickett]

You are very generous, Mr Henderson. We have a 90-minute debate and my hon. Friend probably has an 85-minute speech, so he will have to cut it down slightly.

I have noticed that the proportion of young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency with no qualifications at all is almost one in five; in the city of London, only 6% have no qualifications. Is that due to social class or is it partly about the density of the population in London compared with the sparsity of the population in his area? In my own constituency, 24% of all the kids have no qualifications at all when they leave school. Is that not a disgrace?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend again for his intervention, which had a number of questions. You are an excellent Chair, Mr Henderson, but there are only a few people here in Westminster Hall. [Interruption.] Ah, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just arrived.

It is really important to recognise the situation that my hon. Friend described, which is part of what I wanted to discuss here today. This issue is about giving all children equal opportunity and equal choice in schools that their parents went to or where their friends up the street are going to. Children in the same street are going to different schools.

This issue is all about trying to better the educational lives of young people in our constituencies. It is difficult. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth is very similar to mine: both have areas with high populations and lots of little areas on the outskirts with much lower populations, and that presents problems. Regardless of party politics, parental choice in education is an incredibly reasonable ambition, but until all parents are able to exercise parental choice it will remain only an ambition.

In recent years, my office has been dealing with an increasing number of cases relating to children who are not able to access their school of choice. That is not because they have sought to access schools in distant communities where they do not have any ties—indeed, as I mentioned before, the schools they are now unable to access are the ones their parents and grandparents attended. If someone was at one school, the next school used to follow; it was a generational thing. But that has been smashed to pieces by the new rules that have come into place for pupil allocation numbers, or PAN.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He and I are often in debates in Westminster Hall on issues of interest to him and me as well. Really well done on bringing this forward.

The issue of education is no different in south-east Northumberland and my constituency of Strangford, although this debate relates to south-east Northumberland. Does the hon. Member agree that access to high-quality education must be automatic—in other words, available to everyone? Should not central Government assist local councils in areas with additional needs by providing more teachers? Furthermore, classroom aids and assistants are essential in getting as many children into mainstream education as possible. I often say that education is vital for our children. If we get them educated, the future is open to them to achieve their many goals and dreams.

[Ian Lavery]

What the hon. Gentleman says is so true: this is about proper, real and good education. In my constituency, we have seen a number of schools turn the corner—they are now rated good, rather than the unwelcome ratings from Ofsted. That has focused parents’ minds. Instead of thinking that their kids should go to another school, they now want them to go to the school that is now rated good or better and that hopefully will improve further in the coming years.

Everybody should want their children to be part of the best potential educational facilities where the best results are obtained, but also in a really welcoming environment. I mentioned before that as a schoolboy I was at Ashington High School, which is now Ashington Academy. Two large cohorts used to be bused into Ashington High School from Pegswood, which is about two miles away; when my two sons attended the school, they experienced exactly the same. As recently as 2018, 100% of the 19 children leaving Pegswood Primary School, just one and a half or two miles away, were admitted to Ashington Academy, and that was the way it had been for generations. Last year, however, 24 children left the school at the end of year 6, but only 14 were admitted to Ashington Academy. Nine found their way to a different town altogether, six or seven miles away, and one went to the Blyth Academy—even further afield. We can see what has happened there. In the years in between, the number going to Ashington Academy has steadily reduced, with the destination of those not able to get a place varying greatly.

Pegswood Primary School is marginally closer to the King Edward VI School in Morpeth, known as KEVI. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister looking at a map. However, the system there still includes middle schools and the school is regularly oversubscribed. That means that this very sought-after school simply does not provide an appropriate opportunity for those kids to access education.

The reality of the situation is year groups and friendships are split up as children travel further to attend a suitable school. The same issue is in play at Bedlington Academy. In my office, we have been dealing with cases involving children from North Blyth, Cambois, Choppington, Guide Post and Stakeford who all have been unable to obtain a place at the school. This was their natural school.

We have spent many hours seeking a solution for a girl living in North Blyth. For those unfamiliar with the geography of the area, North Blyth is a small community on the north shore of the River Blyth, looking on to the town that shares its name, with the river running in between. The girl has gone through a primary school that was formerly a feeder school to both Bedlington Academy and its predecessor Bedlingtonshire Community High School. By any reasonable measure, given that the girl cannot conceivably cross the river, her closest secondary school is Bedlington Academy, but she has not been able to gain a place there. Her parents do not wish her to attend her next nearest school, which is a faith school. As such, she is out of education, awaiting a place at the academy. These are the issues that are important to families and children in their early stages.

We have spent a lot of time trying to help a kid from Stakeford who, again, having gone through the academy’s former feeder schools, has been unable to obtain a place. He is an incredibly bright young fella, but he is six months out of any formal educational setting, and we cannot just continue. One of the reasons why the debate is happening is to ask the Minister for some sort of support in south-east Northumberland. The boy’s next nearest school is the oversubscribed Ashington Academy, so he is forced to choose from options that are, again, further afield. The two children are not alone; indeed, we are aware that Bedlington Academy is oversubscribed for the next academic year by more than 20 pupils.

I previously alluded to former feeder schools. In 2020, the schools admissions criteria of both Ashington and Bedlington academies, both run by the North East Learning Trust, were amended. Rather than using feeder schools in their over-subscription criteria, they changed to using the distance from the school as the determining factor. Under usual circumstances, that could be seen at first glance as a reasonable change and one that is entirely legal under the legislation. It should be noted, however, that it was against the then advice of the local educational authority—Northumberland County Council —as was North East Learning Trust’s decision to cut the number of places available each year in both their academies.

There are more issues at play in the local area that cause problems. Ashington and Bedlington are towns containing two secondary schools. In Ashington, there was traditionally a split down the middle of the town that decided which schoolchildren attended which school: one side was the Church of England, the other the Ashington Academy. Children from the surrounding villages were split between the two schools, with those from Newbiggin and Lynemouth attending one and those from Pegswood, Linton, Ellington and Ulgham the other. The change in oversubscription criteria alone would have made little difference, but combined with different outcomes for the children, there is a swell in the number of pupils seeking to attend Ashington Academy.

Ashington Academy is at the centre of the town. Its results, as I have mentioned twice already, are very much on the increase, and therefore more people want to go there from the semi-urban areas and from Ashington itself. Every child in Ashington, regardless of where they live, lives closer to Ashington Academy than a child from Pegswood or the other villages. Pupils who would have travelled to Ashington Academy from Pegswood, Linton and Ellington now have fewer options, because people in Ashington town who perhaps would have gone to the other school live closer, and that means the admission criteria is in their favour.

Again, though there are two schools in Bedlington, the traditional split between them is slightly more complex due to one of them being a Catholic academy, but parents from wider Bedlingtonshire increasingly find that parental choice is unavailable to them, too. Children in Stakeford, Choppington, Guide Post, East and West Sleekburn, Cambois and North Blyth are at a disadvantage in attending their closest secondary school because they live too far away. Perversely, though I am not aware of any cases yet, there will come a time when even children living in Bedlington could find attending their closest non-faith secondary school difficult, with parts of Blyth closer in distance to the school than parts of Bedlington.

There is some positive news for those wishing to attend the Ashington Academy next year, as the school has been able to increase admissions to ensure that all those who have chosen it as their first choice can get in. We have made a little bit of progress thanks to Lesley Powell and her team at the at the North East Learning Trust. It does not help those who have been forced out of the traditional school progression in previous years nor, unless something can be sorted, will it help anyone in the future.

Bedlington Academy, however, has not had such luxuries. The school operates in a purpose-built facility that is restricted due to size. There are simply very few options for it to take a similar approach without building work, and obviously building work means more investment into the academy, something that the North East Learning Trust has been seeking. However, that has not been agreed by the education authority.

The data from the local authority for children in the Bedlington schooling system shows that the problem is likely to subside in the coming years. People believe that in the coming years it might change for the better, but that does not take into account any other factors. The progress made in recent years by Ashington and Bedlington academies is absolutely remarkable—their reputations have been so transformed that parents are desperate to get their children into the schools. Regardless of any other factors, the schools are likely to continue to be oversubscribed and children from more distant villages, for whom previously these were the appropriate schools, being split up from their peers and pushed into secondary schools that are even further away than the Ashington and Bedlington academies.

As the MP for the area for more than a decade, I have deliberately sought not to interfere in planning issues and I have no formal role in the process. By and large, that has been a sensible decision, but I have been told on multiple occasions that the explosion of house building in the constituency will have no impact on local services. Specifically, I have been told that there is no issue with school places and I have been shown figure after figure that supposedly proves that. However, with the benefit of hindsight, that does not appear to have been correct.

There is no wonder that local people are angry with the failure of local services to keep up. It is they and their children who are forced to deal with the consequences. The role of the local authority in all this is severely weakened by the academisation of so many schools in the area. Where once it would have had the responsibility to act to ensure fairness, it is now left to pick up the pieces. The warning that Northumberland County Council officers made to NELT in 2020 were not heeded and they have no powers to do anything in response. That is a huge difficulty. Part of the academy chain, the North East Learning Trust, is setting the rules. It has been agreed that it is not doing anything illegal, and the county council advises it that that should not be the case. It is not listening to the evidence from the county council. We have kids falling through the cracks. Nobody has done anything wrong; it is just not working for a number of young people, and it is set to get worse. Where once a local authority would have the responsibility to act to ensure fairness, it is now left to pick up the pieces.

Council officers have concluded that the trust’s change in admission policy disrupted long-established educational pathways, causing much confusion. Students and their families are left upset and uncertain. They report that students are being forced to go to schools outside their communities and away from long-standing friends, often involving unacceptably long journeys. I understand that council officials have met with the North East Learning Trust on an annual basis to try to convince them that the distance criteria are unfair and causing hardship. They are sometimes able to, in their words, “wrestle” some additional places in order to assist some students, but the distance criteria continue to disadvantage many, especially those in the villages in the former catchment areas that are furthest away.

Since 2010, austerity has ravaged parts of my constituency. In some areas, child poverty has gone through the roof. Schools clearly have not escaped that, with funding cuts being patched up by staff commitment. They remain shining beacons of opportunity in our communities, but for too many they are now unable to be accessed. Opportunity must be there for everyone.

I want to end by posing a number of questions to the Minister. Does the Minister understand that the changes made by the stroke of a pen to decades of settled school progression is incredibly hard for a community to take? Does he agree that any system where parental choice is possible for people in Ashington, but less so for those in the villages around it, is unfair? Does he agree that it is unfair that parental choice for some parents in Bedlingtonshire now amounts to choosing a school devoted to a faith to which they do not belong, or a school in a community where they have no connections at all? Does the Minister agree that additional funding to Bedlington Academy to increase its capacity appears to be the only real option? Finally, does he agree that more rigorous checks on the impact of development are needed, and that they should be revisited year on year, so that the students—the kids—are first, second and third?

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Since there are no other Members that I can see who wish to speak, I will leave the Opposition spokesman to respond.

14:57

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Henderson. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing this very important debate about access to education in his constituency and across south-east Northumberland. The issues he raised in his speech will resonate with Members of Parliament across the country in relation to their own communities. He speaks with passion and eloquence about the difficulties faced by children, their families and schools in his region. I pay tribute to him for his passion in speaking up for the needs of children and young people in his constituency and the quality of their education. He has focused on parental choice and engagement, recognising that barriers to learning and engagement are having a real impact. There are consequences of structural and other policy changes within our public services and education system on opportunity and equality. He speaks with a deep knowledge of the circumstances in his local area, and what has resulted from how changes have been made.

The reality is that children, students, teachers and parents in south-east Northumberland and across the country have been let down in cumulative ways by the many failures of the Conservative Government over the last 14 years, in our schools as well as in our infrastructure. Councils and their budgets have also been stripped to the bone, which has reduced their capacity and resilience.

My hon. Friend raised the concerning issue of parents and children not getting the schools of their choice. I think we all recognise that parental choice in education is important. As my hon. Friend set out in relation to the case studies he highlighted, issues can arise when year groups and friendships are split up, and children sometimes have to travel much further just to attend school. It is concerning to hear of students in his constituency who have been left out of education because of a lack of choice. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic to some of the challenges that have been outlined, and will give the Government’s response on what can be done for those students.

Let me turn to the main areas of concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. Because of fragment-ation in admission policymaking, some schools have policies that effectively can prioritise high-achieving students and exclude disadvantaged pupils. It is important to ensure that there is more democratic control and oversight over the admissions system. That is why Labour wants to require all schools, including academies, to co-operate with their local authorities on pupil admissions and place planning, and ensuring fairer access and greater certainty for children and their families. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that; I am sure that there are points he will want to raise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck also discussed, extremely effectively, other issues that affect access to education in south-east Northumberland. He referred to the difficulties faced by students with special educational needs. We know that the system isn’t working, and he set out the impact on families of not getting the support that they need. Issues around special educational needs and disabilities need to be a much greater priority for the Government. In all our constituencies, the system is beyond breaking point. Too many families face an uphill battle for the support their children need. It is often a battle that must be fought multiple times across a child’s school life—for support in primary school, to find the right secondary school and ensure that support is in place, and for places and support in further or higher education.

That creates huge pressures on the system, as we have seen across Northumberland and throughout the country. In councils across the country, SEND has been cited as contributing to the issuing of section 114 notices. Local authorities are struggling to balance their budgets, with reduced resilience in their finances for all sorts of reasons. Indeed, more is coming to light about the impact on council finances of the Budget of the former Prime Minister, who was in office for just over 40 days.

What has the Government’s response been? A review of SEND provision was announced in 2019 but delayed three times, and much of the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan will not come into effect until next year—six years after it was announced. The Minister may want to enlighten us as to whether any of that will be brought forward. It is desperately needed in all our communities.

Let me say a few words on child poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck highlighted alongside the cost of living crisis. The impact of child poverty on access to education in south-east Northumberland and across the country should concern us all. The challenges that children face at home do not stop at the school gates, and the extent of poverty in the north-east is appalling. The impact of that is demonstrated in the fact that some leave school without any qualifications at all.

Indeed, in the north-east we have seen the steepest rise in child poverty anywhere in the UK: almost 190,000 babies, children and young people now live below the poverty line. We hear about dedicated people across our education system going above and beyond every day for our children—for those who do not have books to read, pens to draw with or enough food in their bellies when they go to school. Of course, it is the Government’s role to break down those barriers, but their decisions often make the barriers higher. The previous Labour Government were laser-focused on tackling child poverty, and the next Labour Government will be too.

We also know about the challenges of persistent absence in our schools. Across the autumn and spring terms, more than one in five children were persistently absent from school—more than double the number just five years ago. The Education Secretary continues to claim that absence is her No. 1 priority, but in the north-east there has been a huge increase in the number of children missing days of education: between 2016 and 2022, there was a 169% increase in the number of children in Northumberland missing half their lessons, and the figures are starker yet in Sunderland, Newcastle and County Durham. It is just not good enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck also raised the devastating impact of school funding cuts in his constituency. Official figures show that, thanks to the Conservatives, per-pupil spending in schools will recover to 2010 levels only in 2024-25. Those are 14 lost years. If the Minister is not familiar with those official figures, he may want to look at them, because that is the case. I have heard from school students in my constituency who have been left without a maths teacher for an entire year, as teachers are leaving the profession. Young people told me last week that, due to teacher shortages, English class sizes have doubled, because classes have been combined, and they take place in the school hall.

I want to say a word about access to post-16 education, because the decline of accessibility in education under the Conservatives is not just limited to schools. Under their watch, apprenticeship starts have plummeted by more than 200,000. In the north-east, starts have fallen by 45%, and in Wansbeck by almost 40%, since 2010. Schools and colleges seem to be an afterthought, but they will be at the heart of the next Labour Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. We will recruit 6,500 more teachers across our schools, because the shortage of teachers is impacting the way schools are able to recruit, provide subjects to ensure a wide curriculum, and expand their offers. To create opportunity, we will recruit 1,000 new careers advisers and introduce two weeks’ work experience, which will be vital in bridging the gap between education and employment. That is so important for the quality of education that all young people receive.

The Labour party wants high and rising standards in all our schools and across all our communities, so that every child everywhere gets the chance to thrive and benefit from the opportunities that flow when they have access to the best education available. That must apply not just to some schools and some children, but to every child in every community.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech and for outlining the issues in his constituency, which are reflected in constituencies across the country. That is why the next Labour Government will be focused on breaking down barriers to opportunity in south-east Northumberland and across the country.

15:09

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Henderson. It is an auspicious day: I believe it is your maiden chairing of Westminster Hall, and it is a privilege for us all to be part of it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on his passionate and comprehensive remarks about access to education in his area. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child in the country has a first-class education and every opportunity to make the most of their abilities. We are also committed to ensuring fair access to a good school place for every child, including the most vulnerable. That is why we have taken steps to ensure that schools allocate places in a clear, fair and objective way.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, all state-funded schools, including academies, are required to comply with the school admissions code. In 2021, a new code came into effect, which aims to improve access to school for vulnerable children and to reduce any gaps in their education. The latest data available show that the admissions system is working well. Nationally, in 2023, 94% of parents received an offer of a place at one of their top three preferences for secondary schools, and 98% an offer at one of the top three preferences for primary schools. That matches 2022, so we are maintaining that high level.

Anyone who thinks a school’s admission arrangements are unlawful or unfair can object to the schools adjudicator. The adjudicator’s decision is legally binding. If a school fails to meet its statutory duties, it can be directed to do so by the Secretary of State. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be concerned when children and young people are unable to attend the parents’ preferred choice of local school. The Department works closely with local authorities and admissions authorities on those matters.

Overall in 2023, in Northumberland 99% of parents received an offer at one of their top three preferences for secondary, and 93% were offered their first preference. That compares with 94% nationally for top three and 82.5% for first preference. So, the Northumberland rates are above the national average. As he will know, academy trusts are their own admissions authority, but we do expect local authorities and schools, academy trusts and diocesan authorities to work together, to ensure there is a co-ordinated approach, which helps local authorities to meet the duty on place sufficiency.

I do, though, recognise the frustration of parents and carers living in south-east Northumberland, who may now be less sure of their child’s chance of accessing a place at their school of choice, due to the academy’s change of admissions criteria in 2020, which considers distance from the academy rather than attendance at specific feeder schools, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identified.

Distance is not an uncommon criterion; in fact it is very commonly used for admissions. It does ensure that children living close to the school can access their local school and avoid travelling longer distances. Data provided by the local authority indicate that the number of year 7 pupils in the area will decrease over the current forecast period, up to 2029. To provide wider background for colleagues, there is a general effect going on in the demography of the country. It is not the same everywhere; there are different patterns in different communities.

There has been a bulge—not the most elegant term—of pupils coming through primary school who are now going to secondary school. The secondary school will initially grow, and primary numbers overall will tend to come down somewhat. Over time, that effect will work its way through secondary school as well. The long and the short of that is to say that one would expect that in year 7 admissions those numbers will change over the years.

The local authority is reporting that there are sufficient physical places to meet demand. I do accept that, in some cases, those would be places lower down in preference, due to established patterns of travel, the over-subscription criteria of some schools, or where a school is continuing its improvement journey. We will do all we can to speed up that improvement, so that there is genuine choice in local areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect on and respond to some specific points, some of which I have covered in my remarks already. I would say overall on school choice, all parents want the best for their children. In any system where there is school choice, not quite everybody gets their first, and that is a by-product of that choice. As was the policy of the previous Government prior to 2010, we also believe that parents having that choice to rank their preferred schools in order carries great benefits, including for families and children themselves.

The hon. Member asked specifically about housing development. Local authorities make projections of birth rates and the expected effect of rates of housing development, depending on the type of housing, how many families with children there are likely to be and the likely age of those children. I am sure that his authority in Northumberland will do that as well.

The hon. Member referred to PANs, and schools can and do change PANs over time. He is right to identify that in the particular case that we are talking about today, those admission numbers were reduced. That was part of the school improvement plan to give greater headroom. As he rightly said, that improvement has been happening in those schools and we have been seeing better results. I gather that the trust has also been allowing some admission over the PAN, which has been of some assistance.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), took the debate into wider areas beyond just south-east Northumberland, which gives me an opportunity to respond to some of those points, so I am grateful to her. She mentioned having to provide for school choice, and I agree entirely. That is why we have created over a million new places in the school system since 2010, specifically to make sure not only that there are adequate numbers, but that school choice is facilitated. That stands in contrast to the 100,000 that were cut in the years leading up to 2010. There is now the highest funding that there has been in schools.

The hon. Lady spoke about attendance, and she is right to identify that we have an issue with school absence, and particularly persistent absence. By the way, we share that issue with most other countries in the world. We certainly share it with the other countries in the United Kingdom, including where other political parties are in control, but we see this much more broadly. During covid, there was an adverse impact on some people—not just directly connected with covid, but in its aftermath—and that has been difficult to work through. That is very understandable and no one is blaming parents for it, but some attitudes to the threshold at which a child should stay home from school if they are under the weather have moved a bit. We are trying to change those attitudes back to where we were pre-covid, and there has been progress. If we look at the autumn term that just finished, absence was markedly lower than it was in the autumn term a year before, but we know there is further to go and we will continue to work on that.

The hon. Lady also mentioned wider questions around society, income levels and the effect on children. She will know that we have extended eligibility for free school meals much more widely than the previous Government did. When her party was in government, one in six children received free school meals, but it is now one in three. That comes at a time when the number of children in workless households has come down markedly—by 600,000 since 2010—and at a time when the proportion of those in work who are on low pay, as a result of the national living wage, has come down very significantly as well. We have also invested heavily in breakfast clubs, holiday activities, food funds and more.

We have made five major extensions to early years and childcare entitlement, and there is a sixth very big extension on its way. In higher education, the opportunities for people from lower income backgrounds to attend university are greater than they have ever been.

The hon. Lady even touched on apprenticeships, which I was surprised about. Apprenticeships have been totally overhauled and reformed. We have modern apprenticeships designed by employers with proper end assessments. We have introduced T-levels with a very substantial, industrial work placement at the centre of them, with English, maths and digital and more hours in college. Again, that is designed and certified by employers. Those are materially increasing the life chances of children taking vocational and academic routes.

We see the results in such things as the PISA—programme for international student assessment—comparisons of international performance in education. In the period from 1997 to 2010, although ostensibly results domestically looked like they were improving, on the international comparisons we were coming down. Since 2010, we have come back up—

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Lady.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not propose to come back on all the points that the Minister has made, but the poverty and the challenges of the cost of living crisis and the sustained impact of austerity are having a huge impact on children and families. The impact has been cumulative over many years. Apprenticeship numbers have been dropping since 2017, with the impact of the levy that was implemented, and the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprises with apprenticeships has dropped by 49% since 2016. Those are official figures. Does he agree that it is important, in terms of a good-quality education, that we look at the sustained engagement of employers and tackle the barriers? It is important to recognise that they exist rather than pretending that there is not a problem.

[Damian Hinds]

When the Labour party was in government, there were many people on apprenticeships who, when asked in a survey about their apprenticeship, did not know that they were on an apprenticeship. That is the change that we have made. Apprenticeships now have proper quality. They are designed by employers. They have a minimum length and minimum time in college. The apprenticeship levy is a landmark reform that underpins that. It gets rid of the free rider problem, which has forever been an issue throughout industry and investment in training, and we now have a most brilliant generation of apprentices coming through.

Up to 70% of trades and occupations are available on an apprenticeship, including the teaching degree apprenticeship. Those are fantastic achievements and I hope that the hon. Lady’s party will turn their backs on what they seem to be saying, which is that they are going to cut the number of apprenticeships and not commit to that system going forward.

But we digress, and I wish to come back to the hon. Member for Wansbeck and thank him again for bringing this important matter to the Floor of Westminster Hall. I thank all those who have contributed. The vast majority of secondary schools in south-east Northumberland are part of strong academy trusts. They provide a good standard of education. Where there are improvements still to be made, we work closely with schools, academy trusts and local authorities to provide support and challenge to ensure that standards are raised. Ashington Academy became a sponsored academy after being judged “inadequate” by Ofsted. It was judged “good” at its first inspection as an academy in 2022 and now performs significantly higher than the national average, therefore improving the life chances of its students.

I want to express my sincere thanks to all those working to secure strong outcomes for children and young people, including the provision of high-quality school places in Northumberland and across our country. My officials will continue to monitor place planning issues in the local area and will engage with the hon. Gentleman’s local authority and academy trusts to ensure that there is fair access to good school places, which is something that he, I and all of us here care passionately about.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

We appear to have a few minutes left. Does Ian Lavery want to wind up?

15:23

[Ian Lavery]

Very briefly—thank you, Mr Henderson. Again, I thank everybody who has made a contribution. The points have been well made here. We are talking about children. Like most if not all MPs, I want to see children in my constituency and across the UK being given the best possible opportunities—the same opportunities that people have up and down the length and breadth of the country. I feel that that is probably not the case in my constituency now.

I will fight until the day I am no longer an MP, and after that, to make sure that we look after these kids. We live in a very impoverished area, and it has an impact; my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) both mentioned the desperate impact of poverty in our regions. The schools that I mentioned are mainly in very socially deprived areas. Parents deserve the absolute best that can be achieved for our children, but I do not think that that is happening.

It is about academies and academisation versus the state schools. On the whole, the academies are bartering to get more finance from local authorities so that they can increase pupil allocation numbers—more buildings, for example. I think that there is a bit of bartering going on. Local authorities are basically thinking, “Well, it’s an academy. They’re on their own. They should be able to accommodate this.” It is the people in the middle who are suffering as a consequence: the kids and the parents. It is probably the same story up and down the country. We have to get local authorities and academies to bang their heads together so that all kids can get equal opportunities, for heaven’s sake!

I want to say a massive thank you to the teaching staff at each of the schools. Whether schools are “inadequate”, “requires improvement”, “good” or “outstanding”, the work that teachers are doing in them, certainly in my constituency, is absolutely brilliant. I have been to every single school and spoken to the teachers. They are doing a remarkable job in the current circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to education in south-east Northumberland.

15:27

Sitting suspended.

Cavity Wall Insulation: Government Support

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for cavity wall insulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson, in this debate on cavity wall insulation. I might even say that this is yet another case of déjà vu, given that I have been here before with similar debates, in 2014 and 2017. Alas, some of the problems have not been remedied.

I will explain very briefly for those who may not be familiar with cavity wall insulation that it fills the cavity between the exterior and the internal skin of a house with a material that insulates the house and keeps heat in, and it is a commendable way of doing things, if circumstances allow. Unfortunately, in most of western Britain, where there is wind-driven rain and high rainfall, the wind drives rain in through any cracks or faults in the exterior coating of the house, and the cavity wall insulation acts as a bridge, transmitting the water into the house, which leads to damp, mould and a host of other problems. I will not go into that any further, although I have become slightly expert in the functioning of cavity wall insulation, given the number of times that I have looked at the issue.

The cavity wall insulation scheme was financed with money from the green initiatives that the Government had at the time. It seemed to be particularly targeted at people of modest means, including people who were older or disabled. In fact, I have heard many people who have had damp problems say that a man came to the door and said, “This is a Government scheme. It will save you £350 per year and it’s free. Can we put it in?”, whereupon most people said, “Yes, of course,” because they imagined that it was guaranteed, certain to work, and suitable both for their premises and for the area they lived in. Cleary, it would also better their living conditions and allow them to save energy and to do their bit on climate change.

My area is one where cavity wall insulation is clearly unsuitable; as I said, it has westerly winds, wind-driven rain and heavy rainfall. Many properties actually face the sea. In fact, in the very first case of cavity wall insulation problems that I came across, when we looked out of the front window, where the damp was coming in, we could actually see the sea. That was one of the reasons why that house had so many problems.

The system failed in many ways. I will briefly address several points; there is no point in rehearsing them, because the Minister and others are already familiar with them. When places were allegedly assessed, in too many cases cavity wall insulation was installed where clearly an assessment would have contraindicated it, for example in places where the rendering was very poor.

I do not intend to go into individual cases, because the Minister clearly cannot take them up now—they are historical—and I would be here all day if I did, but I will give some examples. I saw one house, a former council house that had been bought by the tenants, that had a piece of the front rendering about the size of a fireplace missing from the front of the house. The house was on an upland site, facing the sea, and rain was being driven at the bricks where the pointing was faulty and going straight through into the house, causing huge amounts of damp. That case was fairly typical. I asked them whether they had been assessed and they said, “No. They just came here and offered to do it, and we took it.”

Often, the installation was of poor quality. Again, I will just give a quick example. An elderly lady told me that some men came to her door late at night and said that they had one installation to do during the day, and that they were very keen to help her and so on. She was very keen to have the insulation, so they put it in for her. She said, “They were so keen—very nice lads. That they put it in using torches”—they had no lights. When people chased after the installers subsequently, they found that many had gone bust—they had closed down, or become insolvent.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a compelling argument. I commend him for his steadfast work on the issue over the years. Several of my constituents have contacted me after an insulation company canvassed and encouraged them to have insulation installed in the cavity walls of their homes through the green homes grant. They have since discovered that the insulation installed was entirely inappropriate for their properties, and they are now experiencing damp and mould. One constituent told me that CIVALLI—the Cavity Insulation Victims Alliance—has estimated the cost of damage to her home at about £120,000, which is substantial considering that the average cost of a home in my constituency is around £180,000.

In pursuing compensation for damage, several of my constituents engaged the services of a law company called SSB Law on a no win, no fee basis. After SSB Law fell into administration, the lawyers of the insulation company sent letters to my constituents demanding that they pay legal fees that could amount to tens of thousands of pounds. This is, quite frankly, a scandal and a disgrace, as not only do they now have considerable damage to their homes, but they have to pay the additional legal costs on top. With cowboy companies using Government grants and public funds to install unsuitable insulation that causes damage to homes, does the hon. Member—and, indeed, the Minister—agree that there must be an urgent investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into the misuse of public funds by these insulation companies?

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point; she makes the case succinctly. My area and other areas in Wales are known as legal aid deserts, and that encourages people to seek out no win, no fee companies. In my area, we tend to go to Merseyside, Manchester, Birmingham and even London—these companies are uncontrollable. The circumstances she outlines are tragic and costs of £120,000 are quite extraordinary, but the damage can be very large scale indeed.

I have asked in the past about the review of installations—whether they were inspected. Allegedly, 5% were, but to be frank, I have scarcely come across a single case where an installation has been inspected, found to be defective and resolved. I am not saying that that does not happen, but I am sure it could be done much more effectively.

There is so much that I could say. Another interesting point is that cavity wall insulation was specifically excluded from building standards when it was brought in under the scheme, so given that local authorities are not responsible, people cannot get redress in that way either.

Members might know that there is a guarantee scheme, but many of my constituents who have tried to claim have found the process quite difficult. The victims groups CIVALLI tells me that there have been rumours, although it has not been officially confirmed, that the main guarantee provider, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, has had financial difficulties because of the number of claims. Perhaps I will talk about that later if I have time. One complaint is that the small print of the guarantee says that the place in question must be properly maintained, but many people who had cavity wall insulation installed were older or suffered some disability, so were scarcely in a situation to climb up ladders to look for micro-cracks in the rendering of west-facing walls. That maintenance clause became very prominent in the refusal to take matters further. As someone once said, the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. That has certainly happened for some people.

Let me turn to removal and repair. CIVALLI says that installation and extraction should be done by separate providers, each with proper accreditation, for example by TrustMark or Oscar. The scheme was set up with insufficient supervision, which allowed in what I can only call cowboy installers—those who sensed that there was money here, but who subsequently disappeared or went bust. Removal is not easy. For example, I have had cases of people having stuff removed twice, and in one case it caused dry rot as well. The dry rot was attended to twice, and when the owner came to sell the house, although the probable price was about £180,000, I think she got about £50,000, because the problems were still there.

CIVALLI has done heroic work to try to get something done, but outstanding cases remain, as I outlined in my speech on 19 April 2017. The Minister at the time told me that CIGA said that there were 3,663 recorded cases, of which it had resolved 2,939, while 724 had been resolved by installers. I am interested in the number and prevalence of cases, because although I have come across a great many in my constituency, I have seen no official estimates of how many installations were carried out in the first place, how many people then found them to be faulty, how many have sought redress through the guarantee schemes, or how many of those cases were successful. Those basic facts would be useful.

My researcher found that CIGA says that the number of claims under that scheme are declining, from 4,806 in 2018 to 2,300 in 2023, but obviously there are many claims left, and there is a question as to whether they have been settled satisfactorily. I would be interested to hear any assessment by the Government of the number of remaining cases or of the cost of remediation. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) mentioned the figure of £120,000. I have no idea how much the cost will be, but even £10,000 is a great deal of money, and the victims are probably in no position to pay.

I would also be interested in the demographic make-up of the group of victims, so that we can get a grip on the size and nature of the problem. Are they, as I suspect, older and disabled people—poorer people, actually, some of them? One must also ask what the victims actually want. I am in no position to say, but I would guess that they definitely want the damp fixed, the dry rot fixed, if there is any, their homes restored to their previous standard, and an acknowledgement of fault—an acknowledgement that they are victims and that they have done something that should not have led to this situation. As I said, people subscribed to the scheme thinking that it would save them money and that they would be doing something about climate change.

I have asked the Minister a number of practical questions that I realise she cannot answer today, so I would be glad to hear from her in writing on some of these points. However, I think that ultimately the Government should shoulder what is their own responsibility. That would be the right thing to do and would also counter any lack of confidence in other green schemes in the future, which is obviously a potential problem. CIVALLI is calling on the UK Government to take direct control of CIGA and ensure that it offers proper remediation to victims, not cash compensation. People want their houses fixed; it is not a matter of money. CIVALLI also says that victims should be able to have an accredited surveyor visit their homes to do a proper audit, and that if they have been identified as victims of improper cavity wall installation, they should have access to Government funding.

As I said, I have no idea how long this piece of string is—how big the problem might be—but I was interested to see the case of Fishwick in Preston, where external insulation was fitted with damage to homes and danger to residents. The cost of remediation was huge, but the installers have disappeared. I understand that National Energy Action was able to get involved in that case and put in the appropriate work. I will not go into the report that I have had, which is rather long, but the case of Fishwick might set a precedent for residents not being held responsible. I would be glad if the Minister could say something about that now or in writing.

I do not know if any of this is possible. Whatever is done is long overdue. Is it not time to establish a quick independent inquiry into the botched CWI scheme, and for that to be the basis for early and full remedial action, whatever that might be? People are still suffering. As I said, I made my first speech in this place on the issue in 2014 and, though things have changed to some extent, there are still victims, and I think they are the people least able to fight their own cause. Somebody needs to take responsibility.

16:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for his passionate speech and for his case studies reminding us of the individuals affected in these houses, who have to live with these issues daily. I thank him sincerely for raising the matter.

As the Minister responsible for energy affordability and fuel poverty, I have often said that the greenest energy is the energy that is not used. That is why insulation is so important. We must ensure that customers do not see their money vanish literally through their walls while they are living in cold properties. Improving the energy efficiency of homes is central to the Department, as are helping people out of fuel poverty and achieving net zero.

When correctly installed, cavity wall insulation can reduce the amount spent on keeping a house warm, which is critical to alleviating fuel poverty. It can also make homes readier for a clean heat source. Insulation is one of the most cost-effective means of improving household efficiency. The Government have an ambition to reduce by 15% on 2021 levels the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 2030. We also plan to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as possible achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C by 2030.

I will cover three areas—schemes, safeguards and standards—and the questions that have been posed. Cavity wall insulation has been installed under previous Government schemes and continues to be installed under the home upgrade scheme, the social housing decarbonisation fund, the energy company obligation and the great British insulation scheme. According to the great British insulation scheme’s final impact assessment:

“At the end of December 2022, it is estimated that there were around 5.1 million homes without cavity wall insulation in Great Britain, of which 3.8 million are easy to treat standard cavities”.

I turn to safeguards. As the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, we debated cavity wall insulation in 2017 and 2020, with many examples occurring before the change to consumer protections.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Several of my Aberavon constituents are fighting to get justice after cavity walls have been incorrectly or inappropriately installed, and real damage has been done to their homes. The companies have disappeared and no longer exist, and this Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency does not seem to be working at all. It has cost my constituents tens of thousands of pounds, and years of stress and worry. Will the Minister set out what is going wrong with the CIGA and what steps the Government will take to help my constituents to sort out this absolutely appalling problem?

[Amanda Solloway]

The hon. Member makes an important intervention. Although it is not within my portfolio, I will absolutely get back to him with as much detail as I can on individual cases and pass them on to the relevant places.

I am sympathetic to the points raised by the hon. Member for Arfon and others about the need for a better understanding of the scale of the problem. At the moment I do not have those figures, and in all honesty I am not sure whether I will be able to get them, but I will certainly endeavour to find out the number of people affected by the issue.

As hon. Members have rightly mentioned, the issues have arisen as a result of poorly executed installations of cavity wall insulation, of which I am very much aware. Unfortunately I do not have a full view of the number of failed installations. Our understanding is that it is a relatively small proportion, but that does not justify it; even if it is a small amount, we should be looking at it. We need to take on board the situation and think about how we can improve. I will refer later to what we have done to make improvements so that this does not happen again.

I want to address the genuine concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). Claims management companies and firms of solicitors have contacted consumers offering to represent them in return for compensation for the damage caused to their homes by the installation. It should be noted that not all those companies have the consumer’s best interests at heart, and some have left consumers facing extensive legal fees. I thank the hon. Member for bringing that to my attention.

To assist consumers who suspect that they have had faulty cavity wall insulation installed in their homes, the Department published guidance in October 2019. I urge customers to follow that guidance to avoid becoming victims of fraudulent cavity wall insulation claims, and for information on organisations that can offer support if a problem arises.

We have put standards in place for the protection of consumers. Energy-efficient measures installed under current Government schemes include the energy company obligation and the great British insulation scheme, and they must comply with the requirements outlined in the British Standards Institution’s good practice standards, set out in the PAS 2035 document. That requires installers to be certified to PAS 2035 standards for any energy-efficient measure including cavity wall insulation, demonstrating a high level of competence. Those standards will help to ensure that an installation is suitable for the property, as the hon. Member for Arfon described when he talked about the way the wall was facing. They will ensure that it is to the highest standards, while also improving the service provided to the consumers.

[Hywel Williams]

I commend what the Minister is saying and what has been done. One of the problems that has bedevilled this matter is the unwillingness of anybody with any power to look at historical cases. The 2016 Bonfield report specifically said that it was not looking at historical cases, but it is the historical cases that are egregious and difficult. I commend the Minister, but eventually we must look at historical cases as well.

[Amanda Solloway]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. Where consumers have concerns or are unhappy with work that has been carried out, they should contact the installer, although I recognise that some of the installers in the historical cases that we are talking about no longer exist. The insurance-backed guarantee provider offers a second layer of protection, for example in cases in which the installer has ceased to trade. We agree that the industry does not always get it right, and I encourage the industry to provide appropriate remedy for the affected customers.

By mandating the requirement for installations under Government-backed schemes, and ensuring that TrustMark and PAS 2030 businesses undertake the work, we have helped to improve the quality of installations since 2019. We are fully committed to protecting all consumers who have insulation products installed in their homes, as well as improving the overall consumer journey regardless of housing tenure or how installation work is funded.

I thank the hon. Member for Arfon for raising questions about individual cases. I will follow them up in writing; if there any we could look at specifically, I am happy to take them away. I encourage other hon. Members to raise such cases.

I also welcome recent research by the Competition and Markets Authority and other organisations such as Which? and Citizens Advice on consumer protection in this sector. Today the CMA published an update to its report on consumer protection in the green heating and insulation sectors. In response, the Government have announced the work that we are undertaking to improve consumer protection in the green heating and insulation sectors.

I thank the hon. Members for Arfon, for Bradford South and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for their contributions. As I say, we must remember that these are people’s houses that we are talking about—they are the homes that people live in. If there are any individual cases that we should look at, I encourage hon. Members to send them on to me.

16:27

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Minister for taking on what is not an easy brief. This is a complicated, long-standing problem. I am grateful for her remarks, and I look forward to hearing from her colleague in another place with more direct responsibility.

I am also grateful for the Minister’s offer to look at historical cases. I was going to raise some, but time has defeated us somewhat. My constituents Mr and Mrs Williams, from Penisa’r Waun outside Caernarfon, have been fighting for 10 years to get their cavity wall insulation sorted out. I am sure that I will be coming to the Minister with their case and possibly others.

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) made a point about legal help, which is problematic. It is a specialised field, but there are no legal resources in my area. Possibly there are none in south Wales or the north of England—that is perhaps a wider question. I am glad to say that the law department at my own university in Bangor will hopefully be providing a pro bono service. That will certainly not solve the problem, as they are not qualified lawyers, but we have to look for help wherever we can find it.

Thank you, Mr Henderson, for chairing the debate. I thank other hon. Members for taking part.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent School Fees: VAT

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered independent school fees and VAT.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson—I think for the first time. I put on the record my thanks to the Independent Schools Council and its superb chief executive Julie Robinson, not only for the tireless campaigning that it does for the independent education sector but for its work as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on independent education. I have been the chair of that group since founding it in 2017, after moving from being an MEP to an MP. A number of independent schools serve my constituents, including Quinton House, Bosworth School, Northampton High School for Girls and OneSchool Global.

More than 600,000 children are educated in the independent schools sector in the UK, saving UK taxpayers more than £4 billion each year because those pupils are not educated in the state sector. In addition, the independent sector has a total economic footprint that amounts to £16.5 billion, supporting 328,000 jobs and £5.1 billion in tax revenue. Why is it that the sector often gets bad press, despite its contribution to society both economically and educationally? For many people, when they hear the terms “independent school” or “private school”, they immediately associate them with elitism, isolation and privilege. Nothing could be further from the truth. Independent schools today are modern, diverse and inclusive places that often provide education and specialist provision where the state sector does not go. Furthermore, independent schools are more connected to society now than ever before, working with the state sector in partnerships and widening access through bursaries.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. Our independent schools do vital outreach work with access bursaries and access to sports facilities. Many hard-working families up and down the land make huge sacrifices saving to send their children to independent schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that the short-sighted Labour policy on VAT on independent schools will compromise these schools, force some parents to take their children out of them, and ultimately put more pressure on our local state schools?

[Andrew Lewer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is indeed the major thrust of what I have to say. As chair of the all-party group, I am delighted every year to sponsor the Independent Schools Council’s annual “Celebrating Partnerships” report, which gives parliamentarians and stakeholders from across the sector the opportunity to come together to celebrate the fantastic work that the independent sector does in partnership. Three quarters of independent schools are now in partnerships with state schools. That is not the old swimming pool every other Tuesday afternoon for an hour or two; they are embedded, mutually beneficial partnerships.

Given how influential and impactful the sector is for wider society, it is in disappointment that I stand in opposition to the Labour party’s policy position on independent education—the introduction of a 20% VAT fee on independent school fees. I urge the current Government and my Conservative party colleagues to be robust in their stance of not imposing VAT on school fees. I look forward to the Minister’s analysis of that, but given that the Opposition are currently well ahead in the polls, and it is at least possible that they could form a Government in the next Parliament, it is important that this debate has been granted. It is important that we take the time to scrutinise what I believe is an ill-thought-out policy. Although I welcome the fact that Labour’s plans for independent education under the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) are not as draconian, undemocratic and questionable in law as they were when he served in the shadow Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—when it looked like the party was trying to abolish the sector entirely—they are still very worrying indeed.

The principle of parental choice is supported by article 2 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It says that

“the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

However, is that right to choose being assisted, if said choice is made increasingly difficult by a huge tax rise? I do not think it is. It is also a fundamental principle that we do not tax the supply of education, and the Value Added Tax Act 1994 exempts education, including nurseries and universities, alongside independent schools. That principle is international in scope and the UK would be an outlier if Labour abandoned that policy. For example, EU nations, Australia and the USA do not apply sales taxes to education.

Beyond the core principles, there are many reasons why the policy could be harmful and doomed to fail. First, parents residing in the UK who make the decision to send their children to independent schools already contribute to the state education sector by paying their fair share of taxes. I have made that very clear in the Main Chamber when debating this subject, and the repeated use of terms such as “tax breaks” and “tax reliefs” should be avoided. Independent schools are taxed in the same way as other education providers and charities, and they provide more than £5 billion in tax annually, which is more than three times what Labour thinks it will raise from VAT. UK parents who pay school fees do so from already taxed income.

Now that the Labour party has put this policy forward, I am sure we will hear today that it has done so because it believes in educational excellence for everyone and not a reserved few. However, by introducing the policy a Labour Government would simply make independent schools even more elite than Labour already perceives them to be by pricing out hard-working parents who can just about afford to pay the fees to invest in their children’s futures. Those who can easily absorb the 20% will do so, and perhaps that is what the Labour party wants: to make private schools more elite so that it is more difficult for politicians like me to make the case for them.

I will use the jacuzzi and private jet analogy to demonstrate my point. Many of us will never have a jacuzzi in our gardens, but could probably afford to install one if we chose to do so. On the other hand, a private jet is, for virtually everyone, an unobtainable fantasy for a distant elite with no connection to our lives. That is what Labour wants independent education to be—the private jet, not the jacuzzi. Of course, that is purely figurative as a parallel and not related to the crucial importance of educational choice.

It has been said that these are not issues we should worry about, and that independent schools can simply absorb the VAT increase so that they do not pass it on to parents. That is a naive view, with many independent schools up and down the country being very small, operating on tight margins and unable to do that. A quarter of all schools in the Independent Schools Council have fewer than 155 pupils. They are not wealthy institutions that are able to absorb VAT.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Several headteachers of independent schools in my constituency of Woking have come to me and said that they are worried that many parents will not able to afford to keep their children at their schools with the VAT increase, and one or two are worried about the future of their schools. My hon. Friend has had conversations with the independent sector and the groups representing it; has Labour taken into account that there might be a massive increase in students having to go to the state sector due to schools closing, which would completely kibosh any potential financial gains it is claiming?

[Andrew Lewer]

It would. My hon. Friend’s point leads me nicely into my belief that the naivety of Labour’s position is underlined by a hidden agenda to have smaller schools in the midlands and the north closed and absorbed by the state. Underlining that is perhaps the fact that the shadow Education Secretary, since taking up her post in 2021, has not visited an independent school with at least the aim or willingness to discuss the impact of her policy. My hon. Friend has spoken to people in the sector, as have I and many other people here.

The unwillingness to engage speaks volumes. Who would propose massive changes to the chemical industry or the high street retail industry without taking the trouble to speak to people involved in that sector to assess the impact? It is quite unthinkable. I also question why the policy is aimed only at taxing the supply of children’s education, which is arguably the most pivotal, and not at education for adults via universities, for example, or other forms of education such as private tutoring, which is the alternative private education leg-up provision of extra advantage that many on the left as well as not on the left utilise. There are no plans for VAT there; I wonder why.

Perhaps most important of all is the effect that the policy would have on independent schools’ ability to operate. If independent schools cannot absorb the VAT increase or parents cannot afford the fees, many of them would have to close. That would be disastrous for two important reasons. First, we would see the children go into the state sector, increasing the burden on other children and teachers. The Opposition believe that that can be offset by funds raised by the policy, but we are yet to see any consensus on the true impact.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that the policy will raise half a billion pounds less than Labour has committed in spending pledges. The education specialist think-tank EDSK puts the likely revenue even lower, leaving Labour more than £1 billion overdrawn on its spending plans. Most worrying is the IFS finding that the evidence of impact on children and families is “quite thin”—alongside 30-year-old data, it relied on the experience of Catholic schools in America—so it is tax first and repent later.

I am sure we will hear that this is a bogus claim and that there might not be a mass exodus, and that might be evidenced by the fact that as inflation has risen and independent school fees have gone up, we have not seen many children leave the sector. However, the ISC has found that 20% of parents who currently send their children to independent schools say they will be priced out and have to educate their children in the state sector. Those are the parents who will be making a difficult choice and might be forced into pulling their children out of the schools they have been educated in, and when they are at a key stage in their education. Perhaps most strikingly, the Baines Cutler report has calculated, using real data from schools and parents, that the predicted income-related drop-off if the policy is enacted would be nearly 100,000 children—one sixth of all the children educated in the sector who need somewhere to be educated.

Even more crucial is the impact on independent schools that provide specialist provision where the state sector does not go—independent specialist schools with small budgets that educate children with particular needs. Department for Education data shows that there are more than 100,000 pupils receiving special educational needs support in independent schools, some with education, health and care plans and some without. Moreover, many independent schools provide specialist faith schooling or provision for military families—something I saw the benefit of in my own education.

When it comes specifically to special educational needs and disabilities provision, what we will see is that parents who can no longer afford to pay the fees will seek out an EHCP if they do not have one, which will lead to more pressure on families, on local authorities at tribunal and on local authority budgets. I am interested to know whether there has been any realistic impact assessment of that.

If schools were to close as a result of the policy, the children would not have the provision they need. It will very much be the case that the schools will have to stop the excellent partnership work they do in order to cover their costs, or reduce their offer of bursaries to disadvantaged pupils, thereby reducing social mobility and making these institutions even more elite. That is the point. Such a regressive tax will seek to harm independent schools on the tightest of margins.

Even if the policy’s impacts are not seen immediately, I fear that the long-term negative consequences will be dire. It is the schools that Labour are not thinking about that will be hardest hit—small faith schools and special needs schools. That capacity sees some special needs support for 96,000 children who are not on an EHCP. Labour has exempted the EHCP pupils from VAT on fees, but not other students with special educational needs. That is 96,000 children facing disrupted education, with state provision further stretched and worse for all those who need it. Families are therefore incentivised to apply for EHCPs. Labour should exempt all pupils with special educational needs from VAT on fees. If it does not, the pressures will be laid at its door.

Similarly, small faith schools up and down the country could not be further from the stereotype that has been presented. They often charge low fees—often lower to the taxpayer than the cost of local state schools, because they are supported by local congregations and voluntary efforts. They are frequently very small, they cannot absorb VAT, and their families and supporters cannot find 20% more at a moment’s notice. They will face deficit and closure, and will be harder hit than the better-known schools that I am sure many have in their heads when proposing this.

There is a slow-burn issue as well, whereby parents perhaps persist for an extra year or two for a child who is in the middle, but then decide not to go ahead for a child who has not entered the system yet. There is also a danger of smaller schools becoming insolvent—having to assess that the increased risks of becoming technically insolvent prevent them from struggling on and pushing through. This needs to be considered in the round and not just as a standalone. Given that we have heard hardly anything else about supporting education from the Labour party, I am not sure voters are being presented with very much.

To conclude, independent schools play a vital role in educating our children. They provide specialist provision and excellent partnership work. The Labour party wants to pull all that up and put it at risk, for the sake of raising a questionable £1.5 billion, which is not enough to offset the damage it will inflict. I hope those listening who are in positions to influence this will take these points away. I look forward to the Treasury Minister’s further thoughts about the VAT details. We need to ensure that this ill-thought-out policy does not put unnecessary strain on hard-working families who want a better future for their children.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. I will have to impose a time limit of three minutes, as I will have to call the Opposition spokesman at 5.15 pm.

16:47

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing this important debate.

Labour’s plans to charge VAT and end business rate relief for independent schools is based on the politics of envy, from a party that wants to crush aspiration and ambition. Labour says its primary motivation is to generate revenue to invest in the state education system and that the policy might raise £1.7 billion for that purpose. Well, Labour had better get building more schools, because it intends to implement the policy as soon as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) enters Downing Street, with no consultation or risk analysis. What a nonsense. The policy will harm both the state and the independent sector, and there will be an exodus of pupils into an increasingly stretched state system, with some independent schools closing altogether.

We must not trust Labour with our schools. About 12 years ago, the OECD “Education at a Glance” report found that expenditure on schools as a percentage of GDP increased from 3.6% in 1995 to 4.5% in 2009. The OECD average was 4%. Billions of pounds of spending went into schools under the last Labour Government, but that huge increase in spending led to no improvement in student learning outcomes. UK teenagers slipped down the league tables in crucial subjects, while our schools became the most segregated in the world, with Britain’s immigrant children clustered in the most disadvantaged schools. Primary school class sizes were bigger only in places such as Turkey and Chile, and there was an alarming rise in children not in education, employment or training. Taxpayers failed to get value for money and Labour’s policies had little impact.

Labour will never understand that it is not just about money; it is about leadership and structure. We have some amazing headteachers in Hastings and Rye. I will not name them, but they know who they are, and they work best with the support of positive and effective Government policy, and with the support of their academy trusts. In Hastings and Rye, 32% of schools were rated as being good or outstanding in 2010, compared with 82% in 2022. There is more work to do, but it can be done, as we have seen from the Conservative Government’s record, without destroying our valuable independent sector.

I have two independent schools in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye: Claremont and Buckswood. Buckswood boards about 50 pupils from 48 different countries and has 200 local day-school pupils. Both schools have lower fees for local children, and they have a diverse mix of children, which contributes to a rich cultural environment—one that would not normally be expected in a coastal community. Thos schools enrich our communities, to the benefit of all our residents.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

I apologise to Munira Wilson and Jim Shannon for calling them earlier.

16:50

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Henderson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing this debate.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I aspire to a scenario in which the offering in all our state schools is so high—so superior—that parents do not feel compelled to send their children to the independent sector. It would be an education system that enables every individual, no matter their background or their needs, to flourish, succeed and fulfil their potential, wherever they are educated. But as liberals, we are also a party that has always championed choice, and it is important that parents are able to choose where their children are educated, and independent schools should always be one of those choices.

Let me be clear: we do not support ending the VAT exemption for independent schools, for the very simple reason that we do not support taxing education. As we have already heard, all education provided by an eligible body, including university education, music lessons and tutoring sessions, are exempt from VAT, and we would not want VAT or any other tax to be charged on any of these things. However, there needs to be a quid pro quo. Independent schools should give back to their local community, in order to retain that right; and, as we have heard, many already do. There are many excellent examples of collaborative work around the country. In my own constituency, Hampton School and Lady Eleanor Holles School have an exemplary partnership with Reach Academy in Feltham, sharing staff time, and mentoring and coaching of pupils for medical school and other university places. The relationship is about partnership and sharing not just swimming pools and theatre spaces but, as I have said, specialist teachers and specialist facilities.

That sort of ingrained partnership work benefits both the state sector and the independent sector, and it needs to become the norm for all. Removing the VAT exemption from independent schools would reduce partnership work and also hit parents who have felt that, for whatever reason, the state sector cannot meet their children’s needs, especially if they have additional needs but do not have an EHCP. I know of many examples of parents who have scrimped and saved, or used a little bit of inheritance that they may have had from their own parents, to send their child, who is not thriving in a state school, to the independent sector, where they are able to thrive. As we have heard, many independent schools are not the Etons, the Winchesters or the Harrows; many are small schools with fewer than 400 pupils.

We should all aspire to make the best investment we can in education and to make every school as good as possible. Taxing education is not the way to achieve that goal.

16:53

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing this debate.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will declare an interest of three types: my partner is the headteacher at a prep school; she also owns a house that backs on to one of the best-performing state schools in Surrey, so inevitably her house price will go up when selection for that school becomes selection by house price rather than by academic achievement or fees; and I myself went to an independent school—my father paid a fortune for this accent.

I would say two things about this. Economically it is not sensible, and educationally it is not sensible either. Prep schools in particular are already a fragile ecosystem, and most have around 150 to 250 pupils. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South talked about an impact assessment of what happens if a few pupils drift away. I will tell hon. Members what happens if 10 or 15 pupils leave a fragile prep school. That school is perhaps not paying market price for its teachers’ salaries, and it has already opted out of the teachers’ pension scheme, which accounts for around 28% of salaries.

Independent schools are the only ones paying in—it is a Ponzi scheme—and some actuaries predict that that figure will go to 40% because there will be more failures. If 10 or 15 pupils leave that sort of school, it collapses. There will then be 150 pupils who have to get educated under the state system in that area, which may be a rural area with a small state school. There may be 1.1 million vacancies in state schools around the country, but they are not equally distributed: something like 20% of secondary schools are over capacity. Those are the best ones—the ones that people want to get into.

Prep schools are already fragile. Those that go up to 13 are already having to change their business models. This policy would be another nail in the coffin of pupils’ aspiration, as we have already heard. It would not lift life chances; it would just set one group of children over another. The small amount of money that that broad change will raise will not be as meaningful as the Labour party thinks. It is better to look for other, more collaborative ways, but let us not destroy the partnership working that we have heard about. Let us not destroy the work around using different sites, sporting facilities, expertise and skills.

The IFS report states that private schooling tends to be concentrated among those with the most income and wealth, but “tends to” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. A lot of people struggle to ensure that their children get a better education, and we should reflect on that. The shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), should go out and meet some headteachers.

16:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Congratulations, Mr Henderson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on raising the issue.

In Northern Ireland, schooling is slightly different, in that we still have a transfer test that allows entrants into grammar schools. For that reason, there is not as great a preference for private schools as there would be were grammar schools to be removed. However, I am thankful that the DUP, with a now-working Assembly, has a Minister in place to protect the education system and retain grammar education for people of all classes and backgrounds.

To declare an interest, back in the ’60s—I probably go back further than nearly anybody in the Chamber—my mum and dad sent me to a boarding school in Coleraine, which gave me five years of good education. I am incredibly indebted to my mum and dad. In the ’60s especially, we had no holidays, and our car was an old banger that was kept forever—just so that their sons could have an education. I thank them for that. It gave me a great chance in this world, and I appreciate it.

Taxing private schools out of existence is not the route to take. The education of children is charitable in the extreme, and the only profits that are made are found in well-rounded children and well-paid teaching staff, which should be the goal of every school. That is what we should be looking at—nothing else. We should not achieve that goal by raising fees to such an extent that only the most elite can afford schooling, as in schools in Switzerland, for example.

The boarding school on the periphery of my constituency of Strangford is Rockport School, in North Down constituency. It draws a number of international students to its doors. That can only be good for the local area. It also generates money, cultural exchange and social engagement. I would hate to see that great school—its headteacher, Mr George Vance, cut his teeth at our local grammar school, Regent House, in my constituency —left in a position in which fees rise at an exorbitant rate and the benefits of the school are lost. That would be a tragedy.

There are 16 private schools registered in Northern Ireland, and there is a role for the sector. The work that they do deserves support; we should not set out to tear the sector down by stealth taxation. I am a believer in the public school system. My boys all went to Glastry high school, my granddaughters go to the local integrated school and my grandsons are in the local primary school. I have faith in the schooling system, but that does not mean that I want to abolish the smaller subsidised schools. The VAT proposal is not only aimed against the ultra-wealthy. It will go much further than that, which concerns me. With great respect to what Labour is putting forward, I am concerned that it will have a detrimental effect on the education and economy of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

17:00

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Henderson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for bringing forward this debate.

I will focus on the consequences of removing the current VAT exemption for independent schools. It is clear that this change would lead to a rise in school fees, as schools are forced to pass on the cost to parents in order to keep running. That would immediately mean that many parents, who may only just be able to afford the fees as they stand, would no longer be able to continue sending their children to private school. In fact, I calculated that one of my local Nottinghamshire high schools would lose around 20% of its children. Smaller schools would struggle to survive at that rate and may close. That would mean job losses and loss of choice for local parents regarding their child’s education.

I was recently contacted by my constituent, Dr Sharmini, a local school governor who is incredibly concerned about the potential change. She emphasised that it is not the most wealthy and their children who will be affected, but parents who work incredibly hard and make sacrifices to send their children to independent schools.

It is important to emphasise that this change would also have a knock-on effect on non-fee-paying schools, which would see an increase in pupils. That could mean larger class sizes and greater resources being required in non-fee-paying schools. It may also result in children having to move schools in very short time spans.

I am a veteran, and this is the sort of thing that would affect military families. They may have to move mid-school year, and they make good use of independent schools and boarding schools because of that. This change will have a large effect on the lives of children who will have to move. We are removing children from their teachers and friends, and for many that will be very distressing.

My team spoke with the head of a local private school in Nottinghamshire today. He had huge concerns about the use of the school’s facilities. As it stands, sports facilities and facilities such as halls are given over to a huge variety of local clubs at no cost. He stated that if VAT came in, the school would be forced to look at more economical ways of renting out those spaces and would not be financially able to continue lending them out for free.

That head also emphasised the difference between the big private boarding schools and smaller independent day schools. It is the small independent schools that will be hurt most by this change, and many may not survive the loss of students. The focus of all Members in this House must be on ensuring that every child has the best possible education; that is what I will be focusing on in Broxtowe.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

On a point of order, Mr Henderson. I neglected to say earlier that I might have an interest to declare, as my husband is a governor of an independent school.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Noted. Thank you.

17:03

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Henderson. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing the debate.

I represent a constituency with five thriving independent schools of the traditional private school variety; state schools that, as academies, are independent schools; a significant number of private special educational needs and disabilities schools; and private nursery provision. My children have benefited from state, private and privately funded state provision over the years, so I have a direct interest in the subject the debate.

I want to focus particularly on the impact that the VAT change would have on the very large sector of small independent schools, on which so many parents rely. Ofsted has a rule that any setting with two or more children present for the purposes of their education must be registered as a school. In my constituency, I have a stables—an equine centre—that provides equine therapy for mute, autistic children. Those children are reliant on it, because it is an environment in which they can gain educational benefit. They have been placed there and funded by the local authority, and that is simply not to be found in any other form of schooling.

Across the country, there is a huge number of such schools, which are legally registered, with an Ofsted number, and privately funded. Many are not charitable trusts; in some cases, they are businesses providing a particular type of apprenticeship or educational experience for a specific set of special educational needs. The impact of introducing VAT on the fees paid by local authorities and parents for that huge variety of provision would be absolutely enormous. A number of my constituents who have children with quite profound special educational needs are deeply concerned about the impact that this change would have on not just their household budget but the availability of the specific specialist provision on which they depend.

I have some sympathy with the argument that the element of education that is hotel costs in boarding schools is not strictly an educational purpose, and I have heard it advanced across the sector. However, it is clear that the availability of highly specialised private provision would be jeopardised profoundly by imposing a policy of putting VAT on all fees. The cost would directly hit the taxpayer and mean that so many of our constituents who feel that they have at last found the right setting for a child with profound needs, often after many years of searching for it, would see that put at risk by a policy of introducing VAT. I commend the Government on strongly resisting such a policy, and I hope the Minister will restate that resistance this afternoon.

17:06

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for leading the debate. Frankly, this Labour party policy is a viciously cynical ploy to allow Labour to masquerade as class warriors and as the working-class heroes taking on the elite. However, the reality is that they are champagne socialists pretending to be social justice champions. This policy is not about education, outcomes, the welfare of children or supporting the British people: it is about division and removing choice. It will harm educational outcomes and cause hardship. Far from being the class warriors of our age, Labour will become the party that kills off social mobility through this tax on aspiration, personal choice and responsibility, and social mobility.

There are three reasons why the policy is misguided. First, independent schools are positive for the economy. They contribute £16 billion to the economy, support 300,000 jobs contributing £5 billion in tax revenue, and save the taxpayer £4 billion by educating pupils outside the state sector. All of that would be put at risk by this ill- thought-out policy. Secondly, special education schools will be hard hit by this punitive policy. There are 96,000 pupils at SEND schools who are not on an EHCP and, simply put, they will be put at risk by the policy. Where will those children go when these special schools are put out of business? Many specialist schools in the state sector are already over-subscribed. Lastly, this tax on aspiration will simply push many poorer pupils out of good-quality schools, and parental choice will be destroyed.

I feel passionate about this policy. I stand against it because of my own personal educational journey. We will all have personal experiences and views informed by our own education, but mine is apposite. My parents were working-class people; they were migrants who came here with nothing. They themselves had poor educations in Mauritius and Kenya, so they valued the opportunity to give me a good chance at getting educated. I started in a local state school, where the teachers would go on strike every week, outcomes were poor and discipline was bad. However, my parents had a choice. Through scrimping, saving and sacrifice, they got me into a small independent private school. From that school, I got into Cambridge, I practised as a barrister and I made it to Parliament. I would not be here if it were not for their sacrifice and the great small private school that my parents had the choice to send me to.

17:09

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing this important debate. I speak in my capacity as the Chair of the Education Committee.

This is slightly awkward, because we do not, of course, look at policy proposals that are not from the Government. However, we had a debate about a year ago in the Chamber of the House of Commons where the Labour party proposed to bypass my Committee and appoint their own to look at this policy proposal. What was interesting in that debate, as in this one, was how few Labour Back Benchers turned up to support what is supposed to be their flagship policy. This issue has not been raised by any of the Labour members of the Education Committee during my time as Chairman. In the circumstances, I find that very surprising.

I am concerned about this issue primarily because of its impact on our publicly funded schools. I seriously worry that Labour has not done its sums properly and has not brought the impact of the £6,000 a year required for the revenue funding, let alone the capital expense of expanding those schools, into its calculations. My county council is in the process of commissioning a £40 million secondary school to meet the demand for places that we already have. No calculation appears to have been conducted of what the cost would be of the extra places required by this policy.

When it comes to SEND, I expect the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to say that Labour will exempt specialist settings from its VAT proposals. I certainly hope that that is the case, and that is what was indicated in our previous debate. However, I do not think that the revenue calculations carried out by the Treasury some years ago on the basis of imposing 20% VAT on all charges for independent schools have taken that into account. I would love it if the Labour spokesman could update us today on what reduction in income Labour expects if it does exempt specialist settings from this policy and on whether that will apply to all of them, including the alternative provision settings that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) referred to. I recently visited one at the Gloverspiece Mini Farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), which would like the assurance that it will not be clobbered by a 20% increase in VAT and in fees.

When it comes to SEND pupils, we are talking not just about those in specialist settings. Many of my mainstream independent schools in Worcester provide support to pupils who have identified special educational needs but not an EHCP. If those people are driven out of the independent sector by higher fees, they are likely to seek EHCPs, putting pressure on our health system and our local authorities, which are already overloaded—I will campaign, along with colleagues, to try to increase the resources for them.

As Chairman of the Education Committee, I want our state education system to be one of the best in the world—it already is, but we can make it even better. We should focus on doing that, rather than on creating the misleading impression that clobbering the independent sector by imposing VAT, which no Labour Government in the last century have ever proposed to introduce, and which none of our European or English-speaking peers apply to independent education, is somehow the solution.

17:12

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Henderson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for bringing forward this debate on independent schools and VAT. Many Members have made contributions about the role that independent schools play in their communities. In my own constituency, thousands of children receive a high-quality education at independent schools including Dulwich College, James Allen’s Girls’ School, Herne Hill School, Alleyn’s School and others besides.

I will address some of the comments made by hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon. On the analogy made by the hon. Member for Northampton South about private schools and the difference between private jets and jacuzzis, we would want every school to represent and fulfil the aspirations that parents have for their children. That is at the nub of this debate, which is about the quality of education received by the 93% of children who attend state schools in relation to the quality of education received by a privileged 7% of children. [Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, I am afraid—I will not take interventions right away.

We all want the best education for our children; every single parent wants the best education for their child. That is why the next Labour Government will do what previous Labour Governments have done: drive up standards in our schools and put education back at the centre of our national life so that we can break down the barriers to opportunity across our country. This debate is focused specifically—[Interruption.] I do not know who was chuntering from a sedentary position about what happened last time, but as a London MP I can tell them exactly what happened last time: it was called the London Challenge and it transformed education in the state sector in my constituency and across London. We went from a situation where our schools were failing under the Conservatives to a situation where they are now delivering brilliantly for all our children.

As many hon. Members have mentioned, the Labour party is committed to levying VAT on independent schools and ending their business rates exemptions. We have committed to doing that because we believe in driving high and rising standards in all our schools. Across this country, more than nine in 10 children attend state schools. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies reported last year on policies in relation to VAT and tax exemptions for private schools. In brief, it found that our proposals would have little effect on the number of children being educated in private schools, but would lead to a net gain to the public purse of at least £1.3 billion per year. I appreciate some of the concerns raised in the debate today, but I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look in more detail at the IFS report’s findings.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I just want to press the Opposition Front Bencher on a specific point. There are some brilliant special schools in my constituency. The Opposition are saying that they will exempt children with an EHCP from their tax, but they are not saying that they will exempt all children at special schools from the tax. Why not?

[Helen Hayes]

There is a very simple reason for that. It is the way we avoid a loophole whereby any school can claim that it is a special school. Without there being an independent test of the places that are provided, any school could claim that it was a special school, and that would provide a loophole that we do not—

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Helen Hayes]

I will not give way again. It would provide a loophole that schools could use to evade the policy.

The share of pupils being educated in private schools has consistently remained around 6% to 7%, despite fees increasing above inflation year on year for many years. Indeed, independent school fees are 55% higher in real terms now than 20 years ago. Although we do not believe the scaremongering that there will be an exodus of pupils into the state sector, our state schools would be able to cope with an increase in their numbers. Across England, overall pupil numbers are due to decline by at least 100,000 per year until 2030; the total drop is higher than the number of children currently attending private schools.

[Mr Robin Walker]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Helen Hayes]

I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Walker]

That is very kind; I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I just want to make the point that, yes, the overall numbers are declining, but that is primarily in primary. The demographic bulge, as she well knows, is coming through into secondary schools, and secondary schools in many areas of the country are full. How does the Labour party plan to deal with that?

[Helen Hayes]

As the hon. Member rightly points out, what happens in primary flows into secondary, so secondary schools across the country, including secondary schools in my constituency, are absolutely aware of the drop in numbers that is coming down the track, and we are seeing secondary schools in London closing—two of them this year—because that flow is starting to affect them.

The Labour party believes in parental choice, but the conversation today has to take place with fairness in mind. In 2022-23, average independent school fees were £15,200, but average state school spending per pupil was £8,000. The gap in funding between independent and state school spending has more than doubled since 2010. With the £1.3 billion of funding that would be raised each year from our measure, we could significantly increase school spending, allowing the Government to drive high standards across our state schools too. The Government are consistently missing their targets for teacher recruitment and face teachers leaving the profession in droves. We would use that money to recruit and retain more than 6,500 additional teachers.

There is considerable evidence of the need to improve and the benefit from improving teacher training, so Labour will work with schools to deliver a teacher training entitlement, throughout every stage of a teacher’s career, to deliver evidence-based, high-quality professional development.

We need to look again at school inspection and improvement—

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to stop you there, Ms Hayes, and call the Minister.

17:19

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. Please allow me to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing the debate. What a pity we have only 60 minutes, because there was so much more to say here. We heard some fascinating and thoughtful contributions on the matter of independent school fees and VAT.

It will not surprise anyone present to hear that I agree wholeheartedly with Government Members, and I am very pleased to hear from our Lib Dem and DUP colleagues, who support the Government’s policy to allow independent school fees to be exempt from VAT for the many valid and obvious reasons expressed by hon. Members and right hon. Members today. Those include the incredible impact that they have on communities, the partnering, their impact on so many people’s lives, and the fundamental principle of choice.

I am afraid that what we have heard from the Opposition is what we hear consistently. Perhaps we might all be sighing with relief soon when we get the inevitable flip-flopping on this policy—I do not believe for one minute that it is wholeheartedly supported by Opposition Members. It is just virtue signalling of the highest order. It is complete left-wing populist virtue signalling by the Opposition, but the British public see straight through it. This Government understand the vital role that education plays in all our lives. Just this year, school funding will total about £57.7 billion, and next year it will be £59.6 billion. I am very proud to say that that will be the highest ever real-terms spending per pupil under the Conservatives.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I learned as a shadow Minister and a Minister that it is better to be gracious. The Minister will understand that one of the best arguments for independent schools is that they often innovate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) was involved in establishing a school that innovates and breaks new ground. From Steiner schools to Bedales to Summerhill, those schools could only exist in the independent sector. How does the Minister think that the Labour party perceives that, or does it not perceive it at all?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My right hon. Friend, as always, talks very sensibly about this. The independent sector is a major contributor to our ecosystem. Of course, many teachers flip flop between the different sectors; the innovation in the private sector can also help the state sector, which is one of the many benefits that we have heard about today. In terms of the broader performance in the education system, not only do the Opposition consistently talk down the economy, our constituencies and our businesses but they also talk down our teaching profession. Actually, it is incredibly successful and we should be proud of what teachers have achieved.

Our commitment to quality education has seen 89% of all schools achieve “good” or “outstanding” at their most recent inspection, an increase from 68% back in 2010 under Labour. In the programme for international student assessment, our rankings for reading and maths improved by 10 places from 2015 to 2022 to ninth and 10th across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Within that mix, as we all know, England performed better than Labour-run Wales or SNP-run Scotland, despite their higher funding. If we want to see what would happen in education under Labour, all we need to do is look to Wales—it is not an impressive performance. In the latest paediatric adverse childhood experiences and related life-events screener assessment of reading for 10-year-old students across 57 education systems, England ranked fourth internationally. I think we can all accept that those are good things.

This Conservative Government believe that there is a broad public benefit in the provision of education. That is why many education and training services are exempt from VAT, which includes an exemption on independent school fees. Labour does not seem to recognise the public good, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings just mentioned. It wants to charge VAT on school fees and end business rates relief for private schools, taxing aspiration and inevitably putting more pressure on state schools.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I am very blessed to have two excellent independent schools in my constituency, Worksop College and Ranby House, and I speak as a former head of an independent school myself. We also have some excellent state schools at the Outwood Grange Academies Trust that give outstanding opportunities to local pupils. Does the Minister agree that the knock-on effect of this is not spoken about enough? Labour is actually adding to the capacity problems and neglecting the state sector in what it is doing to the independent sector.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been repeated by many colleagues today. An introduction of 20% VAT can have two impacts: it will either push up prices or lead to cutting costs somehow. It is intuitively obvious that, if we push large numbers of pupils from the private sector into the state sector, it will inevitably put pressure on the state sector and therefore cost members of the public even more. The numbers suggested by the Opposition simply do not stack up. It is an ill thought out policy. The full knock-on impact has not been properly considered. VAT is an incredibly complex area. It is not simple to make blanket policy without considering the full impact.

Not every private school is some kind of Eton—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and several other hon. Members. There are exceptionally vulnerable people in very deprived areas of the country who rely on our private schools to provide the type of education they cannot get in the mainstream system.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

It is well known that many of our major independent schools such as Eton and Harrow give 100% bursaries to children from disadvantaged areas to give them a chance to skill up and to benefit for their own communities. That is amazing.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the broader societal benefit of many of our private schools is considerable. That is one of the reasons why many, although not all, have charitable status. They provide all sorts of benefits, including through opening up for sports provision.

The Government are not alone in having concerns about Labour’s current policy. Labour’s own shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), spoke out against its planned tax rise before he joined the Front Bench, telling students that he did not believe the policy would bring in the money that his party was promising. Of course, that has not stopped Labour from spending the money several times over already, and it does not have a plan to pay for the potential incremental costs.

I will bring my comments to a close, but I must express a slight disappointment: much as it is always a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in this Chamber, I am normally faced in these debates by my opposite number, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). I must share an irony in that situation: I stand here today as a proud product of a comprehensive state school education nevertheless supporting the role of private schools in the UK and the principles of freedom of choice, aspiration, opportunity and social mobility.

My Labour counterpart is a product of the private school system yet is advocating a policy that could potentially restrict access to the very system from which he has himself benefited, as indeed have many Members on the Opposition Benches. I find that quite ironic and hypocritical, but I will never criticise somebody for the choices made by their parents. We do not do that on this side of the Chamber, but a little bit of humility in this debate might be appreciated. A good education for all is a priority for this Government, and I hope hon. Members from across the House will work with us to deliver it.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Andrew Lewer, you have two minutes to wind up.

17:27

[Andrew Lewer]

I want to express my sincere thanks to so many colleagues. I had thought about having an Adjournment debate on this subject but I am so pleased that, rather than standing in the Chamber talking to myself, I have a large number of people in Westminster Hall to take part in the debate and make such useful and constructive contributions.

The proposed policy fails on the principle of freedom of choice and the principle of education being free of VAT. The idea of saying, “Well, we don’t want VAT on education apart from on the bits that don’t we like—apart from on the bits that we can give a bit of a class-warrior go at,” also fails in practice. For every report in one direction, there are others: the EDSK report and the Baines Cutler report are both independent and carefully researched reports that prove that this money, which has been spent dozens of times already, does not actually exist in the first place.

To me, the issue feels like the current Leader of the Opposition’s version of foxhunting. He needs to come up with something red-meaty to throw at his left to say, “Look, we’re still socialists and we’ll bash the rich and the elite.” Tony Blair did it with foxhunting, and now it is independent education. The difficulty is that this issue is so much more profound and more damaging than even that issue, which did cause problems for rural communities. This is much worse, much more broadly based and much more damaging.

I am delighted that so many colleagues have been able to pick up so many key points. The point about special educational needs that was made by several colleagues is particularly potent, and I shall certainly try to take that up in my ongoing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on independent education.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered independent school fees and VAT.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

Wednesday 21 February 2024

Nuclear Deterrent

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)]

I am today informing the House of HMS Vanguard’s recent Demonstration and Shakedown Operation.

A Demonstration and Shakedown Operation is a routine operation which takes place when a ballistic missile submarine completes its planned deep maintenance period. It involves a comprehensive series of complex weapons system and sub-system tests, assesses the performance of the submarine and its crew. It culminates in a test fire of an unarmed Trident II D5 missile.

It is long-standing practice not to comment on the detail of submarine operations. However, in recognition of the level of interest in the recent Demonstration and Shakedown Operation, this statement seeks to provide as much information as possible while protecting national security.

On 30 January 2024, HMS Vanguard and her crew conducted their most recent test operation.

The test reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, in which the Government have absolute confidence. The submarine and crew were successfully certified and will rejoin the operational cycle as planned. On this occasion, an anomaly did occur, but it was event specific and there are no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpiles. Nor are there any implications for our ability to fire our nuclear weapons, should the circumstances arise in which we need to do so.

The Trident missile system remains the most reliable weapons system in the world, having successfully completed more than 190 tests.

The Government have absolute confidence that the UK’s deterrent remains effective, dependable, and formidable.

That is why we are continuing to invest in the next generation of Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines, in extending the life of the Trident missile and in replacing the warhead, to keep us safe for decades to come.

Sustaining the deterrent and renewing it for the future is a truly national endeavour. It is the culmination of the dedicated efforts of thousands of people, not just in the Ministry of Defence but at locations across the country, from the nuclear laboratories at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to the BAE Systems dockyards at Barrow-in-Furness.

Our continuous at-sea deterrence posture has been maintained for nearly 55 years by generations of highly dedicated and professional submariners. We owe them, and their families, our thanks for their sacrifices and outstanding service, which is often out of sight but should never be out of mind.

The nuclear deterrent deters the most extreme threats to our national security, keeping the UK and our NATO allies safe. It is the ultimate security insurance policy.

The UK’s resolve and capability to use its nuclear weapons, should we ever need to do so, remains beyond doubt.

[HCWS272]

Consumer Protection in the Green Heating and Insulation Sectors

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my noble Friend Lord Callanan, has today made the following statement:

Today, I am announcing the work that the Government are undertaking to improve consumer protection in the green heating and insulation sectors.

This announcement is in response to today’s progress update from the Competition and Markets Authority’s green heating and insulation review’s update on the standards landscape. The CMA’s update highlights actions by standards bodies in response to the good practice principles developed by the CMA alongside its report “Consumer protection in the green heating and insulation sectors”, published in May 2023.

In 2022, the CMA commenced a review of consumer protection focusing specifically on business practices, consumer experience and standards in the green heating and insulation sectors. They published a report of their findings on 31 May 2023, suggesting actions to both Government and businesses to help raise the level of consumer protection.

The Government welcome the research that the CMA carried out and acknowledge the concerns raised in its original report about business practices in the sector, including the finding that some businesses are making misleading claims about products, as well as concerns about limited transparency of price information. The Government expect businesses to ensure that their practices always remain lawful.

The Government acknowledge the findings on consumer experience, where some consumers may face difficulties when carrying out retrofit work, and on standards, where the landscape offering protections for consumers can be seen as complex and confusing to navigate.

I am pleased to see swift engagement from the industry in response to the CMA’s findings on standards and the lack of protection for some consumers having green heating and insulation measures installed in their homes, highlighted in the update published today.

The Government are committed to protecting all consumers undertaking home retrofit work as well as improving the overall consumer journey. Our work with the CMA and across Whitehall includes:

Engaging with standards organisations such as the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), the leading standards and quality assurance organisations for small-scale renewable technologies such as solar panels and heat pumps in the UK. To participate in a Government incentive scheme such as the boiler upgrade scheme, the installation must be carried out by an MCS-certified installer, to the relevant MCS installation standard for that technology, using an MCS-certified product. This helps to ensure that the renewable system is safe and installed properly, and that the appropriate protections are in place for consumers if things go wrong. MCS is currently implementing a series of reforms that are intended to improve the operation of the scheme, including improving consumer protection. We are closely monitoring the implementation of these reforms. Further detail of the reforms can be found in the MCS consultation and response https://mcscertified.com/mcs-scheme-redevelopment/.

An update of the mandatory technical competencies for installers working under competent person schemes, establishing clear competency requirements for everyone carrying out building work to meet the building regulations. Self-certification, through competent person schemes, provides an alternative and cost-effective means of delivering compliance with the regulations.

A review of the conditions of authorisation¹ to ensure they are fit for purpose. The conditions of authorisation are the requirements that a scheme operator must meet to be authorised as a competent person scheme under building regulations.

Continued work alongside industry stakeholders such as TrustMark to improve vital financial protections, such as extending the length of loft guarantees in Government schemes and a clearer redress process for consumers should they need to raise a concern about the work.

Improving access to impartial advice and information to ensure consumers have the necessary information to make informed choices regarding energy efficiency measures and clean heating options. This includes digital tools to highlight what measures a consumer can take to make their home more energy-efficient and how to decarbonise their heating and then find sources of grant funding to help with the cost of installation. There is also access to a phoneline for those needing digital assistance or more bespoke support, and a series of in-person advice pilots running across the country.

Consideration of progress against the recommendations in the “Each Home Counts” report² published in 2016, to ensure that implementation of the recommendations to improve consumer advice, protection and industry standards in the home retrofit sector has been successful and learn any lessons from that implementation.

This is all in addition to around £20 billion allocated by the Government during this Parliament and the next to support households, businesses and the public sector drive improvements in energy efficiency and clean heating to bring down bills and emissions.

The Government will update the House on progress and further work to improve consumer protection in the normal manner.

¹ https://www.hse.gov.uk/building-safety/strategic-plan.htm

² https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/each-home-counts-review-of-consumer-advice-protection-standards-and-enforcement-for-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy.

[HCWS271]

Martha's Rule

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)]

I would like to update the House on the Government’s commitment to implement Martha’s rule in England. Today we are announcing plans to implement Martha’s rule in at least 100 acute or specialist NHS sites in England by March 2025. Martha’s rule is an initiative that gives patients and their families who are concerned about deterioration in their physiological condition the right to initiate a rapid review of their case 24 hours a day from someone outside of their immediate care team.

Calls for Martha’s rule came following the tragic death of 13-year-old Martha Mills, who, after being admitted to hospital following an accident, contracted sepsis and deteriorated quickly.

Sadly, the signs of sepsis were not acted upon by doctors quickly enough, despite Martha’s family raising concerns with clinicians. Coroners found that Martha would probably have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier.

I would like to pay tribute to Martha’s parents, Merope and Paul, who have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of what happened to Martha and to highlight the critical role that families play in recognising the signs of deterioration in their loved ones.

In September, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), asked the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, to rapidly lead work on how Martha’s rule could be implemented in England. I am grateful to Dr Hughes for her extensive engagement with system leaders and stakeholders, and for her recommendations on what Martha’s rule should look like.

While some NHS trusts already offer rapid review processes similar to Martha’s rule—called Call 4 Concern—others do not have an equivalent mechanism in place. In recognition of these variations in readiness, we are initiating a phased approach to implementing Martha’s rule.

The first phase will see Martha’s rule rolled out to at least 100 acute or specialist provider sites in England in 2024-25, supported by up to £10 million. NHS England will lead the process of identifying which acute provider sites will participate in this first phase and supporting the development of their local processes. Alongside this, drawing from the local learning from new and existing schemes, NHS England will develop proposals for national roll-out in the next spending review period.

This approach will enable significant progress to deliver Martha’s rule next year and to evaluate the additional resources needed for national roll-out.

I also look forward to working with the Patient Safety Commissioner, whom I have asked to chair a stakeholder oversight group jointly with NHS England and the DHSC. This group will build on the extensive engagement that has taken place over the last year, and will bring together patients, clinicians and external experts to provide ongoing advice to NHS England on the delivery of Martha’s rule.

[HCWS273]

Firearms Licensing Controls: Sound Moderators

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

The Government are today launching a consultation on removing a firearm accessory known as a sound moderator from firearms licensing controls. The intention is to do this by making use of a legislative reform order, made under section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.

A sound moderator is a firearm accessory that can be attached to a rifle barrel to reduce the sound and flash when the rifle is fired. It does so by trapping and slowing down the gases produced by the propellant when the rifle is fired to eliminate the muzzle blast of the shot. It does not fully silence the “crack” of the bullet but reduces the audible sound of the rifle by around three quarters. Sound moderators are used to protect shooters’ hearing, to reduce the disturbance to others in the vicinity of shoots and to stop shooters being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of a shot. They are entirely inert objects and contain no moving parts and do not of themselves create any risk to public safety.

Sound moderators are currently defined in the Firearms Act 1968 as a firearm which means that a firearms certificate from the police is required in order to possess one. A certificate to possess a sound moderator is only issued to persons who have been subject to robust suitability checks to allow them to own a firearm, and there are currently around 200,000 sound moderators currently covered by firearms certificates. Obtaining a firearms certificate for a sound moderator incurs costs for shooters in applying for a certificate and increases the licensing burden of police firearms licensing departments.

We are therefore consulting on our proposal to introduce a legislative reform order to remove sound moderators from firearms licensing controls, which the Government believe will have a positive impact for many firearms certificate holders, registered firearms dealers and the police.

This country has robust controls on firearms which are kept under constant review to safeguard against abuse by criminal and terrorists and to ensure public safety. The Government are of the view that making this change to firearms legislation will not impact in any way on the strength of our firearms controls.

The consultation will run for six weeks, and the Government will publish their response in due course. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS270]

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I have terminated the appointment of David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, after he breached the terms of appointment and lost my confidence.

Mr Neal was informed that his appointment would be immediately terminated yesterday, on 20 February 2024. Mr Neal’s term of appointment was due to end on 21 March 2024.

The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is a highly important position. A candidate will be appointed following robust competition, in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

The planned recruitment process for the next Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is in progress.

The Home Office is committed to publishing the reports submitted by the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and will provide responses in due course.

[HCWS269]

Returning Officer Indemnities

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

For the purposes of police and crime commissioner and UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions, returning officers and petition officers are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As a result, they are personally liable for the conduct of the elections. It is therefore necessary for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to indemnify police area returning officers and local returning officers in England and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in PCC elections. It is also necessary to indemnify returning officers or acting returning officers in England, Scotland and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties during UK parliamentary elections and petition officers in respect of recall petitions.

Local authority officers acting in the role of returning officer and similar statutorily independent offices when running polls have traditionally had arrangements which insure them against any risks they face in taking forward their statutory duties at local elections and which may also cover UK parliamentary elections. The cover obtained usually forms part of the local authority’s own insurance arrangements. While this insurance may also cover some risks to which the returning officers and petition officers may be exposed at PCC and UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions, they could be liable for claims of a type not covered by those insurance policies. They could also be liable for claims that exceed the insurance limits in their existing cover. Hence the Government have provided an indemnity to ensure they have effective cover and which can be called on where insurance is not available or inadequate.

The existing indemnities for PCC and UK parliamentary elections run out on 1 May 2024. The existing indemnity for recall petitions runs out on 6 May 2024. Considering this, DLUHC proposes to continue to provide police area returning officers and local returning officers with a specific indemnity for the forthcoming PCC elections on 2 May 2024. Separate indemnities will also continue to be provided for returning officers and acting returning officers at UK parliamentary elections and petition officers in relation to recall petitions. The indemnities for PCC, UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions will indemnify against claims that arise out of the conduct of the relevant officer’s duties where existing insurance cover does not apply. The renewed indemnities will cover costs arising in relation to PCC elections where the date of the poll is on or before 2 May 2028, and for UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions where the date of the poll is on or before 2 May 2029.

Where a relevant returning officer already holds insurance which covers liabilities incurred at a PCC, UK parliamentary election, and recall petition they will be required to claim under that insurance—or to seek to claim under it—before making a claim against the relevant indemnity. Insurance for specific elections has historically provided extremely poor value for money, with claims made under such cover being smaller than the cost of the insurance premium. An indemnity therefore provides better value for money and this approach has been taken for elections since 2009. The indemnities will be limited to the extent set out in the departmental minute. The indemnities are subject to exceptions identified in the minute but are unlimited in terms of the maximum amount covered per claim. If the liability is called, provision for any payment is to be met from the consolidated fund.

On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out DLUHC’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify the relevant returning officers and petition officers against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to PCC elections, UK parliamentary elections, and recall petitions.

Regarding the process of renewing indemnities, since 2009, the Minister concerned has presented a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances, and has refrained from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. HM Treasury has approved the renewal of these indemnities. However, following further discussion with HM Treasury, it has been agreed that, in line with the contingent liability approval framework, the renewal of indemnities now qualifies as part of Government’s “normal course of business”. This means that any future renewal of indemnities will not require HM Treasury’s consent or future notification of Parliament.

[HCWS275]

Omagh Bombing Inquiry: Terms of Reference

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

On 2 February 2023, I announced that I would establish an independent statutory inquiry into the preventability of the Omagh bombing. The Real IRA-perpetrated terrorist atrocity in August 1998 killed 29 people and two unborn children, and injured 220 others. This was a heinous act carried out, not just on the people of Omagh, but on all those in Northern Ireland who supported the peace process.

On 12 June 2023, I announced the appointment of Lord Turnbull KC as chairman of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.

Since his appointment, I have been working with Lord Turnbull to agree the terms of reference for the inquiry. I can confirm that the inquiry’s terms of reference have now been finalised and are set out in full below.

I have placed a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House.

The Omagh Bombing Inquiry is now formally established and able to begin its important work. Its terms of reference are as follows:

Purpose

1. To investigate whether the car bomb detonated in Omagh, County Tyrone on 15 August 1998 in which 29 people and two unborn children were killed could have been prevented by UK state authorities, with particular attention to the matters considered by Horner J. in the application for judicial review, Re Gallagher [2021] NIQB 85.

Scope

2. To the extent necessary to investigate issues relating to whether the Omagh Bombing could have been prevented by UK state authorities, the Inquiry’s investigations will include consideration, individually and collectively, of the following matters:

a. As background and context to the Omagh Bombing, the assessment by UK state authorities of the threat posed in Northern Ireland by dissident republican terrorists from 1 December 1997 to the date of the Omagh Bombing. This shall include consideration of any change in the assessment following the Belfast Agreement on 10 April 1998.

b. The adequacy of the measures taken by UK state authorities, including the police, security forces and Intelligence and Security Agencies, to disrupt those dissident republican terrorists who had been involved in terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks in the period from 1 December 1997 to the Omagh Bombing. This shall include consideration of any change in the measures used or approach taken by UK state authorities following the Belfast Agreement on 10 April 1998.

c. The adequacy of the policies and practices of UK state authorities, including the police, security forces and Intelligence and Security Agencies, in sharing intelligence between themselves and with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the activities of those dissident republican terrorists who had been involved in terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks in the period from 1 December 1997 to the Omagh Bombing.

d. The allegation made by Norman Baxter (former Senior Investigating Officer in the investigation into the Omagh Bombing) in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing.

e. Information relating to dissident republican terrorist activity said to have been passed to police between June and August 1998 by an alleged British security forces agent known by the name of Kevin Fulton and whether that might reasonably have enabled UK state authorities, whether on its own or in conjunction with other information, to disrupt dissident republican terrorists engaged in the planning and preparation of the Omagh Bombing.

f. The nature of the intelligence said to have been obtained by the UK Government’s Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), including from alleged vehicle and telephone monitoring, of dissident republican terrorists involved in the planning, preparation and conduct of the Omagh Bombing and other earlier attacks.

g. The adequacy of the analysis and handling of and response by UK state authorities to any intelligence obtained by GCHQ, including from vehicle and telephone monitoring, of dissident republican terrorists involved in the planning, preparation and or conduct of the Omagh Bombing and other earlier attacks.

h. The extent and adequacy of steps taken by UK state authorities to track and analyse the mobile telephone usage by those suspected to be involved in dissident republican terrorist attacks before the Omagh Bombing and whether that might reasonably have enabled UK state authorities to disrupt dissident republican terrorists engaged in the planning, preparation and or conduct of the Omagh Bombing.

i. Any other matters which are relevant to whether the Omagh Bombing on 15 August 1998 could have been prevented by UK state authorities. To the extent it is relevant to the issue of preventability by UK state authorities, this may include information sharing and investigations with and by state authorities in the Republic of Ireland.

Method

The Inquiry will examine and review all documents as the Inquiry Chairman shall judge appropriate.

The Inquiry will receive such oral and written evidence, in OPEN and CLOSED, as the Inquiry Chairman shall judge appropriate and follow such procedures as are appropriate to ensure that the Inquiry is effective, taking account of the need to protect national security interests.

Report

The Inquiry will report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as soon as practicable. The Inquiry Report will make such recommendations as may seem appropriate. Given the sensitive nature of the material, the Inquiry Chairman may choose to produce both an OPEN and a CLOSED report.

[HCWS274]

House of Lords

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 21 February 2024

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Hate Crimes

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any increase in the number incidents of race and faith-based hate crimes, and whether they intend to introduce a new hate crime action plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, hate crimes recorded by the police decreased by 5% last year. This reflects the crime survey statistics, which show a decline in hate crime reported over the last 15 years. Since 7 October, British Jews and Muslims have reported incidents in increased numbers. This is unacceptable, and we continue to work closely with communities. We are not intending to publish a hate crime strategy. We remain committed to cutting crime and protecting all communities.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but, as she said, hate crime has spiked very recently, and we know that hate crimes are chronically underreported in the UK and that many victims feel disempowered by existing reporting services. In the Government’s last hate crime action plan of 2016, they pledged to increase the reporting of hate crimes and encourage more people from under- reported groups to come forward. What is happening about that? Can the Minister tell the House whether this work has been reviewed in the last eight years and whether reporting and prosecutions have indeed improved? Will the Government introduce a comprehensive strategy to ensure vulnerable groups feel protected and supported in law?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen an increase in reporting and recording of hate crime over the last decade or so. There has been a small decrease in the last year, but, overall, that is partly reflective of the fact that we have put additional efforts into encouraging people to come forward. That includes through supporting charities such as the Community Security Trust but also Tell MAMA, which we fund, which is an organisation that focuses on anti-Muslim hatred and provides a different route by which people can report crimes and incidents and then get the appropriate support.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, which discloses that I am president of Westminster Synagogue. This Saturday, we had 20 policemen and four vans to protect us as a demonstration went past Knightsbridge. Does my noble friend agree that these demonstrations, with anti-Semitic slogans and rhetoric calling for genocide against the State of Israel, need to be controlled and curtailed so that British Jews can once again feel safe and secure in the streets of London?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend’s experience bears out the statistics that we saw announced by the Community Security Trust last week, showing the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents on record in 2023, with the majority of these being reported from 7 October. There is no place on British streets for demonstrations, convoys or flag-waving that glorify terrorism or harass the Jewish community, and we will work closely with the police, who we urge to step up patrols and use all available powers to enforce the law.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, the current practice of giving government funding to more vocal communities to collect figures to show that they are more hated than others is a waste of that funding. Does the Minister agree that a better approach would be to tackle the underlying ignorance on which prejudice thrives by stressing, in the teaching of RE in schools and elsewhere, the large number of important ethical commonalities between different faiths to show that the superficial differences are very insignificant?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government committed to break down the recording of hate crime first by religion and then more recently by race. That provides us with an important insight into the experiences of different communities, which can be quite different across the country. Where I agree with the noble Lord is that part of the solution to some of these issues is focusing on where we have more in common than what divides us. We should emphasise that, particularly in our schools.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, this is an extremely difficult time, in which we hear profoundly disturbing reports of the rise in race and faith-based hate crimes. Tomorrow, the board of the UK’s Inter Faith Network will meet to confirm its closure following the withdrawal of funding by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This comes at a time when we urgently need to promote interfaith dialogue and the expansion of religious literacy in schools, as has been mentioned, and elsewhere. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of the closure of the Inter Faith Network, and what will replace it?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government fund a number of organisations to work in the space. On the Inter Faith Network specifically, the Secretary of State decided to withdraw the offer of funding for this year due to the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. Successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. Therefore, the appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a government-funded organisation informed that decision.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, following the previous question, would it not be helpful if the leadership of the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities made a joint statement about how abhorrent racial hatred really is?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I know of many efforts across the country, locally and nationally, to bring leaders of different faiths together and make statements of unity. That is something the Government continue to support.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, issued a report on anti-Semitism not long ago which made very useful recommendations, including teaching about anti-Semitism and Jewish history in school. Would that not be a far better approach than focusing entirely on Holocaust education, which places everything in the past, far away, nothing to do with us today?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, one of the most recent announcements from the Government in this area is indeed additional funding through the Department for Education to schools to increase education around this area. That is something the DfE is taking forward.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government look at their hate crime strategy, how much of it do they think they can achieve in a top-down way from central government, and how much can they achieve in working with local community organisations, so that it is a bottom-up approach to tackling hate crimes?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that working at a local level is key to giving people more confidence in reporting, but it is also really important in thinking about solutions to these issues. One of the things that my department has been doing, in particular since 7 October, is regular engagement with local authorities to understand what is going on in their area, examples of best practice we can help share, and any particular issues that they are aware of that we can provide more support on.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, news reports this week of a baby’s passport application being returned from the Home Office to its parents with its birthplace, Israel, scribbled out and the application torn, and a statue of Amy Winehouse being defaced with a Palestinian flag sticker placed over her Star of David, are more evidence of the increase in anti-Semitic incidents reported by the CST. The Government’s downgrading of recording of non-crime hate incidents limits the police’s ability to monitor and prevent escalation within communities. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will support Labour’s plan to reinstate full collection details for all hate incidents?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have not had the same feedback as the noble Baroness. As I say, it was this Government that brought in the disaggregation of hate crimes by different religions to help provide insight into the experience of different communities. We provide ongoing support and funding to the CST in its work, and we have regular engagement with the police to understand what the picture is in local areas. I will look at the issue the noble Baroness raises, and also understand from the feedback and conversations we have what impact that has.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that there are real problems in terms of legislating against hate as a crime, because it can be used to silence opposition? One of our fellow Peers has recently been accused of, and in fact punished for, bigotry, when bad-faith activists wilfully labelled a tweet against Islamists—that is Hamas—as Islamophobic. Conversely, while I consider that the virulent rhetoric and abuse directed at Zionism is often—usually—thinly disguised anti-Semitism, the same legitimate criticism of Israel is being curtailed. Should we avoid using the law, and instead argue back and condemn loudly?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we have both systems in place. We fully support lawful freedom of speech; it generates rigorous debate and is incredibly important to our society. But it is not an absolute right, and does not include the right to harass others or incite them to violence or terrorism. It is possible to both have in place laws against hate crime while protecting and respecting freedom of speech. Sometimes the implementation of that is a carefully balanced judgment, and that is something we all need to take care with.

National Minimum Wage

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Lord Bird]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for increasing the national minimum wage to £15 per hour for workers across all age groups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. The Government are increasing the national living wage by a record 10% in April this year to £11.44 per hour. This increase will end low pay for those aged 21 and over, and meets the target threshold of two-thirds of median hourly pay. Any further increases in the national living wage will need to be carefully considered, regarding the economic impact, balancing the cost to business and benefit to workers. The Government will continue to base these decisions on increases on robust evidence and recommendations from the Low Pay Commission.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I think it is interesting that none of us knows how you can live on £10 an hour and run a family and pay your rent. The minimum wage is not very near the living wage, so we have to find a way of morphing the minimum wage towards the living wage. I ask this rather strange question: what happens if you take a third of what is on the books at the moment and increase by a third the minimum wage? The reason I ask it is: will the Government change the situation where we keep producing low-paid jobs and low investment so we have an enormous number of people who cannot earn a decent wage? That means that we have to increase the way that we trade. We have to push up prosperity, and that is the job of the Minister’s department.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that reminder. I think all of us in this place and the other place can be very proud of what has happened over the past 25 years on the minimum wage. This wage increase will benefit 3 million workers. Remember, we have 33 million people working in the UK, out of 66 million, so those in the bottom 10% are getting a 10% increase. That has a knock-on effect for further formulae. This is a big impact. If we look at the past eight years, since it came in in 2015, the national living wage has gone up by 60% versus inflation at 30%, so there has been a real increase in wages for those at the lower end of the wage scale.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would agree that there are too many working people who have to rely on the minimum wage in this country and that those at the bottom of the wage cycle are the ones who suffer most when there is low growth. A key statistic, if the Minister wants to trade statistics, is GDP per capita, which is falling. Our productivity is falling because there is insufficient investment in skills and capital machinery. The reason there is insufficient investment is because businesses do not have stability or confidence going forward. Does the Minister agree that this Government do not have a plan and are not providing the facility that can deliver the growth that will help the people the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is talking about?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. We have record levels of employment in this country, with 33 million out of 66 million people working. Average public sector pay is £19 an hour and in the private sector it is £16. We are now taking the minimum wage up to £11.44. The noble Lord is quite right to indicate that if we want to ask businesses to invest more money, perhaps we should be asking them to invest in more productivity per employee rather than just more wage per employee, and perhaps more inclusion and diversity, along the lines of John Lewis and Timpson.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no justification for discriminating against young people under any circumstances. People can join the Army at 16, they can be on the front line at 18 putting their lives at risk for King and country, but they cannot receive the full national minimum wage until they are 21. This cannot possibly be right. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. There is a wage scale, as he will well know. For those aged 18-20, it is £8.60 an hour and for those under 18 it is £6.40 an hour, an apprentice rate. The point of this is a scale. We all start work on lower wages and increase our wages as our skill levels increase. We must not be in a situation where we, in effect, lock young people out of the market. We must ensure that young people get into the market earning wages and then increase their skills and their wages. The noble Lord will know well that many studies have been done on the wage scar, which blights young people if they do not get into a job early and get training. We want young people in a job early, trained up, so they can increase their wages.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister’s department made any assessment of whether these increases in the minimum wage, which go well above and beyond average wage increases, have impacted the ability of companies to take on interns, which is normally the main route into employment; whether they have had an impact on speeding the adoption of automation and assimilating the upfront costs; whether employers respond by cutting in-work benefits, discounted meals and so on, to compensate; and, not least, what the impact is on the price rise of the finished product, because often people on minimum wages are also consumers of minimum wage products? If, for example, fast food becomes much more expensive, it is not going to be hedge fund managers who pay.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. The cost to business is a consideration that we must consider. The cost of this particular increase will be £3 billion over six years and I emphasise that it will fall largely on the SME community. Some 99% of our companies are SMEs, with 2.5 million VAT-registered companies. Setting aside the 10,000 companies that employ 30% of the workforce, 60% of the workforce are employed in SMEs and they are bearing the brunt of exactly these wage increases. We survey employers and they want to pay higher wages. We want a good, well-paid workforce but we must do so in a way that balances the needs of business and workers.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tireless campaigning to tackle homelessness and poverty. Even at my advanced age, I enjoy celebrating birthdays, but I have never believed that my hourly work increases by 50% simply by ageing a year—yet that is implied by the national minimum wage banding between 17 and 18 year-olds. These days it is a real struggle to survive on the full national minimum wage. Does the Minister agree that lower rates represent unfair age-based discrimination and send the wrong message to young people at the start of their working life?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I think I have already addressed that question. We have to set the national minimum wage as high as possible for young people without damaging their prospects. We have to encourage them into the workplace. We have to avoid the longer-term scarring effects from long spells of unemployment that I have talked about. That is what this metric achieves.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is shocking that social care workers—who perform incredibly skilled and precious work for all of us but the majority of whom are paid less than the real living wage of £12 an hour outside London—are paid so little, and that a quarter of them are on zero-hours contracts? How much do his Government believe a social care worker is worth?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I think everyone on all sides of the House agrees with the noble Baroness that we owe a great deal of gratitude to those who work in the social care sector. It is a fact that a lot of them are on lower wages and we would like them to be paid more, but at the end of the day we now have 10% of the workforce on a national living wage that underpins their prospects, and it is now the responsibility of businesses and employers to increase the training and skills of our workforce so that they can earn more in the market.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on from the Minister’s answer to the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Leong. The Minister spoke about young people being scarred by periods of unemployment, but just imagine trying to live on £6.40 an hour for an under-18, which is what it is going up to in April, or £8.60 an hour for 16 to 20-year-olds. Does the Minister not think that young people are being scarred by the inability to afford healthy food or decent accommodation, or indeed to live any kind of life, while struggling to survive? Their costs are no lower than anyone else’s. Surely they should be paid enough money to live on.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. The ambition that we should all share is for everyone to have rising wages as they improve their skill levels and for our young people to get meaningful jobs out of school that allow them to be trained and earn more as they progress in their career.

Pavement Parking

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to prevent pavement parking in England and over what timescale.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, the Department for Transport received over 15,000 responses to its consultation on this matter. The Government want to take the right step for communities and ensure that local authorities have the appropriate and effective tools at their disposal. We are working through the options and the opportunities for delivering them and, as soon as those matters are certain, we will publish our formal response and announce the way forward.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, cars on the pavement force pedestrians into the carriageway. That means blind people, wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs—in fact, all pedestrians—are taken off the pavement and put on a very different path: into that of oncoming traffic. In London, there has been a ban on pavement parking for years. If it is good enough for the capital, why not the rest of the country?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point, and I cannot help but agree with him. Pavement parking is a widespread problem and a complex issue. We must ensure that whatever approach is taken works for all road users in the community. We know that our streets belong to us all and understand that parking on the pavements damages them and exposes pedestrians to risk. We have empathy for those members of our society for whom pavement parking poses particular difficulties—those who have sight and mobility impairments, wheelchair users and those with prams and buggies—but we must get this consultation right.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Question. There is a major challenge; he and I are fortunate enough to have a degree of assistance in navigating cars and motorcycles on pavements, but others do not. There is an additional hazard as well, which is the new fashion of using electric bikes on pavements. Those are a real danger to all the same cohorts that the noble Lord spelled out. Is it not time to do this now? It would not cost much and might get the Government some popularity.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord makes a valid point, which I cannot disagree with. E-scooters are allowed on public roads only as part of the e-scooter rental trials, and private e-scooters can be used only on private land. The use of any e-scooters on the pavement is illegal under current legislation and the Government have no current plans to change this. But at the end of the day, these things have to be enforced and it is a matter, particularly in London, for the Metropolitan Police. It is also for councils to look at and I cannot help but agree with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister looked surprised at the idea of government popularity. Can I encourage him to seize the day, because this is not just about people being forced into the road? It is also about uneven pavements that are left behind after lots of vehicles have parked on them. That is a danger to everyone who walks along the pavement. Does the Minister agree that it should be part of the rights of pedestrians in the 21st century to be able to walk safely down the pavement, and that since the Government’s consultation took place in November 2020, it is high time they got on and did something?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

As I pointed out in my first Answer, the department received over 15,000 responses to its consultation, covering tens of thousands of open comments. Every one of these has to be considered fully, giving due regard to the wide range of opinions expressed. Pavement parking is an extremely complex issue. All the options which are recommendations of the Transport Select Committee have supporters and detractors, and significant challenges in their deliverability and effectiveness. Yes, it is time and I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will come out with a report on this.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, all of us have enormous sympathy with the points the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Blunkett, have made. Can the Minister just disclose a little more about the options the Government are considering for better enforcement of the law? Will he tell us what they are, so that we might contribute better to this debate?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot disclose them at the moment, but as I said, I am very hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to come forward with suggestions.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, one of the reasons for parking on pavements is that cars have got wider. Do the Government have any plans to discriminate between 4x4s—which are wide, long and heavy, and thus also damage pavements—and smaller cars, and encourage the use of the latter in urban areas?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but we have no plans to discriminate against 4x4s or wider vehicles at the moment.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the government consultation on banning parking on pavements across England ended three years ago. Last month, local authorities, supported by the LGA, again called upon the Government to extend the powers currently held in London to the rest of England, in order to prevent parking on pavements. Does my noble friend accept that, if all councils across England had the same powers as London, that would enable the Government to meet their active travel plans much quicker?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

To a certain extent, I accept that. As I have said, the department has received over 15,000 responses, and it takes time. Yes, three years is a long time, and I am very conscious of that.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

In fairness, I have only just joined the department. I assure noble Lords that I am taking this very seriously and will do all I can to get a response out as soon as possible.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, in London I jump for my life from bicycles on the pavement. Can the Minister add bicycles to the list when he is looking at enforcement?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I, too, jump out of the way of bicycles. I take the noble and learned Baroness’s point; it is a serious issue, and enforcement should be more rigorous.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, we are told in so many areas that we are awaiting the results of consultations and that we do not have the resources to undertake them more speedily. Are the Government exploring the possibility of using AI to do a quick analysis of many of these responses and get the results faster?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am not sure it is a question of resources; it is a question of analysing the 15,000 responses to the consultation. As for AI, I am afraid I am not an expert in that matter.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend has a chance to look at the Bill in my name on Road Traffic Act offences involving e-bikes, e-scooters and pedal bikes, which has received its First Reading? In particular, will he look at the provision whereby there should be a review of illegally operated scooters to prevent further accidents and casualties?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I have not yet had the opportunity to look at my noble friend’s proposed legislation, but as soon as I leave here I will go straight back to the department and do so.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not about time that the Government grasped the nettle and said that roads are for things with big wheels, such as cars, bikes and scooters, and that pavements are for people who are trying to walk? It does not take three years to make a decision like that.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I think I have covered the point the noble Lord raises. I agree that three years is a long time but, in fairness, it takes time to analyse all of this. I undertake to move as fast as I possibly can on this issue.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a lot longer than three years. I raised this question at least five years ago with the Minister’s predecessor, and I got a completely anodyne answer. It reflects badly on the Government when a simple situation is called complex that really is not complex at all.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot answer for my predecessor. All I can say is that I am very aware of the issue and undertake to move as quickly as I can.

Right to Roam

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

15:39

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of reported plans for mass trespass on Dartmoor on 24 February, what assessment they have made of the case for the right to roam.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register. The Government have not undertaken any assessment of the case for the right to roam. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 already provides a right of access to large areas of mountain, moor, heath, down, registered common land and coastal margin in England. In our environmental improvement plan, we committed that everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space and to work to reduce barriers that prevent people accessing such spaces.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I tabled this Question because there will be a mass trespass, and the reason for it is that there are places that people are allowed to access but cannot get to because they have to trespass to access them. I understand that it is a difficult problem when half the country is owned by less than 1% of the population, but, quite honestly, the first duty of this Government—of any Government—is the health of the people, and being able to get out into nature is part of that. Will the Minister look at updating this and at having a logical right to roam Act?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a good point regarding connecting to lost land and open spaces. The Government are aware that in the original mapping of open access land, some areas were identified to which there is no legal route. We are committed to undertaking a review of this position, and legislation to facilitate this review was recently passed into law in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, we all welcome the Minister’s answer about open access land, and I am encouraged by it. The previous Government proposed that it be mountains, moorland, heath, et cetera. In addition to that, the Forestry Commission decided it would open up its forests wherever possible. Can the Minister give me an assurance that there will be no pressure at all on the Forestry Commission to weaken its provision of access for the people?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, public access is already available to over 1 million hectares of England’s open access land, including areas of coast, heath, moor and mountains, as I said, as well as 258,000 hectares of public forest estate. That commitment remains.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, like me, my noble friend will know that there is a right to roam in Scotland, so he will also be aware that, with the right to roam, comes responsibilities. Can he give the House an assurance that, if the Government are minded to look at any right to roam, the aspect of responsibilities—such as keeping dogs on leads, particularly in farming areas, and the setting of fires—will be given due consideration?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My noble friend raises a good point. There are issues around responsible access, such as illegal parking, livestock worrying, disrupting wildlife, damage and littering—a favourite topic of mine. The issues in Scotland are obviously devolved to the Scottish Government, but, if the Westminster Government were ever minded to look at this again, establishing a proper code of conduct for accessing the outdoors, and linking that to a proper consultation and a proper plan for education on this issue, would be absolutely critical.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it was over 20 years ago that we last had this reviewed, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, so I am pleased that that will happen. We have to end this piecemeal approach, which causes completely unnecessary divisions between landowners and people who want to walk. Will the review look at existing footpaths? I can think of a number of footpaths in Cumbria that are completely impassable now. It is really important that we keep existing routes clear and open for people to use.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. Maintaining access to all these routes is at the forefront of the Government’s agenda at the moment. I will certainly take away her specific point regarding Cumbria and see whether we can do something about that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I am a small farmer, and just as the last ministerial Answer said that it was very difficult to make decisions about parking on pavements, this is also a very difficult area, and it is not helped by slogans. There is a difficult issue around balancing the demands in the countryside, and many of us have noticed that, particularly during the flooded periods when the land is extremely vulnerable. Will the Minister make sure that he gets the balance right between those of us who produce the food and those who want to use the land for roaming?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

As a small farmer as well, I sympathise with my noble friend. Getting the balance right between responsible access and the other legitimate uses of that land is critical. In future, I hope that we can strike that balance correctly.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, a recent survey showed that there were 32,000 blockages on our public footpaths. Further to the points already raised, it is extremely important that our footpaths are clear and accessible. Will the Government therefore consider providing long-term funding to local councils, which have the legal responsibility but not the resources to keep our public footpath networks open?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite right that local authorities have that responsibility. I can certainly take away his suggestion that we provide additional funding for that, but it is not part of the programme at the moment.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, given what we know about the parlous state of the mental health of children and young people, and what we know about the restorative properties of spending time in green space and open countryside, does the Minister agree that getting on with this should be done expeditiously and urgently?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness on the restorative qualities of access to nature, for not just young people but people of any age. The Government have spent considerable amounts of money on improving access for the public to not just our urban spaces but wider spaces, with the creation of new national parks and other areas. I completely agree with the noble Baroness on her point.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the damage being done to various tracks and byways open to all traffic—so-called BOATs—where, quite often, off-roaders are not just causing damage to the local environment but disturbing walkers, riders and other people who want to enjoy the countryside?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

It seems like a similar issue to bikes on pavements—bikes on paths in the countryside. This is a really difficult area, and one I come across a lot in my private life, with people accessing the countryside in inappropriate ways. Paths are narrow, and it is often quite dangerous when someone on a mountain bike, or a group of people on mountain bikes, is coming down that path. It is intimidating, and it is very challenging to find a safe place and a safe way to make those two meet. I sympathise with my noble friend.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, traditionally, people in Scotland have been allowed freely to access the outdoors. I am 71 years of age, and all my life I have known that I was free to walk anywhere, as long as I did not do any damage. This was codified in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which set out the conditions that you must observe if you do so. Can we not just adopt the same here and let people enjoy this? it does not cause any problems.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

As a resident in Scotland, I would not necessarily agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. It is a devolved issue, and Scotland is entitled to make its own decisions on this.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, as a young boy, walking in the countryside and coming across a sign saying, “Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted”, my father assured me that it was a bluff. There is no law against trespass in this country, as long as you do not do damage to crops, livestock or property. That was why Mr Fagan, when he climbed over the wall into Buckingham Palace and got into the Queen’s bedroom, could not be sued for trespass but had to be convicted of stealing half a bottle of wine.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I am not entirely sure what the question was, but if my noble friend wants me to agree with him about Mr Fagan, I am very happy to do that.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

1st reading
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:50

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2023 be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 February.

Motion agreed.

Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024

Motions to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Douglas-Miller]

That the draft Order and the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 February.

Motions agreed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Motions to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December 2023 and 11 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 February.

Motions agreed.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

Scottish and Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

15:52

Moved by

[Lord Douglas-Miller]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular my livestock farming and land management interests.

We are here to consider the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, which will fulfil the Government’s commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter. The Bill will ban the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening from Great Britain, stopping the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by this trade. I think noble Lords will agree that, from a welfare perspective, animals should be transported only when necessary. This Bill will prevent unnecessarily long export journeys by ensuring that livestock are transported on shorter and less stressful journeys for slaughter domestically.

The Government recognise that we are a nation of animal lovers, with some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Indeed, we were the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals, and we are now building on that tradition by continuing to strengthen our animal welfare standards even further.

On farm animal welfare in particular, the Government have launched the animal health and welfare pathway, providing financial support for farmers to help them improve the health and welfare of their livestock. We have made available £30 million in capital grants to co-fund investment in equipment, technology and infrastructure projects. We have introduced a £4 million smaller abattoir fund, which will improve animal health and welfare and help to sustain our network of smaller abattoirs. This support will help to maintain short journey times for livestock to slaughter.

This brings us to today’s consideration of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. In the 1990s, a vast number of animals were exported for slaughter each year. This period saw several unsuccessful attempts to ban live animal exports through legal challenges by local and port authorities. At that time, we were bound by EU free trade rules that prevented any such prohibition on live exports.

The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have taken up the cause of live animal exports and have campaigned for a ban on exports for slaughter for over 50 years. World Horse Welfare was founded in 1927 with the aim of stopping the export of horses for slaughter. I am grateful to these, and many other animal welfare organisations, for their support of the Bill.

I also recognise the long-standing interest of many noble Lords in banning live exports. I particularly acknowledge the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes —who I believe is 21 again today—the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am grateful for their efforts in championing these causes.

We have seen the number of live animal exports decrease significantly over recent decades. Since 2020, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU. However, the demand from Europe’s slaughterhouses for British livestock, especially sheep, remains. The Bill will ensure that this trade cannot resume.

There is a clear rationale for the Bill. The shortest direct-to-slaughter export journey from Great Britain to continental Europe in 2018 took 18 hours. Most domestic journeys to slaughter in the UK are significantly shorter. Journeys of unweaned calves from Great Britain for fattening in Spain were found to last on average 60 hours.

The UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments commissioned the Farm Animal Welfare Committee to examine animal welfare during the transport of livestock. Its 2018 report identified several aspects of transport that have a detrimental effect on animal welfare and recommended that animals should be transported only when necessary. Following the committee’s report, we undertook a public consultation with the Welsh Government in 2020 on banning live exports. We received over 11,000 responses, and 87% of respondents agreed that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter or fattening.

The ban on live exports must be GB-wide to be effective, and I am grateful to colleagues in Scotland and Wales for their valuable contributions to the Bill. While the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland— I will come on to why shortly—I also thank the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for its work alongside my officials in the development of our policies.

I now turn to the detail of the Bill’s provisions. The core provision prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and makes it an offence to do so. The Bill is focused on banning live exports where major animal welfare concerns have been identified. Accordingly, it legislates to end all exports from, and transit journeys through, Great Britain of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses for fattening and slaughter.

Prior discussions in the other place explored whether the scope of the ban should be extended to cover a wider list of species. When we carried out our consultation in 2020, we were clear about the species we were seeking to apply the ban to. We received no evidence then—and have received none since—that a ban on any other species was necessary.

It is also important to be clear about what is not prohibited. The Bill still allows for exports of livestock and horses for other purposes, such as breeding, shows and competitions. Animals exported for breeding are transported in very good conditions, so that they can live a full and healthy life once they arrive at their destination. The Bill does not apply to journeys within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

I return to the reason the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. To ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to both the UK and Republic of Ireland markets, the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. As part of the new Windsor Framework constitutional arrangements, a Minister in charge of a Bill must make certain written statements if the Bill contains provisions that would affect trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Since this Bill does not apply to livestock and horse movements within the UK, it is my view that there will be no such impact and that no such statement is therefore required.

Recent discussions in the other place highlighted the importance of protecting the access that Northern Irish farmers have to the Republic of Ireland. Farmers in Northern Ireland routinely move animals to the Republic of Ireland for slaughter and fattening. It is critical that we protect the Northern Irish agricultural sector and wider economy, and that is why the Bill’s territorial extent is drafted as it is.

The Bill contains a delegated power to provide for regulations about the enforcement of the ban. It empowers the appropriate national authorities to make enforcement regulations and sets out their possible scope. That power will enable the department to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to provide an effective and proportionate suite of measures to enforce the ban. We intend to bring the ban and its associated enforcement regulations into force as soon as possible. The Bill also repeals Sections 40 to 49 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Those provisions were intended to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, particularly by setting minimum value standards. Now that we are banning all live exports of horses and ponies for slaughter, those provisions are unnecessary.

I know that there is considerable support for this ban both in Parliament and among the public. I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House will agree on the importance of working to enhance this country’s proud record on animal welfare. The Bill marks another significant milestone in our progress towards delivering better animal welfare across the nation. In 2016, the EU referendum brought renewed public interest in finally ending live exports for slaughter. Now that we have that long-awaited opportunity, I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill and ensure that our exports take place on the hook, rather than on the hoof.

16:02

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the Royal Veterinary College and the owner of two opinionated dressage horses, who have informed me that there is no way that they are getting on a boat, unless it is to travel to the Olympics.

This may be the Minister’s first full Bill in this House, so I welcome him to the joys of Second Readings. As he said, there is widespread support for this provision, so I hope that it will be an easy one for him to cut his teeth on. I thank him and the Government for progressing the Bill to prohibit the live export of specified British livestock for slaughter or fattening abroad. Live exports see animals crowded into vehicles—often the first time they are away from their mothers—on long, stressful journeys, causing them to suffer from exhaustion, dehydration and even death. As the Minister pointed out, those journeys can be very long; they go to Spain —a 60-hour journey—Bulgaria or Hungary. In some cases, journeys from the Republic of Ireland possibly go onwards to Middle Eastern destinations —although that is difficult to establish—where of course very different welfare standards exist. There is a strong case for banning the trade.

In the most recent year in which live exports occurred, between 25,000 and 50,000 sheep and calves alone were exported from Great Britain. The Bill will stop that inhumane practice. Although there have been no live animal exports from GB to the European Union since 2020, that is not due to any lack of wish for the trade to continue; it is mainly due to a lack of suitable post-Brexit border control posts in French and Belgian ports.

New border control posts are now being created or existing posts upgraded, and this could open the door to the resumption of the trade were the Bill not to be passed. The Secretary of State for Defra at Second Reading in another place confirmed that, given the demand from Europe’s slaughterhouses for livestock, and especially British sheep, as the Minister said, there is no reason to think that this trade would not resume at the first opportunity.

I therefore urge the Minister and indeed the House to progress the Bill swiftly to get it through all its stages before the election, whenever that might be. The Bill was introduced in the other place in December 2023 and has got to our House within two months. Let us keep up the pace that has already been set. This legislation was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment and a Labour 2019 animal welfare manifesto commitment. It has support from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, and even the Scottish National Party put it into its manifesto in 2021. The public support it overwhelmingly, so let us get it done—oh dear; I am beginning to sound like a Conservative.

The Bill, however, could shine even more, and, at the risk of being seen to go against what I just said about the need for speed, the Government ought to be pressed to consider a very small and simple amendment to take secondary legislation enabling powers to allow Ministers to add other types of livestock to the list as defined in the Bill, should that need arise. It is a pretty rare event for me to urge Ministers to take additional delegated powers, but things happen. We have to recognise that the trends in exports have been volatile. In a 10-year period, for example, pig exports went from 30,000 to 600,000. We are seeing an increasing amount of alpacas and deer farmed; those might well be other species that we need to take swift action on, and it would prevent Ministers having to come forward with primary legislation. Giving Ministers the power to add other livestock breeds to the list would future-proof the Bill. Secondary legislation is much quicker; primary legislation would always be behind the curve if numbers of exports were rising. Therefore I ask the Minister to press on, but with that small and simple amendment.

There are of course other associated animal welfare issues surrounding animal transport standards, some of which need attention, but we must leave those to another Bill. I thank the British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers’ Union for briefings on these welfare issues. The European Union is beginning to increase and enhance its standards; let us not be left behind. As the Minister said, we have always had a strong pride in our high standards of animal welfare and we really do not want to fall behind Europe—but that is for another day.

There is huge support for the Bill, as I said, except from the National Farmers’ Union, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the National Sheep Association. However, we should listen and respond to the points being made, particularly by the NFU, that it is vital that the Government, when pursuing trade negotiations with countries that export large numbers of animals for fattening and slaughter, ensure that British farmers are not undercut by imports that do not meet the higher standards achieved within the UK. Let us get this done so we can be even more proud of our humane approaches and standards, and end live animal exports for fattening and slaughter for ever.

16:08

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as in the register. I begin by welcoming the Bill. It has been a Conservative manifesto commitment since 2017 and was one component of the now withdrawn kept animals Bill, and it bans the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter from GB to anywhere outside the British Islands. As such, it will prevent the export of livestock for fattening and slaughter to continental Europe; historically, as has already been mentioned, those animals may have subsequently undergone extremely long-distance travel, with consequent risks to their welfare. It thus fulfils a welfare aspiration of slaughtering livestock as near as possible to their point of rearing and ensures that the exports are on the hook, not on the hoof, as the Minister said.

Before I comment on some specifics of the Bill, I will say that, because of the loss of many abattoirs, the distances many animals now have to travel for slaughter within the United Kingdom can be substantial. I welcome the recently promised support from His Majesty’s Government for small abattoirs, but emphasise the importance of ensuring the sustainable provision of an adequate network of abattoirs within the UK for all species as an essential animal welfare provision and an important underpinning for the rural economy.

Turning to specifics, the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland. I am delighted that the Scottish Government lodged a legislative consent memorandum in December last year. Horses are included in the Bill, which I welcome, as does the charity World Horse Welfare. This should put an end to the possibility of any long-distance journeys to slaughter for horses, as we saw in the past. The Bill exempts exports of live animals for breeding and all exports of poultry, although there are extremely low numbers, if any, of exports of live adult poultry. These exemptions are justified, given the importance of the high quality and global significance of UK livestock breeding and genetics. The relatively low number but high value of breeding animals ensures the high quality of care afforded to them in transport. This is especially so for poultry, where the export of day-old chicks of high-value foundation breeding stock originating in the UK provides the progenitors for a very high proportion of the total global populations of commercial meat and egg-layer poultry. These chicks are air freighted with great care, since some are worth as much as £3,000 each.

An important exemption from the Bill, though, is Northern Ireland. I recognise the complex political and pragmatic reasons for that, which are associated with the Windsor Framework and the land border on the island of Ireland between the UK and the EU. But I suggest there are two loopholes associated with this. There is a legal loophole, whereby animals could be born and reared in Northern Ireland and exported legally to the Irish Republic, after which they could legally be transported anywhere in the EU or beyond, subject to EU rules of movement. While legal, this is not in the spirit of the legislation. It would also be possible for unscrupulous persons to export from GB to Northern Ireland and then arrange further export from Northern Ireland, with or without the mandatory 30-day waiting period required. That of course would be illegal, but it is a possibility.

We should note the number of livestock moved from Northern Ireland into the EU. In 2022, 337,000 sheep were exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic for fattening and slaughter. Therefore, it would be very difficult to monitor illegal activities. So will we be carefully monitoring movements in and out of Northern Ireland that might indicate whether there is any organised systemic attempt to circumvent the good intentions of this Bill, which otherwise I warmly welcome?

16:14

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as president of a branch of the RSPCA and as having had in the past various other close connections with that organisation.

I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his kind birthday congratulations. I have to say that I could not have a better birthday present than this Bill—but it is a bit late coming. I was trying to get this done 50-odd years ago as a young MP—yes, I was young once—in the House of Commons.

My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has done some research on those Conservative MPs in the early 1970s who had voted against the Government, and he dug up for me a particular occasion where I wanted to see the withdrawal of licences so that animals could not be exported. The Government of the day put in a wrecking amendment, so I voted against it, and on that occasion, we won; animal exports stopped. But of course, as we all know, there has been a history since and I, along with others who share my view, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting the ban.

In 1974—50 years ago almost to the day—I asked the Minister for a permanent ban on the export of live animals. He did a bit of waffling about the need to consult, which is the usual thing when they do not want to take action, and I said:

“I recognise the Minister’s need to consult, but will he bear in mind that any attempt to resume these exports will be met with my implacable hostility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/4/74; col. 12.]


I have maintained implacable hostility for the 50 years since; but why was I so opposed? Because I heard first-hand accounts at that time from RSPCA inspectors who had gone undercover—the proper government inspectorate did not seem to be working, so they did it themselves—and followed particular consignments right the way through from where they started to where they ended at abattoirs: and it was heartbreaking.

Over the years, millions of animals have suffered in this way. Very often, the vehicles used to transport were quite unsuitable. Sound animals and injured animals were allowed to go together, and some sound animals became injured anyway through the conditions in which they were travelling. Sometimes food and water were missing. The hours, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, were extremely long; and, more often than not, the conditions in which the animals were slaughtered, eventually, were horrifying in themselves. This is why I felt so deeply and strongly and, although conditions may have improved slightly, it is not enough for my concerns. I share the mantra of the British Veterinary Association from years ago that slaughter should take place as near the point of production as possible.

I turn now to the Bill itself, which I warmly welcome. I do see one small weakness: I know my noble friend has indicated that we are covering all the main animals and I accept that entirely, but there could come a time when other animals that are not now exported could be, and they would not be covered. I share the wish to have an amendment put in so that we could have a regulation that permits this to happen. I have looked carefully at all the regulations that we have already, but it does not seem that any of them would cover it. It is actually unusual for me to want regulations; when I was chairman of the committee that looked at these things, I was forever railing against the unsuitable extensive use of regulations. But here I make an exception. I hope that my noble friend might consider this—without, of course, allowing the Bill to fall by the wayside, which is always a concern and a worry at this time.

Others have also mentioned—and I will do so briefly—a concern that animals within the country have better regulations. I would like an assurance from my noble friend that the regulations in place are being enforced. It does not matter how good they are; if they are not enforced, it is as though they are not there at all.

I would also like to see those regulations improved. Unless I am much mistaken, we are still operating on the 2005 regulations from the European Union, which have been transferred into British law and now have some other fancy title that I forget. Anyway, I would like to see them improved because quite a lot of hours are allowed; I think it is 19 hours for calves and more for others. That is far too long. I support the arrangement for small abattoirs to be encouraged so that we can get animals off transport at great length and into abattoirs where we can ensure that the conditions are humane.

I hope my noble friend can give some reassurances on these matters. That said, I have waited a long time for this—and it could not have come at a better time than on my birthday.

16:20

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I pay tribute to her and other noble Members of this House who have done so much to bring us to the point where we are today.

The reputation of this country as a country of animal lovers is well earned and well deserved. It is to the enormous credit of the United Kingdom that we have some of the toughest animal welfare legislation on the statute book anywhere. I congratulate the Government on the work they have done in recent years to introduce legislation to strengthen even further the protection for animals in the United Kingdom, in particular the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021.

The legislation before us has been heralded by the Government as bringing an end to unnecessary journeys abroad of live animals for slaughter. In the other place, the Secretary of State, introducing the Bill at Second Reading, said:

“Taking advantage of Brexit freedoms, we can now legislate to end this trade, which we were unable to do for so many years due to European Union trade rules”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/23; col. 1172.]


I have to say in passing that it has taken the Government a long time to bring the legislation to this point, given that the pledge was made during the Brexit campaign and has been referenced in various manifesto commitments from all parties.

However, my more fundamental criticism of the Bill has already been referenced by both the Minister and other speakers in this debate: it applies only to Great Britain and not to the entirety of the United Kingdom. Why is this? In no way do I criticise the Minister who is here presenting the Bill; these issues are way beyond the remit of the department in which he serves and, as I say, I congratulate him on bringing the Bill to the House. However, the Government have said, in the other place and today at the Dispatch Box, that it is because they want to ensure that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to the United Kingdom and to the Irish Republic. That makes it sound like this is a wonderful proactive measure and that the Government have thought about the situation, developed their policy and proactively decided to omit Northern Ireland for the best of reasons—that they had a choice as to what to do.

The reality is very different. It is important that we have proper transparency and openness in all these matters. As we have had in relation to trade Bills and others, the arguments put forward from the Dispatch Box do not always tell the full story of why things are being done—because of the Windsor Framework. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland because it cannot. This is not a policy decision or a desire of the Government. It cannot apply because the Windsor Framework and the Northern Ireland protocol prevent it being applied to Northern Ireland; European law takes precedence and has supremacy over Northern Ireland in this whole area.

As I say, the pattern of seeking to spin and hide the reality of the extent to which Northern Ireland is forced—it is not out of choice—to adopt different laws and rules across hundreds of areas of law applicable to large parts of our economy needs to be continually exposed. We are seeing it in the area of Parliamentary Questions. I raise this matter because I recently tabled a Question on the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, which is very important for animal welfare, with wider human health implications. The Minister’s reply to the Question as to whether there were current negotiations with the European Union on the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, which everybody accepts needs to continue, consisted of three sentences. Not one of them even referenced an answer to the Question. I would be grateful if the Minister could take away that matter and write to me on, or even explain in his answer when he comes to speak, whether there are current negotiations with the European Union about getting veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland. That would be useful to know.

I return to the Bill. The reason Northern Ireland is excluded from these provisions is because the Government have had to exclude it at the behest of the EU, which has sovereignty over Northern Ireland in this area. They simply have no choice in the matter. Many people will have different views on the merits of the substance of the Bill and what it does. Whatever your view—whether you are for or against the ban on live exports—it should be a decision for lawmakers in the United Kingdom or representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the point of principle in this. In this case, the law is already decided by a foreign political entity, in which they have no say and are not represented, and the decision of which is final. This is another example of the Irish Sea border in action. There is nothing in the Government’s new Command Paper 1021 or the deal recently done that removes this; otherwise, we would not have this legislation before us today, or we would have legislation which did encompass the whole of the United Kingdom, created an exception for the Irish Republic, and would have put an end to journeys going further into the European Union, to Spain and elsewhere, which the Minister has rightly painted as being unacceptable in this day and age.

Noble Lords do not have to take my word for this. The Government’s own impact assessment on live animal exports states in paragraph 13 that the option of banning live exports of animals for slaughter

“cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland”.

I emphasise “cannot”. It says:

“Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU legislation on animal welfare in transport for as long as the Northern Ireland Protocol”—


or Windsor Framework—“is in place”. That is under Article 5 of the protocol, in conjunction with paragraph 40 of Annex 2.

The question of principle here is that the Bill does not and cannot extend to Northern Ireland, not because of any policy decision made by legislators or government but because European law demands that it cannot apply. Frankly, that is not an acceptable position in the United Kingdom in 2024. As I say, there are strong arguments in favour of the Bill, and these have been well described: the conditions under which some animals have had to travel for slaughter over long distances have been clearly highlighted. When I was the Member for North Belfast in the other place, I received countless representations on this issue. However, there are people in Northern Ireland and the farming community who point to the fact that large numbers of sheep are exported to the Irish Republic: the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made reference to the very large numbers sent from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic for slaughter; and a significant number of dairy bred calves are exported to Spain. They point to the advantages of competition in the market for livestock and the fact that there have been major improvements in standards. These arguments are well rehearsed in Northern Ireland.

However, whichever side of the argument you are on, one thing should be clear and accepted: it should be for us as legislators, either in Northern Ireland or in this place, to make that decision, rather than having it imposed on us, with UK Ministers going around trying to gild the lily or portray it as a choice. It is not a choice: their own documents admit that they cannot apply it to Northern Ireland. Why not be honest, open and transparent about the fact that we are not sovereign and cannot make our own animal welfare decisions for the whole of the country?

Once again, the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, the right of UK lawmakers to make democratic decisions, and the sovereignty of our country in this area have been set to one side. That is unacceptable. The fight will go on to highlight the denial of equal citizenship to the people of Northern Ireland as a result of these inequitable arrangements.

16:30

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his excellent introduction to this much-awaited Bill. I warmly welcome him to his new ministerial role. I hope the Bill will progress quickly through this House, based on the cross-party support it received in the other place and the broad number of animal welfare organisations that have welcomed it. I recognise that many noble Lords in this Chamber have a deep knowledge of agriculture and animal welfare, but I declare my interests as director of a company that owns a little farming land, and as a member of the Rural Economy Select Committee in 2019, and of the Farm Animal Welfare Council some time ago.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I support the Bill, following the amendments I tabled to the Agriculture Bill on this exact topic back in 2020. I argued then that we have a moral responsibility, be it as farmers or end-user consumers, to recognise that animals are sentient beings. We should seek to encourage and support the industry in raising and slaughtering them in the kindest, most humane way possible.

I do not propose to run through all the reasons why the Bill is much needed—others have done that—but we should remember that not all countries in Europe have the same attention to detail on welfare provisions as we do. I understand that some animals are even being re-exported to the Middle East. The long journeys caused intolerable stress, injury and exhaustion, and the case studies we heard were harrowing. Once animals leave our shores, there is no control over how they are kept or slaughtered. Thus, it is important that we stop this practice once and for all.

Although I understand that almost no animals go abroad for slaughter at present, we should not forget that in 2019 around 35,000 sheep and calves were being exported to the EU from the UK. Although this trade has stopped, there is no guarantee that there will not be future demand. Therefore, it is important to get the Bill on to the statute book. It is another step alongside a raft of other measures that are part of the reason why, under a Conservative Government, the UK is joint top of the animal protection index.

While we are considering journey times, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I also raise slaughterhouses in this context, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has done. I hope we all agree that, in welfare terms, animals need to be slaughtered at the nearest point to production, as my noble friend Lady Fookes stated. I am pleased that the Bill will help ensure that our animals are slaughtered domestically to our higher welfare standards.

However, EU regulations caused many small slaughter- houses to close. Numbers fell from around 1,000 in 1985 to 285 by 2006, with around 10 large companies slaughtering the majority of animals. This has caused longer travel times for the animals regionally. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take this opportunity to update us on the work of the small abattoirs working group, and the trials of the mobile abattoir project to test the use of a compact system for on-farm slaughter of livestock, which started in 2021, as referenced in the government response to the EFRA Select Committee report Moving Animals Across Borders. Of course, small abattoirs must be commercially viable businesses as well as custodians of the highest welfare standards. I await the Minister’s comments with interest.

As a party, we have previously made manifesto commitments not to compromise our food, environmental and animal welfare standards as part of any future trade deals. Allowing in food not raised to the standards we demand in the UK not only undercuts our farmers but encourages poor animal welfare standards in other countries. Last year, my noble friend Lord Benyon stated that imports to the UK for slaughter and fattening were low. Will the Minister undertake to keep this number under review in case we need to address this issue in the future? I do not propose that we hold up the Bill by seeking to add in this issue, but I insist that it is part of the continued wider conversation and aspiration to address.

In short, I welcome and support this Bill and remind your Lordships that “agriculture is a fundamental source of national prosperity”, not to mention food security, in a time when the world seems so increasingly volatile.

16:35

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his first Bill. I assure him that this is the easiest Bill he will ever touch, so getting it through quite fast would be a good idea. I also thank him for the briefing he gave. I did slightly resent his team not answering my question about where the flaws were; they suggested that that was my job, and I had to look for myself. I am not sure there has ever been a Bill since I arrived in your Lordships’ House—that was 10 years ago—that has not had at least one flaw, if not thousands, because this Government are so good at bad legislation. We see some really awful things here. I thought I might deserve a finder’s fee for spotting a “Brexit benefit”, but others had already made that joke—including, I think, the Minister himself.

The figures I have seen on live exports are absolutely horrendous. I cannot believe that people actually thought it was okay to treat animals like this—subjected to journeys of over 2,000 miles, lasting 70 hours. As other noble Lords have said, if we do not get this Bill enacted, it could start again.

I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Fookes, on the issue of other species being allowed to be brought in by the Secretary of State. I too have fought against such measures, but here I think it is appropriate. Of course, it is incredibly important that the regulation is not only tough but overseen properly. Obviously, the Minister will have implacable hostility from several noble Baronesses if that does not happen.

I do support this Bill and I think the harshest thing I can say about it is: about time.

16:37

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome this Bill and its Second Reading. It has many admirable aims, which I fully support. I declare my interest as a farmer, including sheep farming, as set out in the register. I am also a member of the NFU, which has circulated a focused briefing on the issues, with which I largely concur. Like others, I am also delighted that this is the first Bill to be led by the Minister.

I fully support the overall objective of the Bill, and of other welfare legislation granted Royal Assent in recent years. This makes our country a world leader in the treatment of animals and is something to be rightly proud of. While the overall purpose of the Bill is very good, I have concerns about its unintended side-effects, which will directly hit farmers. They are already facing the perfect storm of reduced farm payments, inflation affecting inputs, and adapting to the most monumental changes brought about by farming policy since the Agriculture Act 1947. Their export markets and the flexibility of their businesses going forward will also be adversely affected. That needs to be noted.

The trade of exporting store sheep to the continent for fattening and slaughter, while never making up the majority of UK sheep exports, was still a valuable avenue for a number of farmers, particularly in the south-east of the country, accounting at its peak for around 10% of sheep exports.

One of the main points given in support of the Bill is that since December 2020 there have been no live exports from the UK. However, this is not because farmers have simply stopped doing it, but because of the lack of proper border control posts, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to administer all the post-Brexit checks. Reopening the store market for live export is not welcomed by the Government—nor by me—but export for breeding is encouraged. Therefore, will the Minister say what additional investment the Government are putting in to make certain that the shortage of border control posts with live animal facilities is addressed?

Surely having sufficient border control points in place and encouraging the export of animals bred and transported to a high welfare level will address the likely pernicious side-effect of this legislation if the border control posts are not in place. If they are not, there will be an increase in animals being exported to our erstwhile markets of France, Belgium and the Netherlands from east European and Australasian countries, which have a much weaker animal welfare protection system in place. Our priority should be overall animal welfare, which can be achieved by better investment in border control facilities, transport infrastructure and the exploration of welfare assurance schemes, as recommended by the NFU.

My final point is that a key reason why some farmers have in the past sent non-breeding exports across the channel is that those 31 miles are closer than the nearest abattoir in the UK, due to the number of abattoir closures, which has already been highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Trees. It is estimated that number has reduced by one-third since 2014, including McIntyre Meats last week in the Prime Minister’s constituency. The unfortunate consequence is that some farmers undertake 200-mile journeys to abattoirs in the UK. While the Government’s smaller abattoir fund with £4 million available is a step in the right direction, it is unfortunately not enough, as was eloquently put by the honourable Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale when he said that it would

“not even touch the sides”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/23; col. 1187.]

of his constituency, let alone the country as a whole.

With each closure of an abattoir, farmers must travel further afield, adding to journey times, stress and the cost of production, which is making some livestock businesses unviable. Also, most importantly, it has a negative impact on animal welfare, as the affected animals have to undergo these long journeys. That completely negates what the Government are trying to achieve, particularly, as mentioned in the Government’s manifesto commitment, to end excessively long journeys for fattening and slaughter by enabling shorter and less stressful journeys. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what additional support the Government propose to prevent the closure of abattoirs and to keep the sector viable. In particular, are the Government considering creating a working group to look at the 5% rule which governs the number of animals slaughtered without a vet being present, as recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in 2021? Are the Government continuing support for the mobile abattoir pilot?

16:44

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have a vivid memory of speaking at a meeting during the referendum campaign back in 2016. All sorts of speeches were made and grand ideas put forward, and then right at the end of the meeting a lady got up and said, “I don’t care about any of this. The only reason I’m voting to leave the EU is so that we can get rid of live animal exports for slaughter”—although I do not think she actually used the word “slaughter”. It was a vivid example of how people saw specific things in the referendum campaign that they knew the EU was doing that they wanted to change, and that was one.

I am disappointed in the way that the Government have taken so long to get this relatively simple Bill to come back. It is like a number of other issues on which the idea of taking back control seems to have frightened civil servants and Ministers, so it has taken a lot longer to get these things done.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the many Peers and Members of the other place who have campaigned on this issue for a long time and kept it in the public domain. I remember clearly that in 2012-13 there were lots of demonstrations in Ramsgate and Dover, when a lot of the public saw for the first time the horror of what was going on in some of those lorries, with sheep packed in them for the long journeys ahead. It is that kind of campaigning that has got us to this stage, and that is where the noble Baroness has played such a huge role.

Of course I will support the Bill but, as others have said, there are changes that could be made, and I would certainly like it to go much further. It is not acceptable, here in the House of Lords in the United Kingdom Parliament, that the Bill is not going to apply to Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for reaching out after I had asked a question about this and having an interesting and useful meeting. I am not sure it was particularly useful in terms of changing things, but I accept that he has done his best in his role to listen to those of us who feel strongly that animal welfare should be a UK-wide matter and that ways could be found even at a late stage, in Committee, to ensure that the Bill applied to the whole country as a whole.

There is no good reason why the Bill could not have applied to Northern Ireland with an amendment clause making it clear that, when animals are exported to the Republic, a final destination must be stated when they cross over the border from Northern Ireland. The aim is to stop animals from being taken for long journeys in terrible suffering, but that will not have been achieved for the thousands of animals that will in future still be able to be transported from Northern Ireland, through the Republic and onwards into the continent of Europe and perhaps even to north Africa—much longer journeys than are happening at the moment.

As Sammy Wilson, the Member for East Antrim, said in the other place, it is a bit like Pontius Pilate; as long as the animals do not go through Great Britain, morally we can all sit back here and say, “Great, we’ve done it”, when in fact we have not changed the situation. As we all know and has been said, hardly anything has been exported over the last couple of years from Great Britain, but in all that time animals have been exported from Northern Ireland through the Republic of Ireland. It is a bit hypocritical, not from the Minister but overall from the Government, that they have tried to emphasise that Northern Ireland has been left out because of the Government’s deep concern about farmers not being able to take their cattle over the border to be fattened or to abattoirs.

On abattoirs, I absolutely agree that the ruination of small abattoirs by EU rules is also something that we should be able to act on. The £4 million sum is really very little, and that needs to be looked at.

This is not to do with protecting Northern Ireland agriculture or farmers. The truth is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said, as in so many other areas of legislation now—we are going to keep hearing this—European Union law overrules UK law in Northern Ireland. The Windsor Framework/protocol is making sure that Northern Ireland is once again being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There was a manifesto commitment from the Government, and yet, again, we have seen that the Government have to kowtow to European Union rules.

Another area in which it has just been confirmed we are going to have differences—again, an animal welfare issue—came after assurances from the Secretary of State that pets travelling from England, Scotland or Wales to Northern Ireland would no longer have any administrative bureaucracy. We now discover specifically that they are going to have to be treated differently, and will have to apply for pet documents.

The Government need to accept that, if they really wanted to, they could change the Bill to make it apply to the whole of Northern Ireland. The Minister did not mention the WTO, but I am sure he will say in his wind-up that we could not make special exceptions for the Republic of Ireland and the cross-border trade, which is important and needs to continue, because the WTO would rule that it was not possible under the favoured nations treaty.

However, there is an exemption in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, which clearly says that one of its exceptions enables states to take measures

“necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.

There has been some legal opinion published which holds that Article XX, which enables states to act “to protect public morals”, is an even stronger basis for justifying trade restrictions based on animal welfare concerns. This has been used before, including in challenges in Canada, and it is set out clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum. So there is a way of doing it. It is not even as if we have to ask permission to do it. We can do it, and then if somebody wants to complain, we can take it up with the WTO if it tries to stop it.

I do not want in any way to hold this Bill up— I know that I would not be able to ever have a cup of coffee with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, again if that happened—but there are one or two minor but very important amendments that we could debate in Committee and that the Government could accept, if they had the will. If this is not changed, and Northern Ireland cannot be brought into it, I hope that all those noble Lords who are so supportive of the European Union and think it is wonderful, and are also desperately keen on animal welfare, might perhaps decide that it would be a good idea to lobby the European Union to get rid of its rules, which allow this terrible, horrible trade to continue, right across Europe.

16:53

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and to the Second Reading of his first Bill in your Lordships’ House. Obviously, on some of the issues in the Bill, I take a different view from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

I want to talk from a Northern Ireland perspective, which may seem rather odd since Northern Ireland is not covered by this legislation, but there are very good reasons for that. The provisions in the Bill, as the Minister said, seek to prohibit the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and equines for slaughter, including fattening for subsequent slaughter, beginning in or transiting through GB to EU member states and other third countries. This in itself does not apply to Northern Ireland.

For practical, agricultural, trading, political and animal health reasons, that is the right decision. That fact was recognised by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, on 15 January, when he stated, in response to the debate, that the Bill must not jeopardise the access that Northern Ireland farmers have to the Republic of Ireland. I hope that all noble Lords recognise the economic and trading importance of agriculture to both parts of Ireland and the fact that farmers and those involved in trading try to adhere to animal health standards.

There is another feature. The island of Ireland, both north and south, is treated as a single animal health epidemiological unit. That has persisted for many years because of the nature of the trade on an ongoing daily basis, to and fro. That is essential for the agri-food industry and its success. Agri-food on the island of Ireland is interlinked. Northern Ireland’s farmers have invested much time and energy in maintaining very good, world-leading animal welfare practices, including in how animals are transported. The farming unions in Northern Ireland would refute any claims or suggestions that anti-animal welfare conditions exist. I am also mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, which is absolutely correct: with all these movements there have to be proper monitoring procedures in place. Much of that is covered by the fact that it is a single animal health epidemiological unit.

The bottom line is that Northern Ireland farmers need access to the markets. They need access to the Republic of Ireland and to mainland EU for live animals, particularly the sheep sector. Reference has already been made to this. In 2022, the last year for which statistics are available, 337,000 sheep moved from Northern Ireland to the Republic for slaughter and fattening, and about 3,500 cattle and 17,000 pigs were moved for slaughter. The dairy sector needs this avenue maintained for dairy-bred bull calves, as a limited market exists for them in Northern Ireland.

In 2018, in evidence to a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry in the other place into live animals, the farmers’ union in Northern Ireland stated that the two agri-food industries on the island of Ireland

“are highly integrated and they move both ways … That two-way movement is a historic thing and it is essential”.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board also highlighted to that committee’s inquiry the importance of processing capacity in the Republic to the red meat sectors. For example, in the pig industry, sows go across the border for slaughter and then back again.

Cross-border movement is important not only for Northern Ireland’s trade with the Republic but with other countries. Calves from Northern Ireland destined for France are regularly transported through ports in the Republic of Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, have referred to the influence of the Windsor Framework. I am glad that the Windsor Framework is in place, because it will ensure that the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is protected, as there will be the free movement of livestock for export purposes and for fattening and slaughter on the island of Ireland.

The Bill recognises that trade in live animals from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland should be allowed to continue—and I hope it will be. The Ulster Farmers’ Union and farming organisations asked for this to happen in 2018. Thankfully, this legislation recognises the need to leave Northern Ireland out of its provisions.

I have a question for the Minister about a more pertinent issue. We need to turn our attention to the EU proposals on animal transport that will apply in Northern Ireland. It is important that, in negotiations with the EU on behalf of Northern Ireland farmers, the UK Government ensure that the transport of live animals to the EU, with all the proper animal welfare conditions in place, is maintained. This is vital for the safeguarding and protection of our agri-food industry on the island, which is highly integrated. In that regard, can the Minister indicate what discussions have been held with the EU regarding the need to ensure that the transport of live animals to the mainland EU is retained? If he is not able to provide that information in his wind-up, can he write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library of your Lordships’ House?

I support this legislation. Animal welfare regulations and standards are vital to the agri-food industry, but equally important is the need to ensure that we have that free movement of animals for slaughter and fattening purposes on the island of Ireland. So, although I welcome the legislation, I am glad it does not include Northern Ireland.

17:01

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the standards of animal welfare in the UK. I add my thanks to the Minister, as he begins his new role, and to those who have campaigned for so long, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, whose birthday it is today.

I have spoken to farmers and farm vets in Suffolk, and they are clear that the exporting of animals for slaughter is not an acceptable practice, and I fully support the Bill. They raised with me a couple of related points, both of which have been made already, but I will briefly refer to them. First, we must ensure that holding British farmers to high welfare standards does not result in the undercutting of our farmers by cheaply produced imported meat that does not meet the same standards required of UK farmers. I hope the Government are able to provide farmers with the assurances they need on this matter.

Equally, it is important that consumers in Britain can feel confident that the produce they are buying meets the appropriately high standards of animal welfare that we expect of British farmers, regardless of where the meat originated. Producing food in the UK remains a vital role in protecting the food security of the country, which of course is another issue. I support calls from the NFU and others to establish core production standards that apply to agri-food imports, and to establish best practice protocols for transporting animals.

Secondly, one of the key drivers of the desire to export live animals for slaughter—a desire that could easily be reignited—has been the reduction in the number of UK slaughterhouses. As we have heard, this results in longer journeys to slaughterhouses within the UK—not only is this an animal welfare concern but it drives up emissions associated with the transport of livestock. The transport of animals to small and medium-sized abattoirs often has the shortest overall journey lengths, and it is important that we have a sufficient network of abattoirs, particularly small and medium-sized ones, so that our food supply chain can be as humane as possible.

I also add my support for the possibility of an amendment to achieve a simple device for adding new animals to the list.

As a country, we strive to be a world leader in animal welfare standards, and I fully support this legislation and its speedy progress.

17:04

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and to participate at Second Reading of this Bill. My interests are that I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place and served as an MEP for 10 years.

I am extremely proud of the high animal welfare conditions met by livestock producers in this country. Yet, as we have heard, there are no EU border posts currently in place, so it is impossible for our livestock producers to export, even for legitimate breeding purposes. While we admit breeding stock from the EU, with health checks conducted at the farm of destination, there are no reciprocal arrangements in place for British breeding stock going to the EU other than through Ireland, as we have heard. The Bill therefore seems to address a problem that does not exist—the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter—but fails to solve one that does, that of failure to export breeding stock. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the Government will address this? In the view of the National Sheep Association, it is a matter of utmost urgency.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking on this Bill as his first Bill and for his briefing with us on 30 January and subsequent letter, which I received today. I have some personal history with this issue. I was the Member of the European Parliament for the constituency which contained Brightlingsea, and exports came through that port when the Port of Dover stopped the movement of live animals in 1992. A vigorous campaign was mounted by a rather unknown organisation at that time, run by a mother and daughter, the embryo of Compassion in World Farming. The manager of the Port of Brightlingsea suffered attacks to his home and the town was overrun by visitors protesting about the transport of live animals on the ferries. I made a point of going to visit and board a ferry for myself, to see at first hand the comfortable conditions in which those sheep were transported— they were, frankly, superior to those enjoyed by foot passengers on many cross-channel ferries at that time.

It is important to note, however, that the live export of animals has always been a very limited and heavily regulated trade, as the maximum hours that animals can travel between resting periods, and feeding and watering intervals, are heavily regulated throughout the EU. Live exports of sheep and cattle—particularly sheep—were economically important to livestock producers in the north of England and Scotland for the same reasons as my noble friend and other cited regarding poultry exports, which will continue. They are of high value and meet the highest animal welfare standards, which is why our live exports of sheep were so welcome, particularly in France. The impact assessment gives the 2020 figures for exports of all livestock as 6,272 sheep for slaughter and 38,111 for fattening, with four goats for fattening—those four goats must have been very important.

The Bill raises a number of questions. Why is the ban not on a reciprocal basis? Why does it impact only producers in Great Britain? Why does it discriminate against our own producers in favour of EU exporters, in particular of breeding stock? I presume that some livestock comes from the EU to this country for fattening and slaughter purposes, no matter how small the trade —I ask my noble friend to confirm that. I would like to see an amendment from the Government to make this Bill work on the basis of reciprocity. Why is poultry excluded? The same welfare conditions should surely apply to poultry as to other livestock, such as sheep and cattle, particularly in view of the fact that they do not travel as well as other livestock such as sheep.

As we have heard from a number of speakers, the Bill contains a glaring loophole, referred to in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Dodds. Livestock movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be permitted, which means that, under the provisions of the ban in the Bill, any animal could be exported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and through the Republic of Ireland for onward export to other parts of the EU, entailing a much longer journey that undermines the key animal welfare provisions of the Bill. I understand that that route is currently the only one available for breeding stock.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, very eloquently described the importance of the agri-food industry to Northern Ireland. I would echo that: it is an extremely important industry to the whole of the United Kingdom. Given the fact that basic payments are reducing and the ELMS criteria are still extremely fuzzy, yet we face a rising need for food security, what is the government action plan for beleaguered livestock farmers, particularly in the upland areas of England, which were the source of much of the live trade in the past? Again, I understand that the figures quoted showed that, for every live animal exported, seven were in carcass form—so the vast majority of this trade will continue, but in carcass form.

A further problem that I ask the Government to address is the lack of a phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. There is a chapter in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary standards that has never come into effect. Does my noble friend not agree that it is extremely important, as others have stated this afternoon, that any import, whether from the EU or a third country coming via the EU, must match the same high standards that are applied in this country? This gap in regulatory agreement, together with the new controls at UK border posts, is causing grave concerns to farmers and consumer groups alike.

I understand that the new BTOM regulations that are coming into effect are moving the checkpoint some 20 miles from those envisaged in the port of Dover to Sevington. I would argue that that is a hostage to fortune and not conducive to effective checks on entry to this country on plant and animal health. Let us pause and remember the recent cases of ash tree dieback and horsemeat fraud, which should serve as a wake-up call for greater vigilance on imported foods, whether they are live animals for breeding purposes or plants and food products coming in through the checkpoint at Sevington. There is also concern about the reliance at sale and production points on environmental health and trading standards officers at a time when local authority budgets are under severe constraint.

I conclude by saying that no farmer has willingly exported a live animal for fattening or slaughter in recent times. I pay tribute—and I hope that my noble friend and the House will join me—to the very high standards that our farmers meet, as expected by UK consumers. I hope that the beleaguered livestock industry in this country will soon have some good news from the Government, and certainty as to what their future will be.

17:13

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I also welcome this Bill and am in awe of the passion shown by many Members of this House in getting the Bill to this stage. I note my interests in the register.

The simplicity of the Bill is a strength and I hope that it will contribute to a quick passage through the House. However, by keeping it simple, there is the potential to miss certain areas of animal welfare. The range of farm animals included are the principal main production animals, but this leaves out minority animals —it does not, for example, mention birds. I thank the Minister for his time doing the briefing on the export of young poultry, also mentioned in detail by my noble friend Lord Trees.

I also welcome and back the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Fookes, on their amendments for these species to be included, if required in the future by the Secretary of State. As humans have generally shown over the years, where there is an opportunity or a loophole, people will seek to use it in some way. This will only be to the detriment of a small number of animals and birds in the future.

Due to the focused nature of the Bill, there is a missed opportunity to improve the general legislation with regard to the transport of animals throughout the UK and for their export for breeding and competition purposes. Some of these journeys can be of significant time and length, and we need to protect animals during this transportation. I ask the Government to look again at this legislation to ensure that we continue to improve animal welfare standards during transportation, to include time and distance travelled, to monitor the health and welfare of these animals, and also to include driver skill levels, the design of transport vehicles and the stocking density.

As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, the support of local abattoirs is essential to keep the transport distance down to minimum for animals due for slaughter. This proposed legislation can only happen due to the UK leaving the EU. Animals are certainly benefiting from this legislation, but we need to ensure the farming industry as a whole benefits too. The export of farm animals was a minor but significant part of the fresh and frozen meat sector, and the only reason it has reduced is the lack of EU border control posts, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.

When this legislation is passed, this potential profitable and alternative market will be closed to English, Scottish and Welsh farmers due to the welcome higher animal welfare standards. I therefore ask the Minister to encourage the Government to begin, as asked for by the NFU, a formal process of developing and establishing a core production standard that applies to all agricultural imports, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. These standards should apply to all future international trade deals, to prevent the undercutting of British farmers, whose costs are increased by high animal welfare standards —which we all welcome.

All these high standards need to apply not only to production but to biosecurity, and these issues were highlighted by my noble friend Lord Trees in a recent debate on biosecurity. It is important that, if we cannot export our livestock for slaughter, we export and promote the UK’s high animal welfare standards and maintain a level trading playing field for all UK livestock producers.

17:17

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has set out clearly the purposes and remit of the Bill, and we have heard very interesting contributions from across the House. I support the Bill and the contributions that have been made. These measures were in the Conservative manifesto, and the Government are keen to get the Bill in statute. Before they go to the electorate again, they want to be able to say, “We delivered on our manifesto”.

Sadly, this is not exactly the case. Before I go on to deal with what the Bill includes, I will mention those issues which it does not: banning puppy smuggling, amending the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, banning the keeping of primates as pets, and protecting sheep from dangerous dogs.

When the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill, they were relying on a number of Private Members’ Bills and smaller government Bills to fill the gaps. Some Private Members’ Bills were successful. The banning of glue traps was one example, thanks to the intrepid noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. Others, such as banning the import of hunting trophies, were not.

However, we are today debating the Animal Welfare (Livestock Export) Bill. We have heard from many who, quite rightly, are passionate about animal welfare—the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, are such. I am grateful for the briefings I have received from the NFU, the RSPCA, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Compassion in World Farming, and the House of Lords Library.

As has been said, the Bill prohibits the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and equines for slaughter or fattening for subsequent slaughter. No animals have been transported for those purposes since December 2020, which is due entirely to Brexit and there no longer being any suitable border control posts in French or Belgian ports to receive the live exports. However, there is nothing to stop suitable border control posts being set up specifically for that purpose in future. It is therefore essential that UK law is changed now to prevent the export of live animals for slaughter or fattening before slaughter.

The ban does not apply to live animal movements for breeding and competition purposes, provided that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the animal’s health and well-being during transportation. That provides much-needed reassurance to the owner of equines and other breeding stock. Day-old chicks are exempt from the provisions of the Bill, as we have already heard.

In September 2021, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place published a report that welcomed the proposed legislative ban included in the Bill. That was over two years ago—although nothing as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has been waiting. This issue is taking far too long time to get into statute. Let us hope that we can speed up the process.

There is an issue around the number and distribution of abattoirs, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others referred to. In the past, there were abattoirs in easy reach of farmers; however, that is no longer the case and farmers are taking their animals further and further to slaughter. That is good for neither the animals nor the farmers, who are spending so much time away from their farms. I recently met a colleague whom I had not seen for some considerable time, and asked how she was doing. She said that she had given up her farming, as she was having to transport her stock over 200 miles for slaughter. She felt that that was not good for her animals and the cost made it uneconomic to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also referred to the journey times to abattoirs. I understand that the Government are making £4 million available in the form of grants to support smaller abattoirs to improve, but also needed are more accessible abattoirs, so that farmers do not have to travel so far. Are the Government planning to increase the number of abattoirs, particularly in rural areas? The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, also raised that issue.

The majority of the comments that I have received have been overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. However, the NFU has expressed concern that no impact assessments were provided with the proposals. The impact assessment that was provided had been produced for the kept animals Bill, which was subsequently abandoned. That IA indicated that a loss of around £5.2 million over a 10-year period would be suffered, mainly by sheep exporters; the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to sheep farmers. That is a significant sum for a section of the farming community that is generally not affluent.

The NFU is concerned that British farmers will be undercut by imports that do not meet the same high animal welfare standards that exist here. The NFU is calling for the establishment of core production standards that apply to agri-food imports. That would assist in providing a level playing field for British farmers. I fully support the NFU on that and agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. The British Veterinary Association and the Farmers’ Union of Wales also support the call for British livestock farmers not to be undercut by trade deals that do not meet equivalent animal welfare standards. Can the Minister give reassurance on that issue?

The Bill does not ban the import of live animals for slaughter, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to. In July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, stated that,

“from 2019 to 2021, only 91 cattle and 14 sheep were imported for slaughter from the mainland EU”.—[Official Report, 10/7/23; col. 1512.]

Can the Minister give an update on that figure and say how many animals are currently imported for slaughter, if any?

The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and we have heard from some of those directly affected by that this afternoon—the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Ritchie. However, the movement of live animals covered by the Bill is still allowed throughout the island of Ireland, as Northern Ireland is treated as part of the EU, which we have already heard eloquently explained. The movement of animals within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is still allowed. However, all live ruminants from Great Britain are currently banned from entering Northern Ireland due to a case of bluetongue virus in Kent. Is this ban likely to be lifted any time soon?

Compassion in World Farming says that in 2019-20, animals were transported to designations in Bulgaria and Hungary via Northern Ireland. Even when exports were destined for the Republic of Ireland, there was no way of knowing what the final destination would be, as Eire has a large live export trade to the EU and the Middle East. However, once the Bill becomes law, this trade will end and the risk to animal welfare will cease from GB.

The Northern Ireland livestock market is affected by live animal exports restrictions, as in 2020 this trade was worth £938 million—that is, 31% of Northern Ireland total exports to Ireland. The NFU believes that the live trade is essential to stimulate competition for livestock and to ensure that farmers have access to the best paying markets—the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also referred to this. The RSPCA believes that the wording of the Bill is compatible with WTO rules and meets the conditions of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol.

This is a fairly short, uncomplicated Bill. It aims to prevent animals being shipped overseas for fattening and slaughter, a process which causes distress as the animals are often kept in restricted conditions and have limited access to food and water. We have heard many examples this afternoon describing the suffering of the animals as a result. It seems that all contributors to this debate are in agreement. As a nation of animal lovers, the public are fully on board with the aim of the Bill and want it passed quickly. The Bill is not completely perfect but I urge all present to support it unamended to hasten its passage.

17:27

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as set out in the register as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, and I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill.

We welcome this legislation. Labour has previously called for a ban on live exports and I have personally campaigned on it as well—although not as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has worked so long and hard on this; I congratulate her on her efforts and her birthday present today. However, we regret that it has taken so long to bring the Bill forward. We have heard about the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which disappeared last May. If that had come forward, this could be on the statute book already. Therefore it is of regret that we did not do this sooner but we are pleased to see that we are debating it today. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, certain elements of that Bill are still to appear, so we hope to see that promised legislation also coming forward.

As we heard, the Bill applies to cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, wild boar, horses and certain other related animals, with the proposed ban applying only to slaughter and fattening exports, and clearly not prohibiting animals travelling for other purposes—for example, breeding or competition. Yet the export of breeding stocks represented a huge percentage of all exports pre Brexit in 2019. I heard that one intention following Brexit was to intensify this by making the UK

“the centre for breeding stock and genetic exports for the world”,

according to the director of the UK Export Certification Partnership. Can the Minister say whether the intention is still to support that?

Considering that the intention to ban livestock export is on welfare grounds and that breeding stocks are exported and then transported using the same standards as for fattening and slaughter stocks, it is also critical that these journeys are undertaken to the highest standards. A number of noble Lords have talked about this. Obviously, it is good that animals are not transported when conditions at sea are poor, but we need clearer regulations and information about what happens to the animals while they are waiting for better sea conditions in order to be transported. How are they kept? Are they still in the trucks? Are they unloaded? How are they fed and watered? What are those conditions? It is important that the Government provide reassurance on that.

As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, animal welfare can be compromised during long-distance live travel. Animals can experience a range of problems, such as physical injury, hot or cold stress, hunger, hydration and exhaustion, and during export overcrowding means that some cannot lie down at all, while those who do may be injured or trampled. Different animals suffer in different ways. For example, pigs can become very travel sick, even on very short journeys. Newly weaned piglets are more vulnerable than older animals, particularly to temperature changes, so I was very pleased that noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Trees—talked about the closure of abattoirs and how that has increased travel distances for animals on our own shores.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the government funding for abattoirs but the problem with that is that it is to support only existing abattoirs. It will not solve the problem where abattoirs have already closed and left huge gaps with no abattoirs for many miles. I hope that the Minister takes that away because we need to look at how we replace the abattoirs that have gone.

I thank a number of organisations for their briefings. The RSPCA talked about animals being transported to Spain on journeys that lasted up to 96 hours and some animals being slaughtered in Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon and Libya after being re-exported—and, of course, non-stun slaughter is the norm there. Once animals have left our shores, we have no control over how they are reared or slaughtered. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave some fairly graphic examples of the terrible conditions that animals have suffered.

We have also heard that live exports of calves halted after 2019 and live exports of sheep halted after 2020. The final export of live farm animals overseas occurred with five lorries laden with sheep leaving Dover on 31 December 2020. Since then, no live sheep have been exported across the channel because, as we have heard, no border control posts have been set up by France and Belgium to receive them and post Brexit animals must go through a BCP. Noble Lords have asked why we need the Bill. It is because without a legal ban the exports could start up again, leaving thousands of British animals vulnerable to cruel, stressful and often unnecessary journeys.

If a suitable BCP were to be installed at Calais and the UK Government had not secured this live-export ban in law, the trade could resume via the same vessels and routes that were being used before January 2021. Additionally, while commercial ferry companies currently do not accept the transportation of live animals for slaughter or fattening overseas on sailings across the English Channel, there is nothing in law to prevent them changing that position. Another scenario is that an individual or company could charter a vessel to operate between Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would allow the trade to resume via Ireland, where there is then a large onward trade to the rest of the EU and beyond.

The Bill is designed to prevent this from occurring, and we support that. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick have talked about the impact on Northern Ireland and how the Bill relates to Northern Ireland and the Republic. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response because these are legitimate questions and concerns for ensuring that this legislation operates as we hope.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, made the important point about keeping a close eye on imports, as did other noble Baronesses. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about farming concerns, and the NFU has raised concerns about trade negotiations with countries that export large numbers of animals for fattening and slaughter. It is very important that British livestock farmers are not undercut by imports that do not meet the same high standards that we adhere to in this country—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich talked at length about this. I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that we signed trade deals not very long ago with at least one country that does not have standards compatible with this proposed legislation. For example, Australia still permits the live export of animals over long distances, including overseas. Lower animal welfare standards should not be imported, and we should be using our influence to drive up standards in the countries with which we do trade deals.

Poultry has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, but poultry and rabbits are excluded from the Bill. We know that they are highly sensitive to the effects of heat stress; rabbits and poultry were the most frequently exported animals pre Brexit, particularly the trade in day-old chicks, which we have heard about during the debate, and neither is any more resilient to transportation than any other animal. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the exclusion of poultry from the Bill; if poultry and rabbits are not included, it is important that we have very strong assurances that any cross-border trade from Britain in day-old chicks and rabbits will meet strict transport and animal welfare standards. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about standards during transport, and it is important that we have those strong reassurances, and that proper checks are done, so we can feel that any people who break those standards are held to account.

Finally, I will briefly mention horses. World Horse Welfare recently drew the attention of the EFRA Select Committee to the huge numbers that are still illegally exported to Europe, under the guise of sport, competition or breeding, where they end up being slaughtered. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of this practice because if transport for breeding and competition is allowed, it is important that it does not open the door to such illegal practices. Are the Government intending to tackle this as part of implementing the Bill into law? It is really important that this is stopped. I also support my noble friend Lady Young regarding the opportunity to add further animals into the Bill as an amendment to cover any future issues. It is important that the Bill is as solid as it possibly can be, and there are always changes in the future that we need to manage as we go through legislation.

In conclusion, banning live export for fattening and slaughter has been both a Labour and Conservative manifesto commitment—and of other parties as well—so we strongly support the Bill. We want to see it get Royal Assent as soon as possible, so I hope that, in a general election year, the Government will treat this as a priority, because we cannot afford to risk it being lost.

17:39

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all 14 noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken for their thoughtful and constructive comments, and in particular those, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who congratulated me on my appointment and my first Bill. It is a pleasure to have delivered such a happy birthday present to my noble friend Lady Fookes.

As we have heard, the Bill will end the unnecessary export of livestock and horses for slaughter and fattening, and prevent the associated stress, exhaustion and injury caused by these journeys. It signals to our international partners our firm commitment to improving welfare standards for all kept animals, reinforcing our position as global leaders on this important issue. Many animal welfare groups, as well as a number of parliamentarians, have called for this ban on live exports. We know that there is also huge public support for this measure. There is clear and broad recognition that we must end these unnecessary journeys.

Before I address a number of the specific questions, I will briefly touch on two things. The first, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is the bluetongue virus, which is very current. I do not have a timeframe for when this restriction will be lifted, but I will get back to her as soon as I do. The second, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is the welfare of animals during a transport delay. I will write and confirm the exact details of how they are looked after and how we address this issue.

I turn now to the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Jones, my noble friend Lady Fookes and many others queried why other species were not within the scope of the ban. I assure them that the Bill’s definition of “relevant livestock” covers all species for which there has been a significant slaughter export trade, which the Government consulted on in 2020. In the 10 years prior to EU exit, the live export trade for slaughter and fattening mainly involved sheep and unweaned calves.

Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA, both leading campaigners on banning live exports for the past 50 years, agree that the Bill covers the relevant species to end this unnecessary trade. Responding to proposed amendments in the other place, Compassion in World Farming said that it is not aware of any alpacas, llamas or deer being exported for slaughter, and the RSPCA said that only sheep, calves and horses have been exported from Britain for slaughter over the last 10 years.

The issue of small abattoirs was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Trees and Lord de Clifford, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson, so it was a popular subject today. Many asked what further financial assistance there is for small abattoirs and what work we are doing to promote and market sheep products, particularly in order to develop our meat export trade. The farming investment fund has offered access to financial support to establish new producer-led abattoirs. Now that the first round is closed, we will assess how the scheme has performed and will investigate the potential launching of a second round later this year. The Government are working with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and industry to help secure market access for world-class British red meat and dairy, empowering our exporters to maximise opportunities on the global stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, queried whether Northern Ireland could be used as a loophole for transporters wanting to export livestock for slaughter and fattening. I assure him that the requirements when moving animals to Northern Ireland would make such a slaughter trade uneconomic. Livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to the slaughterhouse. It would be an offence to take them anywhere else. When livestock are moved for other purposes, they must be moved directly to the holding destination and remain there for at least 30 days. Failure to do so is an offence and may result in prosecution. We will also continue to monitor volumes over the next few years as this policy takes effect.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

The Minister rightly said that, in theory, anyway, the 30-day period stops in respect of transportation from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. But what about all the animals in Northern Ireland that will not be affected by that limit, and that will go to the Republic and down to Rosslare, and on a long journey to France and then Morocco?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Once animals have passed into the Republic of Ireland, that is outwith the jurisdiction of the Bill. That is the current position.

I would like to address the issues eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, concerning Northern Ireland and the Bill. I hope they will appreciate that I am somewhat constrained in this respect. Perhaps I might write to them separately on the issues they have raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the question of negotiations with the EU on veterinary medicines going into Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to seeing a long-term, sustainable solution ahead of December 2025 that will properly support the flow of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland from Great Britain on an enduring basis. It remains our priority to find a solution, through technical talks with the EU, that removes the barriers to supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland. The Government are very clear that, in all scenarios, it is imperative to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland. If necessary, we will deploy all available flexibilities in line with our legal obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the impact of this legislation on farmers and businesses. The current position is that we expect the ban to have minimal impact. We published an impact assessment in 2021, which can be accessed via the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. We estimated the direct cost to businesses of ending live exports to be around £5.2 million across the 10-year appraisal period, or around £500,000 per year. As there have been no exports for this purpose since 2020, the impact will have further decreased.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also asked about border control posts on the northern coast of France. EU border control posts can be operated only with the approval of the competent authority in the relevant EU member state. The majority of BCPs are privately operated, and the main barrier to date for the establishment of a BCP for livestock is the commercial viability of such a site. We have encouraged our counterparts in France to do more to support commercial efforts to construct and operate a BCP for livestock, and we continue to engage with them to try to resolve this issue.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, may I press my noble friend on that point? Across the European Union, most ports are owned by the state. Is there any wriggle room whereby my noble friend and the Government could ask the Government of France to look into providing some sort of help? It looks like a rather protectionist measure as it stands.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I understand my noble friend’s point. I assure her that our officials are working very hard on this issue, but it is not going at pace at the moment.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked why the Bill had been brought forward, given that there are other issues facing our farming sector. It is important that we put a permanent end to this unnecessary trade. Although there have been no exports of livestock for slaughter recently, given that there is demand from the EU for sheep from Great Britain, we would expect that trade to restart in the future if we did not legislate to ban live exports now. She also asked whether there were any plans to introduce a corresponding ban on animals imported for slaughter and fattening. There has never been a particularly significant import trade for either: for example, in 2019, only 91 cattle and 178 sheep were imported for slaughter or fattening from mainland Europe.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, reflected on the Government’s broader animal welfare commitments. I take this opportunity to reassure them that we remain committed to our other animal welfare manifesto commitments, which are to crack down on illegal puppy smuggling, ban the keeping of primates as pets, and prevent livestock worrying.

On the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised on poultry, when we consulted on banning live exports for slaughter or fattening, we were clear that we were not proposing to extend the ban to poultry. There have been no exports of adult poultry for slaughter in recent years. I appreciate that the poultry industry and breeding companies export around 25 million day-old chicks every year, but no welfare concerns have been identified with this practice.

I once again thank all those who have spoken for their thoughtful and valuable comments. It has been hugely encouraging to hear the broad consensus throughout the debate on the importance of protecting and enhancing the welfare of the animals in our care. It is also clear that we can agree on the core aims of the Bill.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

UK Economy

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 19 February.

“High inflation remains the biggest barrier to growth, which is why halving it is still our top priority. Thanks to decisive action supported by the Government, inflation has fallen from over 11% to 4%. The Bank of England is forecasting that it will fall to around 2% by early summer, in only a matter of months, which is much faster than previously thought.

It is important to put all this in context. Just over a year ago, the Bank of England was forecasting the longest recession in 100 years. That has not happened, and the British economy has proved resilient in the face of unprecedented shocks. Forecasters, including the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund, agree that growth will strengthen over the next few years, with the IMF forecasting that we will grow faster than Japan, Germany, France, Italy and many others, on average, over the next five years. Wages have been higher than inflation for six months in a row, unemployment remains very low, and we are backing British business by delivering the biggest business tax cut in modern British history and rewarding work by cutting taxes for working people.

These are all reasons to be positive about the economy turning a corner. If we stick to our plan, we can be confident of seeing pressures reduce for families and of achieving healthy economic growth. At the Autumn Statement, we unveiled 110 growth measures, including unlocking £20 billion of business investment. This includes a substantial labour market package, delivering a tax cut to national insurance for 27 million people, as well as reforming pensions and extending investment zones. The real risk to economic growth and prosperity in this country is the fact that the Labour party has no plan for growth—no plan at all. While they may pretend that they have abandoned their £28 billion pledge, they are still committed to their damaging 2030 energy policy, which, as the leader of the Opposition has said, costs £28 billion. All of us across this House know what that means: higher taxes and lower growth with Labour”.

17:52

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK’s growth forecast was recently downgraded for every single year for the next three years. Debt is set to surpass £3 trillion for the first time ever. We are seeing the biggest ever fall in living standards and the tax burden is set to reach its highest ever level. Now, the ONS has confirmed that Britain has fallen into recession, with GDP per capita falling in every single quarter of the past year. Yet the Chancellor says, “Our plan is working”. Was it part of the Government’s plan, having spent 14 years in the economic slow lane, to now put our economy into reverse?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

I absolutely believe that our plan is working. It is critical that we continue along the path that we have set out. One of the biggest challenges we have faced in this country over recent months is high inflation. That is the biggest barrier to growth and that is why halving it is still our top priority. Thanks to decisive action, supported by the Government, inflation has fallen. If one looks at what happens when inflation falls, one sees that interest rates can also fall, which will also mean that growth will begin to rise. The noble Lord mentioned growth. It is the case that the Government have very clear policies for growth. Noble Lords will discuss them with me shortly, as we debate the Finance Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Resolution Foundation has reported that GDP per capita is now 4.2% below its path before the cost of living crisis. That is the equivalent of a loss of nearly £1,500 per household. The OBR has said that we are set to see the biggest fall in living standards since 1950. Do the Government understand that, for ordinary people, their plan is delivering real day-to-day pain and often deprivation? Nothing she has said or proposes to do changes that, as she will see if she looks at the forecasts.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

What is absolutely clear is that the forecasts show that the UK is forecast to grow, and very strongly. The IMF has forecast that we are to grow faster than Japan, Germany, France and Italy over the next five years. I absolutely accept that the economy has seen some very significant challenges over recent years, with global instability in Ukraine and in the Middle East, and the legacy of Covid. I was a Minister throughout that period, and at no time did I ever hear any ideas from the party opposite or the Liberal Democrats that would have put the economy in a better situation than it is in now. They called always for more spending, for longer periods. We must fix the issues that appeared, mostly due to external factors, which is exactly what we are doing. The economy is turning a corner—indeed, it has turned a corner, thanks to our decisive action.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to global headwinds. Would she accept that an economy such as the United States has experienced exactly the same headwinds? Instead of opening our newspapers and reading that the Chancellor intends to give enormous universal tax cuts on 6 March, would it not be more sensible for the Government to acknowledge that the people who are hurting the most from the cost of living crisis are the people at the bottom lower income deciles? Those are the people who should be targeted for assistance if there is any money going.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Obviously, I cannot comment on any potential tax cuts. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the US has a very different economic structure from the UK and tends to offer slightly less support to those at the bottom end of the ladder. She mentioned those who are the most vulnerable. Personal allowances have gone up by 30% in real terms than in 2010. That means that 30% of people now pay no tax. We are focusing our interventions on people at the lower end of the income scale, but we are also focusing them on growing business.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Would my noble friend agree that comparisons with the United States are not really appropriate, particularly given cheap energy costs in the States due to fracking, which we do not have? It might be better to compare us with European countries. Since 2010, the UK has had the fastest growth of any European G7 country—faster than Italy, Spain, Germany and France. Will she welcome today’s news that the budget surplus for net borrowing, excluding banks, shows a surplus for January of £16.76 billion, and today’s announcement that the UK purchasing managers index rose in January to 52.9? Rather than knocking the economy, let us celebrate the good news.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend—let us celebrate good news, and I believe there will be more good news to come. He mentioned debt. It is fair to reassure noble Lords that we are on track for debt to fall as a share of the economy. Public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP is expected to fall next year to the end of the forecast. If one were to exclude Bank of England debt, it will fall in the final year, and public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall every single year. We also have the second-lowest debt as a share of GDP in the G7.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about curbing inflation. The Government have a very strange policy. I characterise it as somebody who has an ailment and goes to see their doctor, who dusts off a 100 year-old book in which, regardless of the reasons for the ailment, the answer is the same remedy. Whether inflation is caused by wage rises, inequalities or profiteering, it is the same policy: we must increase interest rates and force ordinary people to hand over their wealth to the banks. That is no policy, because it causes other ailments. Will the Minister tell us what other ailments have been caused by this remedy adopted by the Government?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As the noble Lord will know, interest rates are just one of the levers that the Bank of England has to influence inflation. The Government can also play a key role in tackling inflation —for example, by ensuring that public sector pay awards are kept within reasonable bounds.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Can I have another bite here? The Minister said that public sector wages are within reasonable bounds, which suggests that the Government think wage rises are inflationary. But that does not apply to executive pay, profiteering, dividends or share buybacks—are they not inflationary as well? If they are, why are the Government not curbing them?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The noble Lord well knows that inflation is caused by a vast amount of different factors. When we announced our interventions at the Autumn Statement, the OBR said that they were not inflationary. That is another way in which the Government put downward pressure on inflation. As we have seen, the proof is in the pudding; we have gone from 11% in October 2022 to 4% in January 2024.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister feels encouraged by the latest figures. Can she understand why some people who have inflated mortgages feel they have them because of the antics of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng—which is admittedly not the responsibility of the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, the reason interest rates are particularly high is to control inflation. The Bank of England now expects inflation to get back to the target of around 2% in the early summer. If that can happen, then of course interest rates would be able to come down.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will my noble friend consider a longer-term anti-inflationary policy such as ensuring that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, and the governor, build into their forecasting model a measure to take account of the growth in money supply each year?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I will take that idea back to the Bank of England.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that it is highly complimentary to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng to suggest that their actions are responsible for interest rates in every country around the world, which are broadly comparable to ours?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I think I said earlier on in answering this question, all sorts of countries have faced the challenges that the UK has. There have been a number of countries, over the second half of 2023—either in Q3 or Q4—that saw a small technical contraction in their economy. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, believes that the technical recession may already be over. I expect us to return to growth very soon.

Finance Bill

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (and remaining stages)

18:02

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the Finance Bill. As I explained during a memorable debate in your Lordships’ House last year, the Autumn Statement was designed with three purposes in mind: “to drive growth” across the economy, to create jobs, and to ensure that hard-working people can keep more of what they earn.

As many noble Lords will know, since the beginning of 2023 we have been working on five priorities. Three of those priorities are economic: to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce the national debt. I will outline our current economic picture in more detail shortly. A year on from when we set out these priorities, I am pleased to report that there has been some significant progress.

Inflation has fallen from 11.1% to 4%, and this has led to two positive outcomes: wages are rising faster than inflation, and mortgage rates are starting to come down. On growth, like some other similar economies, the UK faced challenges at the end of 2023, but overall the economy was larger at the end of the year than at the start. The Bank of England and the IMF forecast growth to increase over the next few years. Finally, our national debt is on track to fall as a share of the economy.

The Government proposed at the Autumn Statement to put money back in people’s pockets, cut taxes and “back British business”. That is why the National Insurance Contributions Act has reduced national insurance from 12% to 10%, delivered a tax cut for 29 million working people, and saved the average worker £450 a year. But I recognise that times are still far too tough for far too many. That is why we need to stick to our plan, so we can deliver the long-term change our country needs to deliver a brighter future for Britain, and improve economic security and opportunity for everyone.

As part of delivering our broader long-term plan, we need to deliver our Autumn Statement commitments. This Finance Bill does exactly that. First, it will support British businesses by allowing them to invest for less. Secondly, it will support employment, by ensuring that hard work pays, through reforms to our pensions system. Finally, its measures will improve and simplify our tax system, ensuring that it is fit for purpose. Indeed, the Finance Bill covers 36 different measures in total, some more technical than others.

Before I delve into the specifics of these measures, I will first outline some of the economic context behind this Finance Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, inflation—and the subsequent impact on the cost of living—has been the Government’s key challenge since Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Therefore, it is significant that, as I noted previously, inflation has more than halved, from 11.1% in late 2022 to 4% in February. Our key priority remains getting inflation back to the 2% target, to drive sustainable growth. The recent GDP figures are a reminder that, while inflation has more than halved from 11% to 4%, wages are rising, mortgage rates are falling and taxes are being cut. But we are not out of the woods yet; there is more to do. The OBR has projected that the 2023 Autumn Statement policies will have “lasting supply-side effects”. Combined with policies from the Spring Budget in 2023, this approach will permanently boost output by 0.5% by 2028-29.

I will now outline the measures in the Bill which will back British business, reward work, and support a modern and simpler tax system. I turn to the suite of measures to back British business. First, we will make full expensing permanent, thus allowing businesses to invest for less. As a result, firms will save £10 billion a year—the most generous plant and machinery capital allowances of any major economy. This will drive 0.1% GDP growth over the next five years, and that number will increase to 0.2% every year over the longer term. It is forecast to unlock an additional £3 billion of investment per year.

The Government’s second measure recognises the importance of research and development. R&D is important because of its dual role: driving economic growth and bringing benefits to wider society through innovation. Therefore, we will merge two government programmes: the R&D expenditure credit scheme and the small to medium-size enterprises scheme. This will have two key impacts: it will simplify the system and provide greater support for UK firms to drive innovation. These changes will apply from 2024 onwards. I note that the Government have consulted widely on proposed changes to the R&D tax credit system over a considerable period. We have decided to proceed with an April 2024 implementation date to move the system to a more stable footing at the earliest opportunity.

In the Bill we have gone even further, by introducing greater support for loss-making R&D-intensive SMEs. In addition, we will also lower the R&D intensity threshold required to access this support to 30%. As a result, around 5,000 extra SMEs will now be covered by the support and will receive £27 per £100 of qualifying R&D invested.

I note that noble Lords on the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee want us to simplify this scheme further by bringing it within the merged scheme at a higher rate of relief. It is worth being aware that the intensive scheme will share many of the merged scheme’s rules, including on subcontracting, albeit with a different rate mechanism given that the merged scheme is above the line. While there is potentially an option to simplify in the future, further work is needed to establish how that would operate while still targeting the scheme effectively.

These measures will significantly increase support to firms’ R&D efforts by about £280 million per year by 2028-29. We will also extend the sunset clause for two more programmes: the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Both will be extended to 6 April 2035, providing support to young companies in their endeavours to raise capital.

The UK’s creative industries grew 1.5 times faster than the wider economy between 2010 and 2019. It is therefore right that the Government offer them their fullest support. That is why we will reform tax reliefs to refundable expenditure credits for the film, TV and video games industries. In addition, we have designed targeted measures to boost investment in three areas: animated film, animated TV and children’s TV programmes. These areas will now be eligible for a 5% uplift in tax relief to a 39% credit rate.

This Government believe that hard work must be appropriately rewarded. That is why we are using this Bill to legislate for the abolition of the lifetime allowance. The OBR estimates that this will retain 15,000 workers annually in the UK labour market. The British Medical Association described it as

“potentially transformative for the NHS”,

because many of the individuals will be highly skilled, including senior doctors. We will effect this transformation with the right incentives. The removal of pension tax limits will motivate individuals to work harder for longer so that they can reap the rewards in future years.

Finally, I turn to measures in support of the third objective of our Finance Bill, a simpler and modernised tax system. This Bill, as I previously mentioned, makes full expensing permanent, which is a huge simplification for larger firms, but we are also supporting more than 4 million smaller, growing traders by expanding the “cash basis”. This will simplify the process for them to calculate their profits and pay income tax. We have closely consulted industry and, as result, the Government will legislate to remove three of the main restrictions on using the cash basis, completely removing limits on the size of businesses able to use the basis, interest deductions and the loss relief available.

We must also make sure that HMRC delivers on its strategic objective to collect the right tax at the right time. The Bill will deliver this by enabling HMRC to reduce the off-payroll working PAYE liability of a deemed employer which is responsible for ensuring that PAYE is calculated and sent to HMRC correctly. This will apply where that engagement was incorrectly treated as self-employed for tax purposes.

Of course, we need to ensure that UK plc is following, adopting and influencing developments on taxation on the global stage. That is why in the spring we legislated to implement OECD pillar 2 in the UK. This built on a historic international agreement to a two-pillar solution to the tax challenges of a globalised digital economy. This Bill goes on to make technical amendments to the main pillar 2 rules, as identified from stakeholder consultation, and ensures that the UK remains consistent with the latest internationally agreed guidance.

We will also take forward other technical measures, such as improving the data HMRC collects from its customers. These will result in a trusted, modern tax administration system. However, a simple, modernised tax system must also be fundamentally fair. Therefore, this Bill will create a criminal offence for promoters of tax avoidance specifically where persons continue to promote a scheme after the receipt of a stop notice. The Bill will also ensure that HMRC is empowered to respond more quickly to tackle promoters of tax avoidance. It will do so by introducing a new power for HMRC to bring disqualification action against the directors of companies involved in promoting tax avoidance. The scope of that power will include being applicable against those who control or exercise influence over a company.

Further to that objective of fairness, our next measure under this objective will amend the construction industry scheme to reduce the scope for tax fraud in that industry. To do so, the amendment will add VAT to the gross payment status test. This means two things: VAT compliance will now be checked as part of this process and HMRC powers to remove gross payment status will be enhanced. We will also legislate to confirm that, in line with the retained EU law Act, where UK law is incompatible with EU law, UK VAT and excise law will prevail. This measure also ensures the stability of the VAT and excise regimes while providing legal certainty for business following the changes in the retained EU law Act taking effect. This protects billions of pounds for the Exchequer.

This Finance Bill delivers some of the Chancellor’s key announcements at Autumn Statement 2023. As I have set out, it backs British business, rewards hard work and supports a modern and simpler tax system. I beg to move.

18:15

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Finance Bill gives us a chance to raise issues which others may regard as hobby horses but which I think are important topical, technical matters that are worth drawing to the Minister’s attention. I have two issues on my agenda. The first is the implications for recipients of the state pension of the Government’s policy of freezing income tax personal allowances and the second is the taxation of pension benefits following the abolition of the lifetime allowance.

Those with a very long memory will be aware that there is something called the Rooker-Wise amendment, “Rooker” being my noble friend Lord Rooker. Back in 1977, it was laid down for the first time in legislation that the personal allowance should be increased each year in line with inflation. I think that, technically, that is still in force, but successive Governments, including this Government, have opted out, through Finance Bills, of that requirement to index-link. My understanding —and I ask the Minister for confirmation—is that the freeze, which is now proposed to go up to 2027-28, was provided for in last year’s Finance Act and so there is no need for it to appear again in this Bill. Does that imply that the Government have given up on rolling forward the period for which the personal allowance will be frozen? It is shorter this year than last year. Is that a clear statement of policy or has it just been left out? We cannot forecast the Budget. Will we be told? Perhaps we will if it is not in the Budget and not in purdah. Does the freezing last only until the year that we were told it would be or is it going to be rolled forward another year?

That is very pertinent to the main point that I want to raise, which is the impact of freezing the personal allowance on pensioners, particularly those dependent mainly on the state pension. As we know, the state pension is being increased in line with the triple lock, to which all parties are currently committed, so it goes up by inflation, earnings or 2.5%, whereas the personal allowance is frozen. The new state pension is rapidly catching up with the personal allowance. My figures, based on estimates by the Office for Budget Responsibility, are that the new state pension will catch up with the personal allowance by 2027-28 and that in the following year, 2028-29, it will exceed the personal allowance.

The practical problem is that pensions are not part of the PAYE system. Where people receive a state pension—many pensioners receive a state pension that is greater than the new state pension because they have retained rights from the previous scheme—they will owe tax but are not part of the tax system. Instead, at the beginning of the following year they get a brown envelope in the post saying, “You owe us some money”. That is going to become more and more frequent as the state pension increases but the personal allowance is frozen.

I want the Government to say they are fully aware of this problem and are on the case. The obvious answer is that the state pension ought to be brought within the remit of the PAYE system so that people pay the taxes due over the year, as people do out of their earnings. However, I have not yet heard the Government say either that they understand the issue that is coming down the road or that they are going to do anything about it.

I emphasise that the hardest hit will be those earning income entirely from the state pension—maybe they do not have any other income or it is very small—that is slightly larger than the new state pension. We are talking £15,000 a year, which is not exactly riches. That is over £2,000 more than the personal allowance so they will be liable for 20% tax on that £2,000, which is £400. Someone on £15,000 a year is going to get a request for £400, to be paid as a lump sum. That is untenable. It will be a crisis when it arrives, and I just hope the Government can get ahead of the issue.

I turn to pensions taxation. Clause 14 and Schedule 9 deal with the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge. The Financial Secretary said in the Commons, when introducing the Bill, that this was intended as part of a policy to

“remove both barriers to work and incentives not to work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/23; col. 925.]

Those remarks were echoed by the Minister in this House. Indeed, the OBR estimated that the abolition of the lifetime allowance would mean there would be 15,000 more people in work, not least in the medical profession. That is an estimate based on behavioural change so we have to be a bit sceptical, but still it will have had an impact.

However, the Government have been too quick to congratulate themselves on solving the problem of pension taxation on highly skilled professionals, given the extent to which they will still be leaving their jobs because of the impact of the pension tax system. In my view, the annual allowance has always been the bigger problem. Particularly when someone is at work, the annual allowance means that early the following year they get another brown envelope relating to a significantly larger sum of money, saying, in some cases, “You owe a sum in excess of £100,000”. That is not unknown, so this is a serious issue. The Government may think they have addressed that because they have increased the annual allowance from £40,000 to £60,000, but still on £60,000 there will be highly paid, sorely needed professionals who will get a tax charge the following year.

That is not even the biggest problem. There are two further immediate problems. First, there is the taper. This is not the venue to start explaining the technical details of pension taxation, but the taper withdraws the relief available on the annual allowance as incomes increase. It is a classic case of something that those familiar with how taxation works will know: when you remove a taper, you get very high marginal rates. There is a taper on the tax payable after allowing for the annual allowance. The taper is still there, and some professionals argue that that is actually what is driving them out of employment.

There is a second issue that needs to be addressed. The rules have changed. You are taxed on the growth of your pension in a pension scheme. If you have two schemes, under the previous rules each pension scheme was taken separately. If you happened to be in an old pension scheme, which many doctors were, as well as in a new pension scheme because of all the changes that were made to pensions in 2015, you could have a declining value of a pension in one scheme but an increase in the value of the pension in the other. Overall, you would not really have gained much at all, but you were still taxed on the increase in the one scheme even though you were not getting any extra pension.

The Government addressed that, so you were allowed to combine your schemes from the same employer, but there is an issue they have not addressed: if your pension went down last year, you get no credit for that if your pension goes up the following year. So over a two-year period there might be no change in your pension, but you still have to pay tax on the value of the increase of that pension the following year.

Those are the two issues that I have taken the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister: the taper and the taxation of negative pensions growth.

18:26

[Lord Desai (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, although I cannot say anything technical like he has. The Bill is coming before us far too late to really matter. I know we cannot amend money Bills and so on, but it would have been better had it come after it originally appeared in the Commons.

I have two observations. First, there has been a lot of effort in the Finance Bill, and by the Government generally, to emphasise tax cuts, especially tax cuts on business corporations. As an economist, I know, and it is very easy to show, that tax cuts do not actually encourage investment in a country. Whatever the corporations do, they do not plough it back into investment. Investment depends not on that sort of consideration but on expectations about growth.

What has happened here for the last 15 years is that we have had a number of corporation tax cuts and so on, but the economy has not grown. We have had one of the lowest growth experiences in the last 15 years, roughly since 2008. The Government really ought to think seriously about that, because I know that more tax cuts are promised in the forthcoming Budget. Indeed, the Chancellor is always trying to reassure people that he will find money somewhere—I do not know where—to make tax cuts. Basically, the borrowing rates on government debt are high right now because again and again there have been promises of tax cuts that have alarmed the markets. When the Liz Truss tax cut in particular was announced, it spooked the markets very much and put a lot of pension funds in trouble.

My one piece of advice is: please be careful and do not get mixed up in the idea that tax cuts somehow bring growth. They have the opposite effect from what people think they do. The recession that we have recently experienced, while it was a mild one, shows that all the talk of tax cuts ought to stop. We ought to make quite sure that we reduce our borrowing and enhance other taxes that are not efficiently imposed.

Secondly, there is one major thing, which we have seen the proof of in the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition releasing news on their taxes. This showed one major defect in our tax system: that we tax capital gains at a much lower rate than we tax income. That is not healthy. All economists would tell us that we ought to treat income from earnings and from capital gains in a symmetrical way. If we did that, we would increase our tax revenue and reduce our deficit.

18:30

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, even though I do not agree with much of his analysis. In particular, I cannot understand why he thinks that if one takes a risk and invests capital, the rewards should be taxed at the same rate as banking a salary and working at a desk. They are two different sources of income and wealth, and therefore deserve different tax treatments, but I admire the way that he speaks so eloquently and without any notes on every occasion. I can only aspire to that.

I refer to my register of interests and remind your Lordships that I am chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, to which my noble friend alluded earlier. This sub-committee looked at the Bill with great interest and our report was published a couple of weeks ago, on 1 February. As I think this is the only time that the report will be mentioned in the House, I use this opportunity to thank the committee members, the clerk, his assistants and colleagues and, in particular, the two spads for their hard work in turning it around and delivering it in record-breaking time; as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated, there was a crunch, because it followed the Autumn Statement.

The report focused on a few main areas. The main one was research and development, where we followed up on last year’s report and were pleased to see that the R&D review is now complete. We recommended that His Majesty’s Government do not make any further changes to R&D tax relief, other than some simplifications that we recommend. As my noble friend said, research and development is incredibly important to the UK economy. It is pleasing to note that gross domestic expenditure on R&D has risen from some 1.5% in 2010—to take a date at random—to nearly 3% now.

The new R&D intensive scheme needs careful monitoring and the threshold, which is a cliff edge, should be kept under review. We called for draft guidance on applying that test, as it is difficult for companies to predict whether they are going to be intensive companies. As my noble friend indicated, it is possible that the new intensive scheme will be merged with the main scheme. We hope that HMRC will enter into consultations on this issue and possibly delay its implementation until those have taken place. We also had quite a lot to say on the thorny issue of subcontracting of research and development where, in summary, we think a transitional period might be required, although we accept that this has its own challenges.

Another area we were concerned about was the changes proposed on how HMRC will collect data on issues such as hours worked. This is something different: HMRC has never collected data on anything other than tax before. We are not even sure that the Taxes Management Act allows it to do this, so we are concerned to know why it needs that data and what will be the true cost to business in supplying it. This is largely data on hours worked: HMRC has recognised that this would be difficult, so has turned it into data collection on hours paid, but we are still not convinced about the need for it.

We welcomed further attempts to punish promoters of tax avoidance schemes but have asked for some safeguards, particularly in respect of what are called stooge directors. These are people who get persuaded to become a director of a company and do not realise that the company is being used for tax avoidance, but we are not convinced that increasing prison sentences is necessarily always the answer.

Finally, in respect of our report, we were concerned about the level of resources that HMRC deploys for customer service. One obviously accepts that this is an issue across government. We recognise that steps are being taken to improve this issue—which, in my personal opinion, is not helped by civil servants working from home, but that is a wider governmental issue.

As your Lordships will appreciate, my comments are just a taster of our full report of 150-odd pages. However, this shows that our House not only gets to debate the Bill for a day but offers proper scrutiny of legislation—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we cannot change it. But we are able to produce these reports, which we hope are used by Members in the other place to amend legislation. It is a little disappointing that there are so few of us speaking on this important debate, despite the fact that it is an exceptionally august selection of Peers with great depth of knowledge on the Bill.

Aside from the sub-committee report, I would like to make some additional observations and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can answer some questions that I have. The first is on the EIS, SEIS and VCT areas which she mentioned earlier. I warmly welcome the extension of the sunset clause; I have been advocating for it for some time, as she knows. I know that I have been pushing against an open door with HM Treasury and that she is convinced that I am a minority sport player with too much detail. None the less, I have to say that Clause 11 is to be commenced only by regulation, as in its subsection (2). That is a little unusual and I suspect there is a reason for it. I wonder if it is to do with some wrinkle in the Windsor agreement that is not yet quite ironed out or if we do not have permission from the EU to implement it. If so, we need some clarity that we will get that permission, and to reflect on the fact that we are trying to do things here which we are prohibited from doing by the EU, and that does not sit comfortably, particularly as we should no longer be bound by EU state aid restrictions.

I hope that my noble friend can agree to a review of all the other restrictions on EIS, SEIS and VCT, because we need to create a low-tax, low-regulation country and shed as many burdensome EU restrictions which are no longer necessary as we can. Are we restricted from doing that because of Northern Ireland issues? EIS and SEIS are incredibly important. In the year to 2022, HMRC data shows that £3.4 billion was raised to invest in SME businesses—for thousands of companies, so let us see what more we can do to enhance that scheme.

I also welcome the great progress on pillar 2, which my noble friend mentioned. I know that pillar 2 is not popular with everyone but we are committed to do it, so let us push ahead. It is good to see the transitional undertaxed profits rule safe harbour regimes, in addition to the multinational and domestic top-up tax, which is all part of the OECD global anti base erosion tax rules. This is a very complex and difficult area, with pages and pages of legislation, but it has been going for some time. In fact, it was the subject of my maiden speech almost exactly 10 years ago. We are still not there, but let us hope that the Government keep going in the direction they have taken to date.

Finally, it is worth using this debate on our proposed fiscal changes to reflect on what has been the effect of this Government’s fiscal policies to date on the economy. It is worth noting, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, that it is not just that inflation is falling from 11% to 4% but about the rate of growth in our economy compared to our European competitors. We are the fastest-growing European G7 economy and, from 2025 to 2028, our debt will come down as a huge part of the share of GDP. It is initiatives such as reducing national insurance in the Bill, and of course specifically raising allowances, which have enabled average taxpayers to be some £1,000 a year better off than they would be if those allowances had not risen since 2010. To keep up our outstandingly successful record levels in FDI, while achieving the success we have had in becoming the third-largest tech sector in the world, we have to keep the drive up for lower taxation.

As I understand it, the only tax initiatives announced by Labour are to increase taxation, such as VAT on schools, income tax for non-doms and enhanced tax for carried interests. Perversely, all these plans to raise tax by seeking to penalise successful people will, in my opinion, only lower the tax take. The direction of travel we need to stick to is a lower tax take, and a smarter tax system which encourages investment and increases growth and productivity.

18:40

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, even though I do not agree with much of what he said.

This Bill is a mishmash of policies that have already given us recession, poverty, stagnation, NHS queues, food banks, inequalities and crumbling public infrastructure. Building a just society does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda at all. The Bill continues with failed policies and somehow, different outcomes are expected, which will not happen.

Since 2010, the Government have showered tax reliefs on businesses, but we continue to suffer from chronic underinvestment. The Bill hands out tax reliefs in the form of 100% first-year capital allowances, in the hope that this can somehow increase business investment by possibly £14 billion within the forecast cycle, but that is in any case too little and is unlikely to be durable.

The major reason for low investment is that people do not have enough purchasing power to buy goods and services, and that dissuades businesses from investing. Just look at any town centre and you will see that it has become an economic desert, simply crumbling away. But the Government remain wedded to real wage and public spending cuts. The real average wage is now around the 2007 level; people have not got enough money to spend.

Following the Second World War, the state invested in new industries and took the long-term risks the private sector simply was not willing to take. It invested in new industries such as biotechnology, information technology and aerospace. However, the entrepreneurial state has now been replaced by a state that guarantees corporate profits through subsidies, cash handouts and the exploitation of people and the natural environment. The result is record corporate profits and low investment in productive assets. According to the OECD table, the UK occupies the 35th spot out of 38 countries in the league for investment in productive assets. That position will not change until the state resumes its entrepreneurial role, directly invests in new industries and infrastructure, and ensures that the masses have sufficient purchasing power.

The Government offer nearly 1,140 tax reliefs but have no idea of the total cost. Little is known about the macroeconomic benefits of handing out vast amounts of tax reliefs. The Bill hands out generous research and development tax incentives to creative industries, which will be welcomed by many. Accountants would happily reclassify some business expenditure as R&D and claim higher tax relief. The National Audit Office laments that the tax reliefs for R&D routinely exceed the UK’s actual R&D expenditure. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us why.

In handing out generous tax reliefs, the Government should also ensure that the resulting profits are taxed in the UK. Oil and gas companies get generous tax reliefs, but their profits are not necessarily taxed in the UK. I worked as an accountant in our oil companies, and I am quite familiar with how transfer pricing works. The Government ought to look at that to see where the profits end up.

James Bond movies are made and marketed through a labyrinth of opaque offshore entities. UK government money is given to make those movies. E.ON, the company behind the James Bond enterprise, received £30 million for “Spectre”, £47 million for “No Time to Die”, £24 million for “Skyfall” and £21 million for “Quantum of Solace”. However, E.ON declares tax losses in the UK and very little of its profit is taxed in the UK. Despite receiving £120 million of subsidy, E.ON has been paying less than £500,000 a year in UK corporation tax. Can the Minister explain why there is no comprehensive programme of tracking benefits of tax reliefs, or for ensuring that the resulting profits are taxed in the UK?

The Government make lots of claims about curbing tax dodges, but they are soft on the enablers. If the Minister disagrees, she is welcome to tell the House how many partners of big accounting firms have been investigated, fined or prosecuted for selling unlawful tax avoidance schemes. Hopefully she can name one or two; that would suffice.

An estimated £570 billion of UK wealth is stashed in tax havens. There is little effective check on profit shifting through intragroup transactions to low or no tax jurisdictions. Despite promises, the Government have failed to publish an estimate of what is called the offshore tax gap. Civil investigations opened by the offshore, corporate and wealthy unit, part of HMRC’s fraud investigation service, have declined from 1,417 in 2018-19 to only 627 in 2022-23. This reduces any faith in the measures contained in Part 3 of the Bill.

Tax policy for the last 14 years has become a circus under this Government. There is no sensible debate of what or who ought to be taxed, and at what rate, to shape what kind of society. Special low tax rates are enacted for the rich because they fund political parties, or simply because they demand it. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak paid tax of £508,308 on an income of just over £2.2 million, which is an effective tax rate of 23%. That is the tax rate faced by somebody on a wage of around £30,000 per year.

As I said earlier, no attention is paid to building a fair and just society. The reason why the Prime Minister’s tax bill is so low is that the capital gains accruing to him are taxed at 10% to 28%, while workers’ wages are taxed at 20% to 45%. Workers pay national insurance, but beneficiaries of capital gains pay zero national insurance. Indeed, under the Government’s rules, it is possible to pay a tax rate of only 10% on capital gains of up to £10 million. That does not seem fair to me at all.

The benefits of low capital gains tax are unevenly spread, unfair and create numerous inequalities. In 2020, just 0.5% of adults in the UK paid capital gains tax and benefited from this special regime. Capital gains tax payers are concentrated in London and the south-east of England. Notting Hill, with a population of around 6,400, has more than the combined populations of Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. You can see where these benefits are going.

The distortions also fuel a tax avoidance industry and rob the public purse. SME directors pay themselves with dividends rather than wages because that reduces their tax bill, as dividends are taxed at a lower rate than wages. The rich hire accountants to convert income to capital gains. Just think about the number of graduates finding jobs in the tax avoidance industry, which adds absolutely zero to the economy.

HMRC data shows that a quarter of people with an income of £2 million paid tax at an effective rate of less than 20%. One in 10 of those earning £2 million paid tax at an effective rate of only 10%, which is less than what someone pays on the minimum wage. This is an utterly unfair system and an unfair society, so can the Minister explain why someone making £2 million a year pays tax at a lower rate than somebody earning £15,000 a year? How is that consistent with claims of levelling up?

Finally, no child should go hungry, so I will suggest how the Government can fund free school meals for everybody: simply deal with one tax abuse, which arises from gift aid. If somebody gives £100 to a charity, that is obviously considered to be net, and the charity can claim £25, so it becomes £125 in the charity’s books. If the donor enters it on their tax return—many do not—they can also claim tax relief. A basic rate taxpayer will claim a tax relief of £20, but higher and additional rate taxpayers claim tax relief on that £100 at 40% and 45%. They are quids in—they are getting more because they are giving to charity. That does not seem fair. If tax relief on charitable donations was curbed at 20% for everybody, that would generate £740 million extra in tax revenues, which is quite enough to fund free school meals for everybody. Hopefully the Minister will say, “Yes, that will be in next month’s Budget”.

18:51

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as the first of the winding speakers, I will say I have some sympathy for the Minister, who has been hit with a wall of technical expertise that is probably not matched in almost any other sector of debate. I wish her great luck in answering the details.

I draw the Minister’s attention in particular to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on the pension allowance, because that issue is so mired in complexity, and the scheme needs complete reform. This does not really affect the private sector, which managed workarounds for this long ago; it is people in the public sector who are caught. The judges have been exempted, as the Minister will know—they have their own special scheme—but senior consultants, senior members of the military and some senior civil servants are caught up in this mess. A straightforward reform would be far more effective than this constant chipping away at the edges and getting it wrong, which is the pattern of the last few years.

This Government are, frankly, living in a parallel universe. The economy is in recession. Many people remain under crushing pressure from the cost of living. Real GDP per capita has fallen for seven successive quarters, and, as I mentioned during Questions earlier, according to the Resolution Foundation, that equates to a loss of nearly £1,500 per household. But, just as significantly, the fundamentals that power the economy and economic growth would, if they were put into a risk assessment analysis, be in the red zone for high risk. But the Government have not responded to this kind of risk and this element of real danger for the economy with a coherent strategy. They have failed to take the action that we need to achieve economic recovery and, frankly, to go out and talk more commonly with people on the doorstep, as I do. People have had enough.

The Autumn Statement of 2023, which sits behind this Finance Bill, is often described by the word “fiction”. The cut in the national insurance rate, which the Minister referred to, is in reality a small reduction in tax increases because of the effect of frozen thresholds. I am stunned that the Minister does not understand the impact of this threshold freeze and in fact suggested that thresholds had risen significantly. You would have to go back to 2010, but we are talking about our more recent period, which is what is impacting people. Frankly, if trading standards looked at the Government’s statements and flagged misleading claims from the Government the way it does with retailers, the Government would not be able to make those claims that the national insurance rate is actually a tax cut; it would be recognised as a reduction in a tax increase.

In evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee, the OBR’s chief executive, Richard Hughes, pointed to the fictional nature of the forecast headroom that the Government claimed in the Autumn Statement and I fear will claim again in the Budget. He explained that the OBR is required to use the Government’s assertions on future tax and public spending, even in the absence of either credibility or detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who was talking about growth and debt reduction: go back and look at those comments from the OBR in detail.

No one believes that this is just one example, or that the fuel duty escalator—this is one of the tax examples—will be reactivated, but, without it, the tax revenue numbers in the forecast are nonsense. Look at the public spending forecast. Richard Hughes suggested that calling it “fiction” was “generous”. With fiction writers, he said,

“someone has bothered to write a work of fiction, whereas the Government have not even bothered to write down their departmental spending plans”.

Slashing future public spending continuously as a percentage of GDP, which is embedded into that forecast— it is required to be so by government—is either vicious or a con.

Every public service is in dire straits. I am not talking just about the NHS: schools face record deficits, local governments are slashing essentials, the police are short of capacity, prisons are bursting and, frankly, I could go on with every area of public sector activity. Investment in infrastructure, which is absolutely key to our economic future, has not been adjusted by a single penny for inflation, which surely is a recipe for economic self-harm.

We need to focus, with open eyes and real vigour, on economic growth. As we discussed in February, given our older population and its growing dependency, our shortage of working age population is becoming relentlessly more serious. Improving our skills base can help in some sectors, but it requires a revolution in the role of apprenticeships and a complete overhaul of the apprenticeship levy. The drag on our economy of our sick working age population—by percentage, the highest in Europe—requires us to revive the NHS, which is faltering on so many fronts, from GP appointments to long waiting lists. The Government are fiddling at the margins of these issues and not driving forward fundamental change.

A sustained and high growth in productivity is vital—a return to over 2% a year productivity growth instead of the current stagnation. This requires business investment, which continues to be painfully low and has been despite a decade of low corporate taxes—here I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Sikka. Low taxes have not generated investment, and we have years of experience and evidence for that. I support the full expensing of measures in the Finance Bill, but the OBR figures show that its benefits are actually quite small, and the other measures on R&D and those for the creative industries are useful but, frankly, small fry.

The Government should learn from their own experiences. As I say, low taxes do not persuade businesses to invest, but a proper industrial strategy would attract investment. Policy certainty, instead of shifts in the wind, would attract investment. Reducing friction in our access to the EU market would attract investment. A focus on small businesses, including reforming business rates, would attract investment. In productivity terms, the Government have simply failed to take advantage of the digital revolution. Work practices have changed, but UK productivity has not benefited; it remains utterly stagnant. This Government will waste the potential of the AI revolution unless they change their mind and put in place a coherent strategy.

Trade growth is lacklustre. All the Government’s vaunted trade deals utterly fail to offset the 4% scarring of the economy from Brexit, and we now face the trade consequence of world tensions, anti-globalisation and security concerns, not least with China. I am always stunned when the Government talk about the great trade potential outside Europe—they are essentially referring to either China or countries that fall within the Chinese sphere of influence, where we have so many security and trade issues that looking for that as our rescue is, frankly, a very inadequate response.

Our national debt is running close to 100% of GDP. The OBR, if we take away the requirement that it must give this kind of fake forecast, does not see that number coming down—look at the evidence it gave to the Economic Affairs Committee. There are huge fiscal consequences to running debt at 100% of GDP. We have a very high exposure to variable interest rates, thanks to both quantitative easing and our exceptional volume of index-linked gilts—I think we have twice the amount of any other developed economy; it is extraordinary. Unlike in other major economies, our gilt markets depend on investment by foreigners. It is called the kindness of strangers, and, in volatile times, it is very risky. At times of risk, people exercise a home bias; no one needs to be investing in sterling. We have got ourselves a very risky exposure, as we try to sustain the coherence of the gilt market.

I have not yet referred to the greatest risk of all: climate change. The EU’s climate service announced that global heating exceeded 1.5 degrees across an entire year for the first time last year. That is years earlier than was anticipated. Dealing with climate change is not a “nice to do”; it is a survival issue. I say both to the Government and to Labour: if we do not progress rapidly now, the consequences will be crushing, not least for our economy.

We will soon have a Budget. It is very strange to be discussing a Finance Bill with a Budget less than two weeks away, but I hope that the Government will begin to redeem themselves. Ordinary people are still feeling pain, and that pain will get worse before it gets better. We are in recession, but the downturn in the standard of living has been far greater. The fundamentals of the economy and of economic growth are sounding the alarm. Climate change is coming relentlessly. I say to the Government that looking for the populist vote by floating tax cuts is not the answer. Leaving a scorched earth for the next Government—which I fear is what they have in mind—is not responsible. Let me repeat what I have heard on the doorstep: enough is enough.

19:02

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the Finance Bill that we are debating today was published following the Chancellor’s Statement in November last year, in which he claimed to be delivering an “Autumn Statement for growth”. It was the 11th such growth plan that we have seen from this Government over the past 14 years, and, over that time, the UK’s growth record has been poor.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, mentioned comparative growth rates. We have languished in the bottom third of OECD countries, with 27 OECD economies growing faster than us since 2010. Looking ahead, over the next two years, no fewer than 177 countries are forecast by the IMF to grow faster than the UK. Against this backdrop, in the so-called Autumn Statement for growth, the Office for Budget Responsibility actually downgraded its forecast for growth in each of the next three years—it was revised down this year, next year and the year after that. Growth this year is forecast to be just 0.7%, which is more than halved from the 1.8% predicted in the Budget, with the economy forecast to be £40 billion smaller by 2027 than the Chancellor expected back then. Now, the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that Britain has fallen into recession. We know too, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, observed, that GDP per capita fell in every single quarter of the past year.

Britain is trapped in a spiral of economic decline. Having spent 14 years in the economic slow lane, the Government have now put our economy into reverse—the latest chapter in a 14-year story of failure and economic stagnation. First, we had austerity, which choked off investment, and then years of political instability, which in turn fuelled economic instability; then Brexit without a plan; then the disastrous mini-Budget, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, observed, crashed the economy, sending mortgages and interest rates soaring. We have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, each yielding less than the last.

If the UK economy had grown at the average rate of the OECD over the past decade, it would now be £140 billion larger, equivalent to £5,000 per household every year. This would mean an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services. Instead, with growth so weak, taxes have risen remorselessly, with less and less to show for it. While our public services crumble, we have seen 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone. The tax burden now rises every single year for the next five years, rising to its highest ever level and making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament ever, with an average tax rise of £1,200 per household.

However, there is one small group of people who will continue to be protected from this Government’s tax rises on much of their income. Missing from this Finance Bill, once again, is any action to tackle non-dom tax status: those people who live in Britain but do not pay UK taxes on their income from overseas. Closing this loophole and replacing this archaic status with a residence scheme like other countries have could raise crucial funding to bring NHS waiting lists down. Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be uncontroversial; yet, while families across the UK face higher taxes year on year, the Government continue to enable those who keep their money overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. So, while we have yet another Finance Bill that leaves this loophole open, families across the UK face a tax burden that is climbing to a post-war high.

The chair of the UK Statistics Authority rebuked Government Ministers this week for making misleading claims about their record on tax. Let us be clear: while the cut in national insurance announced in the Autumn Statement was welcome, it was more than eclipsed by increases in taxes that the Government had previously announced. For example, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned, the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds for six years is now expected to cost taxpayers £45 billion. This fiscal drag means that nearly 4 million more people will pay income tax and 3 million more people will pay the higher rate. To quote Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the cut in national insurance rates

“pales into … insignificance alongside the … increase in personal taxes created by the six year freeze in allowances and thresholds”.

The IFS has calculated that, extraordinarily, almost every single person in the UK who is liable for income tax or national insurance will now be paying higher taxes overall. As a result, the tax burden will now reach 37.7% of GDP by the end of the forecast period, an increase equivalent to an astonishing £4,300 additional tax for every household in the country.

We have an economy in recession, the tax burden rising to its highest ever level and the biggest fall in living standards since records began. We must break this spiral of economic decline. Increasing growth is clearly the biggest economic challenge that our country faces. In government, Labour’s defining economic mission will be to restore growth to Britain, with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of our country. Our plan to deliver that mission, supported by British business and developed in partnership with British business, is built on three pillars: stability, investment and reform.

Stability will be brought about by strong, robust and respected economic institutions. Rather than criticising the Bank of England, as a number of prominent Conservative politicians have, we will protect its independence, and we will strengthen the Office for Budget Responsibility. We will introduce a new fiscal lock and tough new fiscal rules. Iron discipline will ensure that every policy we announce, and every line in our manifesto, is fully costed and fully funded. With a Labour Government, never again will a Prime Minister or Chancellor be allowed to repeat the mistakes of the Liz Truss Budget. Never again can we allow a repeat of the devastation that that Budget brought to family finances or allow a plan to be pushed through that is uncosted, unscrutinised and wholly detached from economic reality.

We prize stability and predictability for business, as we know how highly businesses that are considering investing in the UK prize stability, predictability and a long-term plan. This Finance Bill contains a number of measures that we have been calling for for some time. We welcome the Government finally making full expensing permanent after so many years of chopping and changing capital allowances; we have made it clear we will maintain this policy if we are in government. We have also made it clear that we will maintain the system of R&D tax credits introduced by this Finance Bill—again, after so many years of this Government chopping and changing the design of the scheme.

Of course, there is still a general election to face, so I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to put on the record whether the Government will follow our lead. Will she confirm that, should they win the general election, they will maintain permanent full expensing? I am sure that many businesses would welcome the certainty that comes from knowing that both main parties are going into the election fully committed to keeping this policy in place.

Let me be clear about another area where we will provide certainty, should we win the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we believe that the current corporation tax rate strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and maintaining our competitiveness in the global economy. That is why we are pledging to cap the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. That choice provides predictability and has a clear rationale; that is the pro-business and pro-growth choice. So, again, to offer businesses as much certainty as possible, I ask the Minister whether the Government will follow our lead and also pledge, today, to cap corporation tax at its current rate for the next Parliament?

Our commitment to stability will be matched by a commitment to investment, through partnership with the private sector, to power the industries of the future with a modern industrial strategy; a new national wealth fund to invest alongside business, in our automotive sector, in our ports, and in the future of our steel industry; and a new national champion in homegrown power, leading the way on floating offshore wind, tidal and nuclear power, to ignite growth, boost our economic security, drive down energy bills, and create good, well-paid jobs across Britain. This will be combined with our commitment to reform, starting with our planning system, taking on vested interests to get Britain building again. Stability, investment, reform—the foundations of a plan to break free from the vicious cycle over 14 years of stagnant growth, rising taxes, and falling living standards.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Can the noble Lord clarify a point that he made in response to a point that I made about non-dom taxation? I understand that the Labour Party originally thought that taxing non-doms in the way that he described would raise £3 billion—it then reduced it to £2 billion and I think that it now thinks that it is £1 billion. It would be very helpful to have precision and clarity on the estimate that this will raise. Will he also confirm, now that Labour Party officials are talking to the Treasury, that they have asked the Treasury for its figures on the Labour Party’s proposals on non-doms, which, as I understand it, show a net loss to HMRC in respect of those proposals?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think that I am at liberty to divulge the exact nature of those discussions, but I can certainly say that that is not correct.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Does the noble Lord have an answer to my question on the specific amount that the non-dom tax proposals will raise?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have the exact number to hand.

19:13

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I had better intervene quickly, before that continues. I am grateful to my noble friend, but I am sure he is well aware that that was not the usual procedure.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. It has been a spirited debate, as ever, and I can definitely say at the outset that I am unable to agree with everything that has been said—by some noble Lords more than others, and by one or two almost entirely. But let us leave it at that.

There have been many excellent contributions and points raised. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who kicked off the debate with some wonderful tax questions about pensions. Clearly, the issue around pensions catching up with the personal allowance is not something that I can comment on now, but it is something that people are aware of and it will be addressed over a period of time. It is the case, too, that many political parties are committed to the triple lock. Pensioners whose sole income is the new state pension and who do not have deferred or received protected payments currently do not pay any income tax, as noble Lords will know. This year we provided the biggest ever cash increase to payments—a 10.1% rise.

The Government have doubled the personal allowance since 2010, ensuring that those with the lowest incomes do not pay income tax at all. Many noble Lords are concerned about the level of the personal allowance. I believe that over the longer period of time, looking back to 2010, there have been significant increases, such that 30% of people do not pay tax at all. I accept that, given external headwinds, certain decisions had to be made—and were made quite rightly—to freeze the personal allowance over a period of time. However, it is one of the goals of this Government that, as we return to the sort of growth that I think all noble Lords would like to see, it would be a possibility in future that we would be able to address how those personal allowances are going to change over time.

If a person has to pay tax that cannot be collected through PAYE, whether because they have no employment or they have an occupational private pension, and they are not already a self-assessment taxpayer, HMRC may issue them with a simple assessment to explain what tax they owe and how to pay it. That would be well in advance of any payment being needed. But, of course, that assumes that personal allowances and the state pension collide in future. I would not want to say that that is the case, but it is an issue that people are aware of.

The issue around the tax threshold freezes comes up quite a lot in your Lordships’ House. I absolutely accept that we have had to make some incredibly difficult choices but, having done so, a UK employee can earn more before paying income tax and social security contributions than an employee in any other G7 country. We do not tax our employees as highly as other people do, and that is to our credit. We have taken a fair approach to repairing the public finances, so we have asked everybody to contribute a little through keeping tax thresholds fixed. However, that ensures that those with the broadest shoulders pay the most. As I say, now that inflation is falling and the economy has turned a corner, we must continue with our plan, and we can responsibly return some money to taxpayers to slightly change the shift and the amount of tax that people will now pay, versus what they were going to pay in the past. But it is important that we do that in a way that supports the work and grows a sustainable economy for the future. Prioritising those in work is the best way in which to get the economy growing and reducing national insurance contributions is the best way in which to target those individuals.

I will check through the comments made by the noble Lord—

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Is she saying that we cut taxes for people? Earlier she mentioned 29 million people. Can she also confirm that 17.8 million UK adults with an income of less than £12,570 a year received a zero cut in national insurance or taxes in last year’s Budget?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Yes, but let us also remember that the national living wage has gone up by 25% in real terms since 2010. There are all sorts of different things that the Government have done to protect the most vulnerable; the noble Lord is picking on just one thing. We are always looking at the most vulnerable to ensure that, for them too, work pays. That includes lifting the national living wage.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I am happy to respond to the Minister—this could get interesting. The £12,570 threshold —and, as I said, 17.8 million adults have less than that —is after taking account of the increases in minimum wage. Many people have zero-hours contracts, work part-time or are maybe on a pension. That is after taking account of all the increases that the Minister said have been handed out.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Does the noble Lord want me to give them a tax cut for taxes that they do not pay? I am not following here at all, but I am not willing to get into a long debate about this right now. The noble Lord may write, and I will respond, if he would like to get into that in detail, but I am not willing to get into the debate right now.

Moving on to other issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I will write in more detail around the specific things; I was doing very well for 80% of his speech but I lost him towards the end, around the taxation of negative pension growth, or gains. I will write on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, noted that the Bill is too late. Obviously, this is beyond a humble Minister like me. The House authorities will have guided it through. I know that it took a while to get through the Commons, and we addressed it in your Lordships’ House as quickly as we could once it had finished in the Commons. I would like to push the blame down to the other place and leave it there. However, it is always our ambition to get our Finance Bills into and through Parliament as quickly as possible, because it is a really important thing that we do.

I suspect that, particularly as we go into the Spring Budget, there will be many more debates around growth. I say again that, since 2010, we have had the fastest growth of any European G7 nation. I also suspect that there will be counterarguments to that, and that those will continue. In many of these circumstances, particularly some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, it is just a case of economists not agreeing. Not all economists agree—it is an art, not a science. For those of us who studied economics at university, it is clear that there are sometimes fundamental differences, as noble Lords have said today. My noble friend Lord Leigh is also a very experienced person in these matters. As he pointed out, he does not agree with much of the analysis. Sometimes, that is the case.

I am incredibly grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh, his committee and the officials for the report of their sub-committee. I reassure him that we take those reports very seriously. Officials read them to ensure that we take into account the considerations and the recommendations made. On research and development, I think he agrees with us that we want to keep things as stable as possible. We do not intend to make any further changes. However, there are a few small areas where we will continue to engage, and any changes will be done cautiously. We hear what he and his committee say, and we will consider it carefully.

My noble friend noted the issue around HMRC data and tax administration. The Government’s economic response to the coronavirus pandemic was made possible through the powerful use of all sorts of data. However, it highlighted that there are gaps in the data that HMRC holds. New or improved data collected by HMRC, such as detailed information on employee hours and start and end dates on self-employment, will help government to address some of the gaps, building a tax system which is more resilient. I reassure him that the Government are taking a proportionate response and collecting improved data in areas where taxpayers already hold it, to minimise administrative burdens. The existing safeguards are robust, well-established and well-understood. I reassure him that we expect all taxpayers to have this information already and be able to provide it to HMRC. HMRC will take a reasonable and proportionate approach to the application of any fees or penalties in this regard. These changes will not take effect before April 2025, to give the system some time to adjust.

My noble friend Lord Leigh also mentioned HMRC customer service. Noble Lords will have heard me say this before, and indeed I have had the discussion directly with HMRC: it acknowledges that its customer service levels are simply not as good as they should be. Levels on the phone and in the post are below service standards from last year. HMRC has been working very hard to improve services for those people who need to call, but encourages people to use the digital services as much as possible, as they can be very efficient and get very good ratings from customers.

My noble friend Lord Leigh once again brought up his minority sport—a very important sport—of EIS and VCT, and why these are being extended by regulation. He hinted about it being something to do with the Windsor Framework, the EU, Northern Ireland, and the trade and co-operation agreement, and he is right. These are important schemes, and the vast majority of UK subsidies will need to comply only with the UK’s domestic subsidy regime, as noble Lords would expect. The Windsor Framework also means that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement will now serve as the primary framework governing subsidy control between the UK and the EU. For the EIS and the VCT scheme, we are engaging with the EU on approval for extension, due to Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU single market. We are working to meet all relevant obligations. We believe that the systems are consistent with subsidy control principles and address evidence of market failure, and therefore we think those conversations will go well.

My noble friend mentioned the complexity of Pillar 2. I agree that it is complex and difficult to administer—it is necessarily complex, because of the wide variety of different corporate structures which exist. However, we are reassured that we have simplified processes as much as we possibly can, such that compliance from business will be at the sorts of levels that we want to see.

On stooge directors, as noble Lords would expect, these measures are targeted at the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. Stooges enable these promoters to hide their activities, and, frankly, that is not what we are after at all. The Government understand the need for strengthened HMRC powers to be proportionate and balanced. Those are the two words that are absolutely key. Nobody wants to put anybody in jail because they did something under the duress of somebody else.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised a number of points and many rhetorical questions, and, I suspect, lots of really good ideas for the Labour Party manifesto. I, unfortunately, cannot agree with much of what he said, particularly his insistence that the state needs to substantially increase investment which is traditionally private sector activity. The state does invest, but it invests in those areas where we feel it is right for the public sector to be investing. We believe that the private sector is much better at picking up that sort of investment.

The noble Lord seemed to imply that the Government have done nothing against tax avoidance and that it is all terrible out there, etcetera. I am afraid that is just not right. The amount of money lost to the Exchequer from tax avoidance has fallen from £3.6 billion in 2010—to pick a year—to £1.4 billion in 2021-22. That is a significant reduction in the amount of tax avoidance. Again, I do not expect the noble Lord to agree with me. He went on to ask me for specific examples. HMRC already prosecutes promoters. Since 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted of offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance. Our interventions are working, and there are interventions in the Bill to make our levers stronger. This Government do not tolerate tax avoidance and we will do whatever we can to stop it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised a number of issues. I have already mentioned thresholds; from the Government’s perspective, we understand what had to happen over that time. She raised the issue of public spending, which I note is going up in real terms by 0.75% over the forecast period. What slightly concerns me now is the question of where it would stop. If it is going up in real terms every single year, after how many years would we say that that is enough? However, I also put it to her that, as important as productivity is in the public sector, in the private sector you would not get away with the lack of focus on productivity. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is looking at a productivity review across all areas of government, to ensure that public spending is the right amount. At the end of the day, the best way to increase the amount of money that we have available for public spending is to grow the economy, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

The noble Baroness mentioned productivity. It has been estimated that supply-side measures from the Autumn Statement 2023 could close up to half of our productivity gap with France, Germany and the US. We feel that we are making good progress, investing in the right areas to improve productivity.

The noble Baroness mentioned climate change, which is incredibly important. It is also interesting that she mentioned Labour in her appeal to keep climate change front of mind, because Labour still has its very unachievable climate plans, with now literally no funding. It used to have £28 billion of funding, which shadow Front-Bench Members managed to commit to over 300 times. Unfortunately, that £28 billion has now disappeared, but all the policy seems to remain in the same place. That goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, made. Apparently, in the stability, investment and something else he said—their plan to deliver, which I am still looking for the detail on—all Labour policies will be fully costed, apart from those on climate change. Is that right? I am looking forward to it. I do not know; the £28 billion has disappeared but the policies have not.

The noble Lord asked me to commit to certain things for the Conservative Party manifesto, which I will not do, but the Government have just introduced permanent full expensing. It would be a great surprise to me if, all of a sudden, it were to disappear again, because we believe that it is a very valuable thing to do.

The noble Lord mentioned non-domiciled individuals. I, too, am very interested in that and will keep an eye out for how much money will be raised from the changes to non-domiciled individuals’ tax arrangements. I suspect that it will not be anywhere close to the amount of money that Labour platitudes and unfunded promises will need as we head into the election. But we believe that non-UK domiciled individuals play an important role in funding our public services through their tax contributions. The Government want the UK to be a destination that will attract talented people to work and do business, and that includes people from overseas. It is only right that those who choose to live here for a long time pay their fair share of taxes—namely, that they cease to become non-domiciled.

I believe that I owe various noble Lords a letter, which I will ensure gets to them as soon as possible. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 19 February.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about Post Office governance and the Horizon compensation schemes.

Over the weekend, several serious allegations were made against the Government, my department and its officials by Henry Staunton, the former chair of the Post Office. The allegations are completely false, and I would like to make a Statement to the House so that honourable Members and the British public know the truth about exactly what has happened. I would like to address three specific claims that Mr Staunton made in his Sunday Times interview—claims that are patently untrue.

First, Mr Staunton alleges that I refused to apologise to him after he learned of his dismissal from Sky News. That was not the case. In the call he referenced, I made it abundantly clear that I disapproved of the media breaking any aspect of the story. Out of respect for Henry Staunton’s reputation, I went to great pains to make my concerns about his conduct private. In fact, in my interviews with the press, I repeatedly said that I refuse to carry out HR in public. That is why it is so disappointing that he has chosen to spread a series of falsehoods, provide made-up anecdotes to journalists and leak discussions held in confidence. All that merely confirms in my mind that I made the correct decision in dismissing him.

Secondly, Mr Staunton claims that I told him that ‘someone’s got to take the rap’ for the Horizon scandal, and that was the reason for his dismissal. That was not the reason at all. I dismissed him because there were serious concerns about his behaviour as chair, including those raised by other directors on the board. My department found significant governance issues. For example, a public appointment process was under way for a new senior independent director to the Post Office board, but Mr Staunton apparently wanted to bypass it and appoint someone from the board without due process. He failed to properly consult the Post Office board on the proposal; he failed to hold the required nominations committee; and, most importantly, he failed to consult the Government, as a shareholder, which the company was required to do. I know that honourable Members will agree with me that such a cavalier approach to governance was the last thing we needed in the Post Office, given its historical failings.

I should also inform the House that while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as bullying. Concerns were brought to my department’s attention about Mr Staunton’s willingness to co-operate with that investigation.

It is right that the British public should know the facts behind the case, and what was said in the phone call in which I dismissed Mr Staunton. Officials from my department were on the line; the call was minuted, and a read-out was sent after it took place. Today, I am depositing a copy of that read-out in both Libraries of the House, so that honourable Members and the public can see the truth. In those minutes, personal information relating to other Post Office employees has been redacted. For all those reasons, an interim chair will be appointed shortly, and I will, of course, update the House when we have further details.

Finally, Mr Staunton claims that when he was first appointed as chair of the Post Office, he was told by a senior civil servant to stall on paying compensation. There is no evidence whatever that that is true. In fact, on becoming Post Office chair, Mr Staunton received a letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Sarah Munby, on 9 December 2022, welcoming him to his role and making it crystal clear that successfully reaching settlements with victims of the Post Office scandal should be one of his highest priorities. That letter is in the public domain. The words are there in black and white, and copies of the correspondence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The reality is that my department has done everything it can to speed up compensation payments for victims. We have already made payments totalling £160 million across all three compensation schemes. That includes our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who had been wrongfully convicted. It is the strongest refutation of those in this House who would claim that we acted only after the ITV drama, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, was shown. British people should know that a dedicated team of Ministers and civil servants have been working around the clock for many months to hasten the pursuit of justice, and bring swift, fair redress to all those affected.

To that end, I am pleased that all 2,417 postmasters who claimed through the original Horizon shortfall scheme have now had offers of compensation. The Post Office is dealing promptly with late applications and cases where the initial offer has not been accepted. My department has also established the Horizon compensation unit to ensure that money gets to the right people without a moment’s delay. Last autumn, we announced an additional £150 million to the Post Office, specifically to help it meet the costs of participating in the Post Office-Horizon inquiry and delivering compensation to postmasters. In all, we have committed around £1 billion to ensure that wronged postmasters can be fully and fairly compensated, and through forthcoming legislation, we are taking unprecedented steps to quash the convictions of postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal.

In short, we are putting our money where our mouth is, and our shoulders to the wheel to ensure that justice is done. It is not fair on the victims of this scandal, which has already ruined so many lives and livelihoods, to claim, as Mr Staunton has done, that things are being dragged out a second longer than they ought to be. For Henry Staunton to suggest otherwise, for whatever personal motives, is a disgrace, and it risks damaging confidence in the compensation schemes that Ministers and civil servants are working so hard to deliver. I would hope that most people reading the interview in yesterday’s Sunday Times would see it for what it was: a blatant attempt to seek revenge following dismissal.

I must say that I regret the way in which these events have unfolded. We did everything that we could to manage this dismissal in a dignified way for Mr Staunton and others. However, I will not hesitate to defend myself and, more importantly, my officials, who cannot respond directly to these baseless attacks. Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering compensation to postmasters who have not already been compensated. There were those who fell victim to a faulty IT system that the Post Office implemented, and that it turned a blind eye to when brave whistleblowers such as Alan Bates sounded the alarm. We said that the Government would leave no stone unturned in uncovering the truth behind the Horizon scandal, and in pursuing justice for the victims and their families. We are delivering on that promise, while looking for any further possible steps that we can take to ensure the full and final settlement of claims as quickly as possible.

It is right that we reflect, too, on the cultural practices at the Post Office that allowed the Horizon scandal to happen in the first place. It was a culture that let those in the highest ranks of the organisation arbitrarily dismiss the very real concerns of the sub-postmasters who are the lifeblood of their business and pillars of the local community. Although the Post Office may have failed to stand by its postmasters in the past, we are ensuring that it does everything that it can to champion them today, and to foster an environment that respects their employees and their customers. That is how we will rebuild trust and ensure that the British public can have confidence in our Post Office, now and in the future. I commend this Statement to the House”.

19:35

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the Horizon scandal is widely accepted as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history. Given the magnitude and duration of the scandal, it is quite astonishing that it seems that every day we get more and more revelations. We get further from the truth and further from true justice for all those who have been victims of it.

Sunday’s allegations could not have been more serious, and the same applies for everything that has emerged since then, not least the memo that was unearthed last night showing Henry Staunton’s recording of a meeting with the then Permanent Secretary at BEIS, Sarah Munby, on 5 January 2023. In that, he was allegedly told to “hobble” into the election; not to

“rip off the band aid”

in terms of the Post Office’s finances; that

“politicians do not necessarily like to confront reality”;

and, finally, that

“now was not the time for dealing with long-term issues”.

This new evidence appears to endorse Mr Staunton’s claim made at the weekend. It is of the utmost importance that both the public and Parliament know the truth. Do the Government continue to deny that any of those conversations took place, as was stated categorically on numerous occasions throughout this week? Given the new evidence, will the Department for Business and Trade now commit to a Cabinet Office investigation into the serious and continued allegations that Mr Staunton has made?

Earlier this week, it was welcome that the Government agreed to publish copies of the letter from Sarah Munby to Henry Staunton on his appointment as chair of the Post Office in December 2022, but that does not go far enough. Given the Secretary of State’s own willingness now to place part of the record in the House Library, I ask once again what I asked on Monday, when we debated this—unfortunately, before the Statement had been made. Given the new evidence that has come to light, will the Government publish all correspondence and minutes of meetings between the relevant departments, UKGI and the Post Office, and put them all in the parliamentary Library?

Earlier this week, it was also suggested by the BBC that the Government knew that there was a cover-up in the Post Office eight years ago—in 2016—with Ministers having been told that an investigation was happening into how often and why cash accounts on the Horizon system had been tampered with remotely. Will the Minister comment any further on those claims about when that was known by the Government? How will the Government investigate those claims? Following that, will this matter also be handed over to Wyn Williams for full investigation? I am sure that we all agree that the secrecy must end, and that the full sunlight of public scrutiny should be brought to bear.

On the compensation itself, has the £1 billion figure referred to in the Statement already been allocated, and is it therefore ready to be paid to those who will receive it? Subsequently, if that is not the case, will the payments be specifically itemised and timelined within the next Budget?

Although Monday’s Statement and today’s repeat are rightly about the Post Office, people’s faith in government has already been damaged by scandals such as Hillsborough, infected blood, Bloody Sunday and Windrush. Victims of other scandals—especially the contaminated blood scandal—feel that they need to ask whether they have been the victims of deliberate inaction as well. Will the Government provide assurances that no such obstacles have been put in the way of any payments of this kind; and if so, how exactly do they explain the delays in so many cases?

The Post Office miscarriages of justice alone have shown the devastation that can occur when institutions are allowed to operate without oversight or are shrouded in secrecy, and I know the Minister shares everyone’s view on this. Throughout all this, we must not lose sight of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses themselves, so I make no apology for returning to the issue of convictions and the overturning of them. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the progress in this area? Have His Majesty’s Government set a timescale for delivering the legislation needed to quash the convictions?

Finally, the Minister often talks about compensation packages and money being paid in thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds to wrongly convicted—I would describe them as not just wrongly but malignly convicted—sub-postmasters and postmistresses. However, is he aware that the vast majority of Post Office payments for the specific issue of “damage to reputation and stress” are still generally only around the £5,000 mark?

Finally, again—I feel a bit like Columbo—there is a discrepancy between the Secretary of State’s speech in Hansard and the Statement. Would the Minister like to comment on it, and if not, will he write to me and place a letter in the Library? There is no mention in the Department of Business and Trade Statement of bullying by Mr Staunton, yet the Secretary of State says:

“I should also inform the House that while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct”—


we know that, but she goes further—

“including serious matters such as bullying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/24; col. 474.]

I am just a bit confused as to why it was in the Statement delivered in Parliament but not in the departmental Written Statement.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, with every day that passes, more questions seem to come up.

In Parliament, the Secretary of State’s Statement was strident—I would say unusually strident—but no matter how loudly and aggressively she asserts her side of the issue, it will not go away without answers and evidence. I support fully the questions that the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, just asked—I will try to interrogate some other areas—but we need answers in order to support or otherwise the Secretary of State’s position. These are answers that the Government can give, not ones they can push into the Wyn Williams inquiry.

Minutes from a call on 27 January show that Kemi Badenoch said to Henry Staunton that she had received

“a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against”

Staunton

“are so serious that the government need to intervene”.

The Secretary of State said in Parliament that this included issues raised by other directors on the board. From whom did she receive the briefing on the governance in POL, and where are the notes on its contents? When were the directors’ issues first raised with the Secretary of State, and what form did these complaints take? Were they, for example, letters, emails, calls or meetings? Were any directors’ complaints submitted formally, and how many directors were involved in those submissions?

The Secretary of State’s public statements and comments conflate two issues. One is the possible disquiet as to Staunton’s progress on tackling governance within POL, and the other is an entirely separate accusation of bullying. Does the Minister agree that these two need to be properly separated? The conflation is adding to the confusion. As far as I can see, as yet, there is no documentation to support the bullying part of the Secretary of State’s response. The Secretary of State said that a “formal investigation” was under way into the complaint against Staunton. Who is leading this investigation and when was it started? Staunton says that he was not informed of this bullying complaint, so can the Minister confirm if, when and how Staunton was informed of this bullying complaint and whether he has yet to be contacted by an investigator?

Government, departmental and Post Office capacity is only so large. This very public and bitter argument is a major distraction. Given the huge quantity of energy that is being expelled on this dispute, all other activities suffer. Today, the Prime Minister declined to repeat the Secretary of State’s accusations, and if the Secretary of State misled Parliament, she clearly breached the Ministerial Code. Therefore, does the Minister agree that if we do not get a Cabinet Office inquiry, the Government’s ethics adviser should be asked to investigate this issue now?

Without publishing all the personal correspondence with the various intermediaries that link the Post Office with the Government, it cannot be established beyond any doubt who is telling the truth in this very public dispute. The problem for the Secretary of State and for the Government is that Mr Staunton’s central accusation has credibility. What we see is glacial progress in settling the Horizon victims’ cases. That was his central point. In one answer on Monday, the Minister outlined the bureaucratic appeal process open to those offered unacceptable settlements, and of course, these appeals slow things down considerably. Can the Minister at least acknowledge that this time-consuming and energy-sapping appeal process could largely be avoided if the original offers were at an acceptable level in the first place?

I have one final question. All pretence of an arm’s-length organisation has gone; the Government have the power to intervene and control. Will the Government step in and speed things up by making the process simpler, probably by collapsing the three schemes into one? Overall, will they ensure that the offers of compensation are realistic in the first place, so that all the sub-postmasters who have offers can accept them and move on?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

There is a lot to unpack there. I will take it in three pieces, if your Lordships do not mind. I will start with the Henry Staunton spat; then we will talk a little bit about the compensation; and then we can talk about the convictions, overturning them, and general progress on that matter.

On the dismissal of Henry Staunton and the following row that has ensued, as I said before, it is a shame that we are doing this in public because obviously, there are HR matters here. A senior director has been removed from his post, and due process needs to be delivered and his confidentiality respected.

However, I can shed light on this. This has been helped by further documents today being put in the public domain. In addition to the file note of the Secretary of State’s conversation with Henry Staunton at the weekend, we now have Mr Staunton’s file note to himself after his meeting in January 2023 with Sarah Munby and very helpful clarification from Sarah Munby of her recollection of what happened, with back-up notes. Accordingly, all the minutes are now at the disposal of the public and in the Library.

In summary, the row here is on two allegations that have been made by Mr Staunton—that he was sacked because someone had to “take the rap” and that he was instructed by a senior civil servant, the Permanent Secretary, to slow down the process of compensation and justice for postmasters. It is now absolutely clear from the correspondence and the notes published, and even from reading Mr Staunton’s own note, that the reason for his dismissal was not that he had to take the rap, but quite the opposite. He was in post for just 14 months—from December 2022—and was given three specific priorities by Sarah Munby. The first was to accelerate and expedite the compensation to the postmasters. Therefore, he was not there to take the rap. His dismissal, which was designed to be done in private but has now come out in public, was simply because there were governance issues around his chairmanship.

Interestingly, taking account of the various discussions that we have had in this House on this matter, noble Lords, especially on the other Benches, have been quite clear that they feel that there has obviously been a breakdown in governance and that the Government were not exercising their governance powers appropriately. That is what Sir Wyn Williams will look at in detail. We have a new board. Three new non-execs of a higher calibre were appointed in 2023. There are now two postmaster directors on the board. A senior independent director is required to be appointed and, most importantly, the government shareholder, UKGI, is represented on that board.

In addition, you can imagine the amount of public and departmental scrutiny that is happening. There are monthly meetings with post office executives. A lot of conversations are going on with Post Office management. Within those conversations, quite rightly, without naming names, non-exec directors and UKGI have raised concerns on the governance and chairmanship of the Post Office.

Under previous regimes, it would appear that, when concerns were raised on other matters, they were ignored. In this case, concerns have been raised and not ignored but taken into serious consideration. That demonstrates that we have a different sort of governance now in the Post Office. If I was coming at this from a private sector basis, as a shareholder, I would want to know what is going on inside the company. If non-exec directors came and told me there was a problem on the board, I would take that very seriously. That was then discussed between the Secretary of State and Henry Staunton and specific governance issues and concerns were raised by the board. As I said, the board is run by the chair. If the board is at odds and therefore not functioning properly, we must change the chair. It is as simple as that.

So, on the first point, that he was there to take the rap, the memos and meeting notes clearly show that he was dismissed because we had a governance issue.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

That is fascinating and helpful. Given that there is not a SID and that it was the chairman, what was the conduit of the director’s disquiet from the board to the Secretary of State? How did the Secretary of State learn these things?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I said, we are in a situation now where dialogue quite rightly is happening—and minuted, as always—between officials and representatives of Post Office Ltd. The appointment of the senior independent director was one of the issues that the board were at odds over. The chairman wished to promote an internal candidate and the Department for Business and Trade wanted to bring in an external candidate—which was also the advice of the UK Government, the shareholder executive.

In this situation, when an investigation of why this was happening was brought to bear, that too was blocked by the chair. So there was a situation where the board was not working properly and we had to change the chair. It was as simple as that. The chair had to be changed to make sure the board worked properly. There was no concept of him being there to take the rap for the Horizon scandal.

He has made a second claim, and I advise noble Lords to read the notes carefully to understand this. The conflation going on here concerns the discussion with Sarah Munby in January. The chairman was appointed in December 2022. There was a discussion with the Permanent Secretary in January 2023. That was the first discussion after she wrote the letter saying “Here’s your three priorities”. It was the first meeting between the Permanent Secretary and the newly appointed chair, to say, “Right, you’ve been in post for a month, you’ve looked under the bonnet, what have you found?”

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

This is a brief point regarding the Minister’s description of the situation between the Secretary of State and the chair of the board, and the appointment of the SID. I seek clarification and want to check that I heard the Minister correctly. The Statement refers only to the chair, Staunton, looking to bring in his own person. It does not deal with the appointment. The Minister said the Secretary of State was looking to appoint the SID, a different person, and Henry Staunton did not want that person coming in as a SID, so that was the tension that was there, not the fact that he had carried out some nefarious process in trying to bring someone in.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is a reasonable clarification. The clue is in the name “senior independent director”. The Department for Business and Trade was of the view that we should not be appointing an internal candidate to the role but that an external candidate should come in. That was the reason for the dispute.

On the matter of trying to delay, save money and not budget for compensation, this is on the record to be refuted. The conversation was between the Permanent Secretary and the chair one month into his appointment. A businessman comes in to review the company that he is now chairing. “Please can I have a meeting with you for you to tell me what you have seen? What are the pressure points, what’s good and what’s bad?” The conversation was entirely about the business operating model, not the postmaster compensation. That is a completely separate matter and the finance for it is ring-fenced. It is not within his budgetary concerns. They were talking about how this business model was fundamentally compromised and would not exist in the private sector.

But it is a public corporation and it needs to exist in the public sector. This is why we have this hybrid model. We have 11,500 post offices, of which 5,000 are in rural areas and 3,000 are the last shop in the village. That is not financially viable and would not survive any daylight in the private sector, but we all agree that it is legitimate that this is a vital public service for these rural communities, which is why the Treasury funds that to the tune of £50 million, specifically allocated to run a network which, frankly, is not profitable. That is an immediate discussion between the two and when you add in the pressures of last year, with the minimum wage increasing and energy prices increasing, you can see that there are budgetary pressures inside the operating model.

There is also a discussion about the Horizon computer. The Government have allocated £103 million to building a system to replace Horizon—which is now working fine but is clunky and clearly has not been the right system. So now a new system has been put in place. Any noble Lord in this Chamber who has done an IT project will understand how these budgets go—so there is a second pressure.

There are a number of business pressures being talked about. In the very first meeting between the chairman and his reporting senior civil servant, it is quite appropriate that they should talk about those pressures, and it may well be that the Permanent Secretary was explaining to a businessman, who had not worked with government before, about how government works and how communication works. Undoubtedly, a conversation was had between them, but the record now shows—and the letter written by Sarah Munby makes it very clear—that those discussions did not ever stray into the territory of “By the way, please can you solve your budget pressures by stopping or delaying compensation to postmasters”—that is simply not the case, and we can put it to bed now. It has been conflated and confused, but it is now on the record to show that it is simply not the case.

I turn to the compensation, and the question of whether the Government have been dragging their feet and why. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government have been dragging their feet and I will provide some evidence for that. There are three schemes in place: a scheme for the 900 wrongful convictions; a second scheme for the GLO 555, which, if you take out the convictions, is 477; and there is the Horizon shortfall scheme—the 2,500. That comes to just under 3,000 postmasters, and, today, 78% of all claims are paid and settled. Interestingly, of the 3,000 postmasters, 2,700 have received some sort of payment. Either they are settled, or they are interim, which means more than 90% of the cohort have received either a full and final settlement or an interim settlement on their way to final settlement. That was pushed through largely during 2023, and if we take the £160 million that has been paid out now to the 2,700, £138 million of that was paid out by December last year—before the series and the Bates documentary and under the tenure of Henry Staunton as chairman. Therefore, it is interesting that, under his chairmanship, there is no evidence—the opposite, in fact—that there has been any dragging of feet when it comes to compensation being made to the postmasters, of whom now 78% are fully settled and more than 90% have received compensation.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned that this compensation process is clunky and bureaucratic. My noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, who is in the Chamber, will substantiate that the process has been put together by the subgroup; that is, the advisory group that Mr Bates has been involved with on how to make the process work and be fair. To be clear, the appeal process is more for the benefit of the postmasters and postmistresses to appeal, not for the Government to push back. The Government will not push back on the claims given; we need to give a process that, where an offer is made to a postmaster or postmistress and that individual does not feel it is high enough, they can appeal that process. That process has been designed by the advisory council, so, again, there is no evidence that we are dragging our feet.

In fact, when you look at the cohort of 477, who are part of the brave 555 group who have arguably been through the most trauma, having had to go to court and having been some of the most egregious examples, we want to process those claims as quickly as possible. We can go only as quickly as we receive the claims. What is interesting to me is that, of the 477 who have received the interim payment so far, only 58 full claims have been submitted, of which we have settled 41—we have settled 41 out of 58, we are settling as quickly as we can. Why is it only 58 full claims? It is because those postmasters and postmistresses are now in a position, with legal help, to access all the information to put their claim in, and they are taking their time to do that, and quite rightly so.

I think I can make the point that on convictions and compensation, the money is fully ring-fenced; it is not in the conversation about the operational matter of the Post Office—that is a completely separate issue—and we have committed to go as quickly as we can to make the payments and that is also why we are putting through legislation on the overturning of convictions.

20:05

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. Of course, if you are a sub-postmaster, you do not really care who said what to who. There are two questions that a sub-postmaster would be interested in: when will the compensation be paid and when will the convictions be overturned? As for when the compensation will be paid, I would like to pick up a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol; namely, the accounts. In which department’s accounts is the £1 billion that it is expected will be paid out in compensation to the sub-postmasters? I hope it can be found in some department’s accounts. As to the convictions, this is an interesting Statement, but when can we expect a Statement on precisely how those convictions are going to be overturned and when can we expect a Statement on the legislation to come before both Houses?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I will take the second one first: there are live conversations going on right now, at great speed, to finalise the legal process with the Ministry of Justice, which will result in the overturning of all the convictions in England and Wales by an Act of Parliament, excepting that there may be some small number of people who, in fact, have had legal or safe convictions, but they will be overturned—as we discussed before—because the greater good is to wipe the slate clean as quickly as possible. That will be coming to this House in short order, and I imagine there will be unanimous support for that.

As for the timing and the finance, the finance for this will come ultimately from the Treasury. The Treasury has been funding DBT, in order for it to fund the Post Office, and, in the course of last year, under the chairmanship of Henry Staunton, £253 million was paid by the Treasury, via DBT, to Post Office Ltd, of which £150 million was for the compensation schemes—and £160 million has now been paid—and the £103 million was for the replacement of the Horizon system. There are regular funding lines going to the Post Office via DBT.

This money has been ring-fenced and identified by the Government—it sits within the Treasury—but we have also had conversations in this House about the fact that there may be some other sources of compensation to be had from other places, and why it should not necessarily be just the taxpayer who picks up the bill for this when there are perhaps other stakeholders involved in this sorry saga who should pay their part. It may well be that that the taxpayer can be relieved of some of the £1 billion ring-fencing because it may be that we can get other sources, not least Fujitsu, to pay for that.

The commitment given by my department—we are working flat out on this—is to get 90% of the claims processed and settled within 40 working days. There is no going back from that; as we have said before, 78% of postmasters and postmistresses—a figure of 2,270—have been fully paid and settled. We are now at the sharp end of this process for those who were treated the most egregiously. Therefore, those cases are more complex, and perhaps need more time—not demanded by the Government—for the process of how they put their claim together. We have a situation where it is openly known that Mr Bates has submitted his claim and is not happy with the response: that is part of the process that we are in, and it will go on. We will move as quickly as we can to make sure that everyone is restored to the position that they should be in.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a question about the undated letter from Sarah Munby to Mr Staunton that has been released. It asks him to focus on

“effective management of legal costs”.

Can the Minister explain what those legal costs are? What does that mean? Such a letter could not have been written without consultation with lots of colleagues as to what kind of terminology to use. Will the Minister ensure that all the back-up notes to this letter are put in the public domain?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

This is very straight- forward. If I am appointed as the new chairman of a company in this situation and, of my three priorities, the No. 1 is to manage a legal process to get compensation quickly to postmasters, I would expect to be told that formally by the Permanent Secretary and to be held accountable to manage those costs effectively. That does not mean to minimise or delay; it means to manage the process effectively to get compensation to the postmasters. What has been put into the public domain makes it very clear that there has been no dragging of feet and no instruction to the contrary on this matter.

As we have discussed many times in this Chamber, we now have a full statutory inquiry. The judge, Wyn Williams, will pick through this in fine detail. We are all very impatient and frustrated because we want the answer now, but we got into this mess because we jumped the gun before, and we are not going to do so again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, about where the £1 billion sits. If it comes from the Treasury, would it be in the Green Book following the Autumn Statement? It was all agreed by then. If it is not visible in the Green Book, can the Minister please write to the people speaking on this Statement to say where we might find it? It should be visible from the moment it was agreed, which was well before the Autumn Statement last year.

My second question, going back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, is about the bullying claims. I find it slightly extraordinary that in one part of the Statement the Secretary of State says it is important that she does not go into details, yet suddenly she alleges bullying—which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has pointed out, is not in the Written Statement. It is really important to understand when the allegations of bullying came about and the process that must now be under way to investigate them. You do not sack somebody without an investigation having got under way. If you do, that is the most appalling error of judgment. Can the Minister please confirm when and how Staunton was informed of the bullying complaint and whether he has been contacted by an investigator?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

On the first point, I do not have the exact intricacies of which bank account the money sits in. I am happy to write about that, but it seems to me that if the Treasury and the Government have said we have a potential liability of £1 billion, we are good for the £1 billion. I will find out where it is sitting, if that is the question, but to me that is perhaps a lesser matter.

On the Staunton case, I am not prepared to do HR in the Chamber. That would not be fair or right. We should not talk about detailed conduct allegations in a Chamber such as this. The chairman was dismissed by the shareholder, the Secretary of State. In any company I have ever operated in, the shareholder is entitled to remove a chairman. The chairman’s job is to represent the shareholder, so if the shareholder is not happy with the chairman, it is absolutely valid that the shareholder can dismiss the chair. That is what happened in this case, and there is now a process that is better done in private. Let us not do HR in the Chamber.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that the outcome of this competition of accounts between Henry Staunton and the Secretary of State could have significant consequences for them both, certainly for the Secretary of State if she is proved, at the end of the day, not to have been truthful to Parliament. She has another problem to do with what Canadian High Commissioner Ralph Goodale has said to the Business and Trade Select Committee, so she is in some difficulty.

I am in the space that I think the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is in. I do not think that this unedifying spectacle—this sideshow of mud-slinging—is the Minister’s priority. The priorities need to be full and proper compensation to the people who have lost out; the restoration of their good name in all the ways that will be necessary, which will involve exoneration; and, in the longer term when the inquiry is over, proper accountability for the people responsible for this. In the immediate term there is a simple way of resolving this competition of accounts: to put into the public domain all the information that it is proper to and to let the people out there see it and make up their own minds. They will in any event.

My real concern is that there is almost certainly an ongoing miscarriage of justice occurring in our justice system, as has been exposed, properly, by this Horizon scandal. It is the ludicrous presumption that if information comes from a computer, it is deemed to be reliable evidence. If that is to be challenged, it is up to the person who is claiming that it is not right—not the person who owns the computer—to show that the computer is not producing the right evidence. When on earth will we get this presumption changed around the right way? There must be daily cases in our courts that are not up to the level of the Horizon scandal, in spades and at every single level, creating other miscarriages of justice whose mess we may have to clean up in future at enormous expense to the public.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I absolutely agree that the Staunton issue is a distraction that none of us needs; it is certainly not in the interests of the postmasters and postmistresses, who want to see compensation paid and convictions overturned. As I said, the Ministry of Justice is working expeditiously to sort the overturning of convictions. As I have also said before in this Chamber, there will be serious ramifications regarding a number of matters that will come from the inquiry when it is finally published. I imagine that the matter about which the noble Lord has deep knowledge, the presumption that the computer is always right, will be one such. I imagine that will be taken forward following the inquiry.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is an additional group of sub-postmasters affected by this scandal: those who paid the money back because of the potential or actual reality of dishonour in the communities in which they lived and worked. A significant number did nothing about it and simply paid the money back. Under the coal miners’ compensation scheme in previous years, government ensured that every former coal miner was invited to claim back money they were owed. Will government ensure that every single postmaster and postmistress, or their family if they are no longer with us, has the opportunity to make the claim that they wrongly had to pay back money and felt obliged to do so to avoid what they saw as the shame and dishonour of being seen to be dishonest in their local community?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I can assure the noble Lord that that is exactly the objective. The words that have been used are about restoring all postmasters and postmistresses to the position they were in before this sorry saga happened. The Government will make full compensation when all claims are received. We rely on the postmasters and postmistresses to come forward with their claims and cases. As we stand right now, the cases of 78% of the cohort of victims—more than 2,000—have been settled in full. There is a process to allow further claims to come through and an appeal process designed by the advisory committee to do that. The objective is to leave no stone unturned and to make sure that all compensation is paid as quickly and timeously as possible.

Immigration Rules and Border Security

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 20 February.

“The security of the UK border is a top priority for me, the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Everything we do in this area is designed to reduce risks to this country and its citizens. Border Force performs checks on 100% of scheduled passengers arriving in the UK and risk-based intelligence-led checks on general aviation. It is deeply disturbing that information that has no basis in fact was leaked by the independent chief inspector to a national newspaper before the Home Office had the chance to respond. We are urgently investigating this breach of confidential information in full in the normal way.

Moving to yesterday’s changes to the Immigration Rules, since the launch of our Ukraine schemes the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to more than 280,000 Ukrainians, thanks to the immense generosity of the British public. I know that colleagues across the House are grateful for all the work that has been going on in communities to facilitate that support. Almost two years on from the start of the conflict, the UK Government’s commitment to the Ukrainian cause remains undimmed. It is right that we continue to adapt and develop our visa routes to ensure that they keep pace with the rapidly shifting situation in Ukraine. We must ensure that they remain as efficient and sustainable as possible, while providing stability for those we have welcomed to the UK and those who still need our sanctuary. Ukrainian nationals who may have previously been eligible to apply to come to the UK under the Ukraine family scheme will remain eligible to apply for the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme.

Separately, the Government remain wholeheartedly committed to reducing levels of legal migration. Measures to curb immigration abuse and further reduce net migration are being implemented, ranging from salary increases for work and family visas to reforming the shortage occupation list, removing the right for overseas care workers to bring dependants, and requiring care providers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission before hiring overseas carers. The rule changes outlined yesterday, which relate to the care sector, pave the way for those measures to take effect.”

20:19

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, there is yet more chaos at the borders as we learned yesterday of a failure to check hundreds of high-risk flights for the obvious threats of trafficking, serious crime and terrorism. The Government dispute the figures, so let me give them an opportunity to say whether all the high-risk flights were checked. What are the figures that the Government believe, not only for London City Airport but across the UK, and are they all properly checked?

Instead of getting a grip, the Government sacked the inspector immediately when he was being forced to leave next month anyway. Some 15 of his reports remain unpublished, including revelations of visa failures in the care sector, with 275 such visas issued to a non-existent care home. When will these 15 reports, being sat on by the Home Office, be published, and when will there be a new independent inspector to oversee our borders and immigration arrangements? Border security is too important for confusion, delay and incompetence but, too often, that is what we get from this Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions, and I will do my best to answer them all. I can reassure anyone from the public who happens to be watching: Border Force performs checks on 100% of scheduled passengers arriving in the UK and risk-based intelligence-led checks on general aviation. It is disturbing that information with no basis in fact was leaked by the independent chief inspector to a national newspaper before the Home Office had the chance to respond. As a consequence, Mr Neal lost the confidence of the Home Secretary, as he pointed out in his WMS yesterday. I cannot really improve on his words:

“I have terminated the appointment of David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, after he breached the terms of appointment and lost my confidence”.


In terms of the checks at London City Airport, Mr Neal was very aware of a specific issue with the recording of data there that meant that a large proportion of flights recorded as high risk should have been reclassified as low risk. As I have already mentioned, all notified general aviation flights are categorised as high risk or low risk based on a number of factors. These are primarily related to persons on board, but additional factors can relate to intelligence about the aircraft and other matters. A flight may be remotely cleared when it has been assessed using the risk assessment as low risk, and for high-risk flights in certain circumstances only. A remote clearance requires, as a minimum, a digital record check on Home Office systems for all passengers. Where we are notified of a general aviation flight, we clear 100% of high-risk and low-risk flights remotely or in person, in accordance with the general aviation guidance.

I am not sure when the new replacement will be recruited. It is a very important position, and an appointment will be made following robust competition in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. As regards the publishing of the other reports, it is undeniably unfortunate that circumstances have delayed the publication of certain inspection reports. I will say that the one that was leaked was well within the time limit, and the Government had not been given an opportunity to respond and were still fact-checking, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. These will be published as soon as possible.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, why did the Government not follow the advice of the social care sector and ensure that only CQC-registered homes and businesses could accept social care workers? That would have helped overcome the problems. Will that be considered from now on? It is clearly important to the sector, which needs the employees, and everyone else.

Can the Minister also explain how Ukrainian family members whose own circumstances in Ukraine may include being bombed out of their homes, for example, will now no longer be able to join their families here under changes to the Ukrainian scheme?

Finally, the Minister referred to unpublished reports by David Neal, the former chief inspector. The Government may have been checking only the last one, but can the Minister explain why 15 reports have not been published and give us a date when they will be published by?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

To answer the last question, I say that the date is soon. I am afraid that I cannot improve on that. They all require fact checking and a variety of other things. In terms of the Care Quality Commission, that is precisely what we are doing. It was made very clear the other day that, additionally, care workers in England will be able to sponsor migrant workers only if they are undertaking activities as regulated by the Care Quality Commission going forward.

Ukrainian family members can still come. It is just that we are unifying the schemes currently in existence. The old family scheme allowed settled Ukrainian sponsoring family members to come here. That settlement used to have only a six-month qualification. They can still come under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The sponsors can now be British, Irish or settled in the UK, and that obviously includes family members. This scheme was greeted favourably and with some very positive comments from the Ukrainian embassy, which I am happy to recount if anybody would like to hear them.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my wife and I drove trucks for our family business regularly through Calais to Dover, and we are very aware of the weaknesses in the systems and pressures from people smugglers attempting to come in through commercial vehicles, trucks and lorries. What is the increase in the number of checks done on those vehicles this year compared with last year, and what is the increase in the number of people found to have been smuggled or trafficked through those routes using trucks or lorries this year compared with last year?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not have the statistics on trucks. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 19 February.

“Last week, the Community Security Trust published its latest report on anti-Semitic incidents. It made for deeply disturbing reading. It showed that there were 4,103 instances of anti-Jewish racist hatred recorded across the UK in 2023. That is the highest annual total ever reported to the Community Security Trust. It is a 147% rise from the 1,662 anti-Semitic incidents the previous year, and 81% higher than the previous yearly record of 2,261 incidents, reported in 2021. Most shockingly, more than two-thirds of the incidents reported last year occurred on or after 7 October, when Hamas perpetrated its barbaric terrorist attack on Israel. The report also indicates that anti-Semitism began spiking before Israel’s military response had begun: the week immediately following 7 October saw 416 anti-Semitic incidents reported to the CST, which is higher than any subsequent week.

The CST’s findings, which tally with increases in offending reported by the police, are nothing short of a disgrace and an outrage. Examples highlighted in the report are shocking and reprehensible. I urge all Members to read the report because it shines a light on the scale and character of this disgraceful problem. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that members of Britain’s Jewish community are suffering a level of hatred and abuse which is frankly shameful.

There is no excuse for the behaviour outlined in the CST report or seen in some of the shocking incidents that have occurred recently. The situation in the Middle East does not and will never give anyone the right to harass or intimidate others. I repeat, no one ever has that right. This Government will not stand for anti-Semitism of any kind. It is important to note that the police have comprehensive powers to deal with abhorrent conduct of this nature. For example, in the case of public order offences, where there is proof of racial or religious hostility on the part of the offender, offenders will be charged with racially or religiously aggravated versions of those offences, which will result in an uplift to their sentence. Furthermore, inciting racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, and anyone engaged in that appalling behaviour should expect to be arrested. Whenever and wherever criminality involving anti-Semitism occurs, this Government expect the police to investigate the incident fully and work with the Crown Prosecution Service to bring the perpetrators to justice.

We have been clear both before and since the 7 October attacks that we will do whatever it takes to keep Britain’s Jewish community safe. We have taken strong steps to confront the poison of anti-Semitism head on. We have increased funding to bolster security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other sites. A total of £36 million will be made available for these crucial protective measures across 2023-24 and the following financial year.

The Community Security Trust is an essential partner in our efforts to keep the Jewish community safe, and I pay tribute to it for the brilliant work that it does. The Home Office meets regularly with CST staff and co-operates closely with them. We keep dialogue open constantly, and both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have regular meetings with them. None the less, it should sadden us that these kind of precautions are necessary in the UK, in 2024. The work of organisations such as the CST is more important than ever, and we must remain vigilant. That includes sending the message loud and clear from this House—I hope from the whole House—that any instances of criminal behaviour will be identified, and those responsible caught and punished.

We are working closely with the police to ensure that hate crime and expressions of support for terrorist organisations are met with the full force of the law. The idea that anyone could celebrate or valorise Hamas for the appalling terrorist atrocities that it perpetrated on 7 October is beyond comprehension. It goes completely against the values of this country. Last month, we proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism and is responsible for spreading anti-Semitism. Hamas itself, of course, is already a proscribed organisation. Anyone who belongs to, or invites or expresses support for, a proscribed organisation is committing an offence. The penalties on conviction are a maximum term of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

The right to protest is of course a fundamental part of our democracy, but that right cannot be exercised in a way that intimidates others or invokes fear in them. It is totally unacceptable for a small minority to incite hatred and commit crimes. The police have powers to deal with that, and we expect them to act. Where further powers are needed, we will not hesitate to act, which is why we recently announced a new package of measures to crack down on dangerous disorder—in particular, that committed at protests.

The CST’s findings on incidents within the sphere of higher education were especially disturbing. No one should be subject to anti-Semitic abuse while at university. Every effort must be taken to prevent hatred from flourishing in schools, universities and colleges. That is why we announced a further £7 million of funding to help to tackle anti-Semitism in education.

We are equally unwavering in our stance towards hatred and abuse directed at British Muslims. The Government have been in regular contact with representatives of the Muslim community, and we are aware of an increased number of reports of anti-Muslim hatred as well. That is of course unacceptable, and we have made additional funding available for protective security measures at mosques and Muslim faith schools.

Last month, we marked Holocaust Memorial Day. Just as we remember the horrors of the past, we must remain alert to present-day dangers. Anti-Semitism is an ancient hatred, which has reared its ugly head in the most abhorrent and evil ways throughout history. The CST’s findings show that we have much more to do if we are to rid our society of this poison, but the Government will never stop trying. We will never give up on this fight. It matters too much. Of course, that extends to ensuring that Members of Parliament are protected from acts of similar hatred, which some have suffered. I am thinking particularly of my honourable friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, Mike Freer, who is in the Chamber, whose office suffered a terrible arson attack just a few weeks ago.

To the anti-Semites, we say this: ‘You will not win. You will be shown up for the despicable racists you are’. To our Jewish friends and colleagues, I say this: ‘We stand with you. We understand your fears and we share your pain. We will protect you—today, tomorrow and always.’ I commend this Statement to the House.”

20:26

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the opportunity to discuss this important Statement today and, indeed, what the Government have had to say in response to the appalling levels of anti-Semitism detailed in the recent Community Security Trust reports. I know that we will all wish to thank it for the truly crucial work that it does, not only in monitoring anti-Semitism but in the physical protection that it provides for Jewish schools, synagogues and other community events. I have been to see its work myself, and it will always remain with me. In particular, there was the experience in a north London Jewish school: an alarm was sounded and we, staff and children automatically hid under desks or tables in case of a terrorist attack on the school. It was truly shocking. That was in London—in our country, in 2019, before the obvious increased tension now.

The CST reported over 4,000 individual incidents of hate crime against Jews in 2023, with 66% of those since 7 October. This is a 147% rise. Assault is up by 96%. Threats are up by 196%. Abuse is up by 149%. That is taking place in every part of the UK, as the report makes clear. I know that the Government, as all of us in this Parliament do, share the belief that anti- Semitism is a stain on our society and must be tackled head on. What assessment have the Government made of the use by the police of the powers that they have to tackle anti-Semitism at marches, in universities and across society more generally? Of course, this is not for legitimate, peaceful protests but for those individuals who glorify extremism or celebrate unimaginable horror.

The Government rightly proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. What assessment have they made of the impact that this has had? Are there any other groups that they have considered proscribing to help deal with this extremism? What is the number of arrests, if any, that the Minister can say have taken place under this proscription?

The Government announced a very welcome increase of £7 million of funding, mentioned by the Minister in the other place in his Statement, for helping to tackle anti- Semitism in education. What progress is being made in distributing this extra £7 million? Education is a key to progress, as we see through many initiatives: I am sure that many noble Lords have taken part in the various visits with schoolchildren to Auschwitz.

The Government’s Statement also draws attention, quite rightly, to the shocking and totally unacceptable increase in abuse and hatred of Muslims, as highlighted by Tell MAMA and others. Funding has been made available for security at Muslim schools and mosques. Can the Minister tell us how much and how it is being distributed?

There are also questions for the Government about when we will see the new law to deal with hateful extremism. It is eight years since the counter-extremism strategy was updated, and the Government continually say that this will be done in due course. Action is needed now. Can the Minister give us any update on that? Will the Government look again at their decision to downgrade the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, which particularly affects the recording of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? How is it that anti-Semitism can seemingly flourish online and remain there? Will the new Online Safety Act deal with this now, so that some of the hateful and extremist comments that we see online can be dealt with?

We all agree that abuse, discrimination and hatred have no place in our society. Too many people, including in Parliament, are threatened and intimidated because of who they are. We must all stand against that. I do not want to wake up, as I did yesterday, to read that a statue of Amy Winehouse has been defaced, with the Star of David covered by a pro-Palestinian sticker. We all know the intent behind that action. I do not want to read, as I did today, of a Jewish couple receiving a birth certificate with “Israel” scrubbed out. What is happening with respect to the investigation that the Government have launched into that? Can the Minister give us any update?

The extremism that we have seen is not our country, nor is it the country whose people, with others, fought and died to stamp out the evil of Hitler and his disgusting programmes of extermination. It is not true either of the vast majority of British people, who abhor such actions and extremism. Debate, protest and argument are all part of a healthy democracy. Hatred, prejudice and anti-Semitism in all its forms are not. We must stand together to stamp it out.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is warming to see the Government taking things seriously. I will not raise many more questions as to what they are doing because I think we all want to do something to cut down on anti-Semitism.

I welcome the comments on and compliments to the Community Security Trust, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. I must declare that I am a member of the CST’s advisory board, although my advice is rarely sought. It does an incredible job, not only on the statistics on which we base a lot of our information but in the security it presents to the Jewish community in the UK. I do not know whether anyone has had a chance to go to the CST’s headquarters in Hendon. It has an array of television monitors that are the envy of Scotland Yard. There are rows and rows of them. How do they cope with recording things at each individual site? They are monitored and are activated by movement, so although you might have 100 monitors they may be covering 1,000 sites, because they do not come on until there is physical activity in that area. It is state of the art and quite amazing.

We all decry anti-Semitism, but it appears, sadly, that no political party is immune from it. It is rampant in the UK, and if it is rampant in the UK it will be rampant in organisations, including political parties. When it comes up in any political party, it is the duty of that political party or administration to stamp on that anti-Semitism. Take politicians as an example: they stand for the local council or for Parliament and people carry out due diligence, but sometimes they do not come out, at that time, with the feelings that are abhorrent to us all.

It was a horrific time, on 7 October, when there was a massacre on the borders of Gaza, in Israel. People were killed, murdered and slaughtered. A couple of hundred people were taken hostage, some of them from a music festival. The other day, I met here in this House a woman in her early 20s who was at that music festival—a gig that many of us, our children or our grandchildren might have gone to if it had been in the UK. She survived because she was underneath all the dead bodies. What trauma that is. That is a harsh example of anti-Semitism.

We are thankful to the CST for giving us this information: Israel had not yet responded on 7 October but there were 31 incidents of anti-Semitism in the UK that day. This continued until it peaked on 11 October, with 80 incidents in the UK. The week following 7 October saw 416 anti-Semitic incidents. The speed and number of these incidents on or after 7 October appear to show that this increase in anti-Jewish hate—that is what it is—was a celebration of Hamas’s attack. It was not just what everyone wants to believe: they were actually celebrating the attack. The subsequent response has added fuel to the flames.

I have seen this anti-Semitism in my own locality. There is a kosher supermarket which I patronise. On a week when I was not there—otherwise I could have been a hero—a man with a knife attacked the shop owners in Golders Green. Recently, there have been a number of incidents; it is hard to pick them out. One of the most horrifying ones was in a theatre in London, where the stand-up comedian decided, as part of his act, to wave a Ukrainian and a Palestinian flag, and invited the members of the audience to stand up and clap those flags. One guy in the audience was an Israeli, there enjoying the show, and he did not stand up—he did not make a fuss but he did not stand up. The comedian picked him out and he and the audience forced the guy out. The anti-Semitism forced him out of the theatre. This is the reality of how anti-Semitism is working in many fields.

I understand what is sometimes behind many of the people on the marches which take place—a horror at the Palestinians’ suffering in Gaza. I sympathise with and understand that. But I must say that, as an Orthodox Jew in the UK, I am reminded somewhat of the Duke of Wellington’s comment “I don’t know what effect they will have on the enemy but by God they frighten me”. I do not know what effect they are having on people in Parliament, but I will tell you the effect they have on the UK Jewish community.

The CST, which has been mentioned, works in schools in the UK to protect the people of those schools. At the moment, there are Jewish parents who are not sending their children to their Jewish schools because they are frightened. If they are sending them, they are telling them not to wear the school blazers or their yarmulkes—their head covering—because it will identify them. This is the UK, this is the country we live in, and this is not how it should be. My local synagogue has had security outside it forever; I used to do the security until they decided they would probably kill me first. But it is just something in practice.

So anti-Semitism is here, and it is rampant. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked a number of questions; I will not repeat any of them because, in fact, the Government have understood what the problem is. The Labour Front Bench understands it and my Front Bench understands it. We must support the police, and support the Government, of whatever hue they are, in dealing with the dreadful horror of anti-Semitism that sadly exists in this country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. On 19 February, my right honourable friend the Policing Minister made a very powerful Statement in the other place. He stated very clearly:

“This Government will not stand for antisemitism of any kind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/24; col. 500.]


He added that nothing could ever be used for its justification. He is, of course, right. Anti-Semitism is deplorable, and it is worse now than I have ever known it.

I turn to the late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, formerly of your Lordships’ House, for some words to sum up my feelings on this. With the House’s indulgence, I will repeat them and I sincerely hope I speak for many. He said:

“Jews cannot fight antisemitism alone. The victim cannot cure the crime. The hated cannot cure the hate. It would be the greatest mistake for Jews to believe that they can fight it alone. The only people who can successfully combat antisemitism are those active in the cultures that harbour it. Antisemitism begins with Jews, but it never ends with them. A world without room for Jews is one that has no room for difference, and a world that lacks space for difference lacks space for humanity itself”.


I think that is very powerful.

I join both noble Lords in praising the work of the Community Security Trust, which I hope to visit very soon. I hope that my private office is busy, as we speak, arranging that. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in noting that the rise in some of these incidents spiked after 7 October, but before there had been any military response by Israel, which really illustrates the pernicious nature of what we are talking about.

If I may, I will get on to the specific questions. I was asked a lot, and unfortunately, owing to my long-windedness, I will probably go a little over time—but I will not apologise for that as I would rather answer the questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked what we are doing to protect Jewish schools. Department for Education Ministers have written to university, school and college leaders, urging them all to ensure that Jewish students are protected and, of course, are offered our support. That is part of the continued engagement with the sector to ensure that settings have the tools they need to act swiftly to tackle anti-Semitic abuse and discriminatory rhetoric.

The terrorist atrocities carried out against the people of Israel are of course horrifying, and anti-Semitism in British society will not be tolerated. This extends to our schools, colleges and universities. So the department is working with all relevant authorities to keep Jewish pupils, students and educational staff safe. We are providing an additional £3 million for the Community Security Trust to provide additional security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. The Government’s Educate Against Hate website provides support for pupils to challenge racist and discriminatory beliefs, and we are due to imminently send letters to schools outlining advice on managing sensitive discussions around anti-Semitism.

The funding for the Community Security Trust will be maintained next year, with a total of £36 million available for the protection of UK Jewish communities between 2023-24 and 2024-25. The Prime Minister has also announced a number of other aspects to this funding. As I mentioned already, it is to provide security at schools, synagogues and other community sites.

I will also comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker; I was talking to somebody who works at the Community Security Trust. They pointed out, in a very powerful comment, that in most schools the alarms are for people to get out. In Jewish schools, they are for people to stay in and hide under a table. That is what we are talking about. The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement confirmed that protective security funding for the Jewish community would be maintained at £18 million in 2024-25.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also raised the important subject of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate. The Government have made an additional £4.9 million of funding available for protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools, which brings the total funding to £29.4 million for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. We obviously have to listen to the concerns with the same attentiveness. The Government have made additional funding available. The total funding is a good number and is, I believe, delivering the appropriate safeguards. We have also extended the deadline for the protective security for mosques scheme and continue to invite mosques and Muslim faith community centres to register for protective security measures. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for referring to the work of Tell MAMA, which he will know has been supported by DLUHC to the tune of £6 million, I think, since its inception.

I will move on to the subject of the police and their powers. The police are fully aware of the powers available to them. I believe there have been more than 600 arrests so far. I take this opportunity to thank the police for their work; six officers were injured over the weekend in these protests, and I wish them a speedy recovery, as I am sure all noble Lords do. Of those 600 arrests, I believe that more than 30 were made for terrorism-related offences.

That the police are fully aware of their powers has been repeatedly demonstrated, most recently with respect to a convoy planned from the north of England to north London, many parts of which have Jewish communities. The police stopped that convoy because they were concerned it would inflame tensions and engage in intimidatory behaviour. Under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 the police have powers to impose conditions on protests to prevent specific consequences, including serious public disorder, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation. The police can impose any condition they deem necessary to prevent these harms occurring and have made repeated use of these powers—for example, to prohibit protests outside the Israeli embassy and to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected.

The recent protests have seen a small minority dedicated to causing damage and intimidating the law-abiding majority. We respect the right to protest, which we regard as paramount in our country, but dangerous behaviour must not be tolerated. Noble Lords will remember that we announced new powers last week—for example, banning the use of face coverings, about war memorials, on using flares and so on.

As regards the recent protests, the Chancellor set out in his Autumn Statement that we are giving organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust £7 million over the next three years. That, as I said, goes into the overall protective security funding for the Jewish community.

However, we need to be very careful when we are criticising the police for actions they may or may not have taken at individual marches. It is difficult to judge what it is like when you are in a protest and trying to police it. We should trust the police. We know that they have good advice in the control rooms and so on, and that they are doing their very best under difficult circumstances. Once again, I praise their efforts.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the hate crime strategy and action plan. We are not intending to publish a new plan at this time, but we remain committed to continuing to protect all communities from crime, and we have a number of programmes in place to do so. Our absolute priority was to get more police on the streets. I will not rehash the numbers, but noble Lords will know that we were successful in that endeavour.

As regards non-crime hate incidents, the Government introduced a new code of practice to make the processes surrounding the recording and retention of personal data subject to stronger safeguards. The code better protects the right to freedom of expression, while respecting the operational importance of NCHI recording for the police in protecting vulnerable people and communities from harm. However, the code makes it clear that instances that include personal data can and should be recorded if the event presents a real risk of significant harm and if there is a real risk that future criminal offences may be committed. We would like to make it absolutely clear that the code relates only to non-crime hate incidents; it does not amend the hate crime framework in any way, shape or form.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the birth certificate incident that was widely reported. I happened to be with the Home Secretary when we were made aware of that, and he immediately asked officials to investigate the matter. Appropriate action will be taken, but at the moment investigations are ongoing.

On online hate crime, again the Government are clear that online offending is as serious as offline offending. We have very robust legislation in place to deal with threating and abusive behaviour or behaviour which is intended or likely to stir up hatred. This applies whether it takes place online or offline. The Home Office regularly engages with the tech companies about unlawful conduct on their platforms and shares information about the threat landscape. I believe the Home Secretary is visiting the west coast of the USA shortly, which will allow him to raise these matters with the companies concerned.

The Government have worked with the police to fund True Vision, which is an online hate crime reporting portal, designed so that victims of hate crime do not have to visit a police station to report. The Government continue to fund the national online hate crime hub, which is a central capability designed to support individual local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. We also made hate crime a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent in October last year.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, gave us some personal reflections on the kosher supermarket and restaurants. I saw a clip of that online, and I appreciate the points that he made. Let me be clear: in this, as in all the other subjects that are under discussion this evening, we have a robust legislative framework in place. We expect the police to fully investigate these sorts of offences and make sure that those who commit them feel the full force of the law. Anti-Semitism, or indeed any other form of intolerance of that type, is completely unacceptable in this country, and we have to be vigilant in our efforts to combat it.

20:50

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I would like to confirm with the Minister, and thank him if it is the case, that he announced three-year funding for the Community Security Trust. That is a welcome change of policy that for some years I have pressed the Government for, and it will make the trust’s work much easier.

In my view, there is a sinister change in what is going on with anti-Semitism beyond the noise, which is bad enough: it is the very specific, organised and co-ordinated targeting of individual Jewish people, at work and in their accommodation, in ways that we have never seen before. I do not mean awful random violent acts of anti-Semitism, which of course are dangerous and threatening for all of us and something that we need to deal with, but the co-ordinated targeting of people, isolating them and organising pile-ons to force them out of workplaces—in some cases off student courses and in other cases out of accommodation, but particularly from the workplace. That co-ordination is something that we have not seen in this country.

I urge the Minister to agree with me that, for the Jewish community to be safe, this crisis of anti-Semitism is going to require the maximum detailed co-operation between all parties in this House, because this scourge is already out of control and lives are being ruined that we are not even seeing. We are going to see more of that as they surface, because people are alone and terrified and are being picked off.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, if I make a correct the record, I may have said three-year funding but I should have said two-year funding. If I mis-spoke, I apologise.

On the points that the noble Lord raises, I completely agree. The targeted stuff that he refers to is a particularly pernicious form of anti-Semitism, and I too have seen evidence of it. The police are aware of it, and I hope they will crack down on the perpetrators. The noble Lord is right that it needs a cross-party response, but to some extent he is missing the point: it needs a cross-society response. It is not just us in here; everyone has to get on board with this.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House and I thank the Government for making it.

I too welcome the Community Security Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the reported figures of anti-Semitic incidents being up by 147% last year on the previous year. One such incident, which was reported on 12.55 pm on 7 October, was of a car passing a synagogue in Hertfordshire with a Palestinian flag raised and an occupant inside putting his fist and arm out, shaking his fist in the air towards the synagogue that he was passing. By Monday 9 October other crimes were on the increase. A piece of graffiti was sprayed on a bridge in Golders Green, saying “Free Palestine”. I ask the Minister: what steps have been taken to find the perpetrators of each of the incidents that have been reported and recorded? No perpetrator should go without the sanction of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the pro-Palestine demonstrations that we see on our streets in this country. In today’s protest outside Parliament, crowds were chanting “Free Palestine” and waving Palestine flags. They were right up to the metal barriers of this Parliament. Does the Minister not consider that if the police do not have the powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions, perhaps that Act might be considered so that such conditions could involve moving those crowds across the road, so that they are not intimidating people trying to get into Parliament? Whether those are parliamentarians, members of their teams or people working on the Parliamentary Estate, it is something of an ordeal to have to pass through those crowds. Now I hear that the people working in this Parliament must leave the estate by an exit where they will not encounter these crowds. In another age, they might have been called mobs.

Do the Government not think it a stain on the honour not only of the country but of the way we are conducting our policing for such marches and intimidation to take place? There is a very fine line dividing the words “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” from the slogans we see on the railings at our entries to Parliament of “Free Palestine” and the flag waving. I would like to know whether there are powers to impose conditions of moving them away from these Houses of Parliament, where we applaud free speech and no one should feel intimidated when coming in. What powers are needed?

I am glad about the increased funding but I would like the Minister to think further. Can he say whether, in providing all this money to protect synagogues, we need to do more to protect people going about their normal business when they are interrupted or intimidated by marchers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks a number of questions which I am afraid impinge on the operational activities of the police. I am obviously not able to comment on those. On whether we are satisfied that the police are sufficiently aware and have sufficient powers to stop marches and control public protest, we are, and I went into that in some detail earlier. Crowd policing is a very difficult thing to do, for obvious reasons. In some cases, I would absolutely defend the police’s right to carefully gather evidence and consult the experts whom they have available to them before potentially inflaming tensions—this is me dangerously straying into operational areas; I probably should not say even that—because the decisions that the police take have to be context-specific. It is not right for us to second-guess those decisions; the police could of course be challenged on them afterwards if they are found wanting.

We need to be careful when talking about these things, but we are confident that the police have the right powers. I am not aware of any particular incidents today. I did not feel particularly intimidated, although I completely accept that my noble friend might well have done. I am sure all those feelings and thoughts are being taken into account by the House authorities and by other police when they keep us safe.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I really thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke very powerfully and that it was not hyperbole. We almost cannot describe how serious the mood is at the moment. This is a serious time, historically, in terms of anti-Semitism, and this is not just some rhetorical flourish. I want to have that on record.

I am not frightened by the phrase “Free Palestine”, and I do not want to give the Minister any more excuses to clamp down on demonstrations or free speech, because goodness knows he has done a fair amount of that over the period I have been here. However, it is grim, or maybe fitting, that this Statement on the frighting rise of anti-Semitism is against the backdrop of the debate today on a Gaza ceasefire in the other place—albeit performative, because I note that not one life will be saved and there will not be a ceasefire as a consequence of this. That debate descended into a nasty mood of sectarianism. Worse, tonight we are hearing dark allegations that physical threats were made to elected Members, poisoning the democratic procedures of this Parliament. You associate anti-Semitism with those kinds of dark stories. We are in a building that has witnessed it today, never mind the protestors outside.

A much smaller incident that I would like the Minister to comment on is one that cheered me up. It might sound minor, but, after the unpleasant incident earlier this week of the Star of David necklace on the statue of Amy Winehouse being covered up, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly referred to—it was so shocking, even though it seemed so small—I was pleased to see that a non-Jewish member of the public had gone out of their way to skive off work and scrape off the sticker from the statue. I know that because it was reported by the group Our Fight, a new grass-roots campaign of non-Jews challenging British anti-Semitism, which was set up after 7 October.

Would the Minister agree on the importance of such solidarity, which cuts across identity politics and all sorts of party tribalism? This was summed up by the New York mayor, Eric Adams, when he said in a speech:

“Israel, your fight is our fight”.


So much of the anti-Semitism we are seeing today, and much of the reaction to the war in Gaza, is, I am sad to say, around religious and racial identity and some of the most divisive, regressive sides of society. We should call for a universal condemnation of the racism of anti-Semitism.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. She will know that I am not brave enough to restrict her freedom of speech in any way. I think this goes back to what I said when I quoted Rabbi Sacks. He pointed out that anti-Semitism may begin with the Jews but it does not end there, so it is for all of us to combat it.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words, and particularly for reminding us of the wise words of the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is as he says, but it is actually worse.

I was talking to a beauty journalist yesterday and she was telling me of the tweets going around about beauty products, telling people not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a Jewish person and not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a person who supports Israel. It is biting, and it is not just beauty products but clothing products and any Jewish business. This is truly shocking. This last happened 70 years ago. It is spiralling out of control. Jewish businesses are being targeted because they are owned by Jewish people, and people are responding to it. I do not know what the Government can do about that.

As I mentioned earlier in this Chamber, I am president of Westminster Synagogue. On Saturday, the police told us that they would protect us. They sent 20 police officers and four vans, because the demonstration walked past our synagogue, and they felt that was necessary. That demonstration included people chanting anti-Semitic slogans and the expression “From the river to the sea”, which means genocide of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. Of course, the police did not do anything to stop those chants and protests. They did, however, take one person away. That person was standing behind a railing with a banner saying, “Hamas are terrorists”. He was manhandled by the police, his arms were locked and he was walked away. My noble friend the Minister says that the police are restricted in what they can do; they seem to be selective in deciding what to do.

Of course, I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to have answers to all these specific instances tonight, and I can only add to the praise of CST, of which I am proud to be a supporter. I commend Sir Gerald Ronson’s incredible work in promoting CST to the organisation it has become.

I add that it was extremely disheartening to see the disgraced academic David Miller allowed to tweet out his vile abuse of Jewish charities, and it was very disappointing that the University of Bristol failed in its case. One can only think that it did not try particularly hard. I hope the Government will think through how they can take action to stop people like David Miller from posting such vile abuse to people who are just trying to be philanthropists and to help others in need.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I heard his comments about the synagogue and the march this afternoon in another Question. On that incident, as I said, it is very difficult to second-guess the police after the fact. I appreciate where my noble friend is coming from. The decision obviously has to be context specific. But the police are accountable for their actions and, speaking from a personal point of view, I read a good article in the Spectator yesterday by our noble friend Lord Godson. He was right to raise the questions that he raised in that article, and we are all right to question the police, after the fact, about why they did what they did, how they did it and all the rest of the operational matters that they have to remain responsible for. On the targeting of businesses, I have seen some of this stuff online, and I am afraid it disgusts me as well. I am not sure what the Government can do, but this is obviously noted, and I will take it back to the Home Office.

House adjourned at 9.07 pm.