House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
At the spring Budget, the Government announced a package of tax reliefs for our world-leading creative industries worth £1 billion over the next five years, including a 40% relief on business rates for eligible film studios in England and enhanced tax reliefs for visual effects.
Giles Watling
As we know, the UK’s cultural offer is world-beating and, particularly through the performing arts, the UK projects soft power across the globe. While welcoming the progressive tax breaks for our incredible film industry, it would appear that our far-reaching, high-end television offer has been left behind in the recent Budget. Does my right hon. Friend have plans to redress this deficit to ensure that the UK remains first on screens around the world?
Jeremy Hunt
No one knows more about high-end TV than my hon. Friend. Whoever said that politics is showbusiness for ugly people was absolutely wrong in his case. I will take away what he says and consider high-end television as a potential future Budget measure.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Chancellor will be aware of the award-winning film “The Windermere Children”, which talks about the legacy of those Jewish children who survived the death camps in central Europe and made a new life for themselves on the banks of Lake Windermere at Troutbeck Bridge. For the last several years, there has been an ongoing exhibition on their legacy at Windermere library, and now we look to build a lasting memorial alongside a rebuilt Lakes School at Troutbeck Bridge.
Will the Chancellor be interested in meeting the families of the Windermere children, and those behind the new build and the provision of a new lasting memorial to their legacy, at Windermere at some point in the foreseeable future?
Jeremy Hunt
That is a very tempting offer, and I will see whether my diary permits me to visit the hon. Gentleman in his constituency. I have not seen the film, but I have seen a film on a holocaust theme called “The Zone of Interest”, which is a remarkable British-led film that I thoroughly recommend to him.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The economy is beginning to turn a corner after a series of unprecedented shocks. Inflation has more than halved, GDP grew in January and the economy is on a path to long-term growth.
Chi Onwurah
The economy has grown at a snail’s pace under the Tories, but that snail is still 30% faster nationally than in the north-east, despite our strengths in clean energy, manufacturing, science and health. On average, my constituents are £11,500 worse off that they would have been had the economy grown at the same rate that it grew under Labour. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee found no compelling evidence of levelling up? Is a vote for the Tories not a vote for continued economic failure?
Jeremy Hunt
It is not, because we have grown faster than Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany and multiple other countries since 2010. With respect to the north-east in particular, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that our vision is to spread growth into every corner of the country. That is why, in the last three months alone, both the Prime Minister and I have been to the Nissan factory in Sunderland to mark its decision to make two electric car models in the UK. Just last week, we announced the opening of a massive new film studio in Sunderland that will bring more than 8,000 jobs to the north-east.
Clive Lewis
According to the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute, the Government’s current programme for investment to mitigate the worst effects of climate change will still see climate change damage to the UK increase from 1.1% of GDP to 3.3% by 2050 and 7.4% by the end of the century. To put it into context, that is the United Kingdom’s entire social care budget of around £25 billion. The Climate Change Committee has said that the current approach to adaptation
“falls far short of what is required.”
Has the Treasury made any attempt to assess the cost to GDP, the public finances and jobs of failing to invest for climate adaptation?
Jeremy Hunt
We listen very carefully to what the Climate Change Committee says, and we are absolutely committed to net zero. In fact, a Conservative Government passed the law requiring Governments to commit to net zero. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just become the first major industrialised country to decarbonise by more than 50% since 1990. As well as the costs, we are also mindful of the economic opportunities, which is why we are investing billions of pounds in our clean energy transformation.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency, which has Cambridge to the north, has fantastic new industries such as Johnson Matthey in Royston, which is at the forefront of hydrogen. We have pharma companies to the south and some of the best film studios in the world in Hertfordshire. Is he consciously trying to back those successful industries of the future so that our children and grandchildren have fantastic opportunities for the future?
Jeremy Hunt
That is absolutely what we are trying to do. Film and TV is a good example here, as it has now become an offshoot of the technology industry. Films such as “Barbie” have been filmed in Hertfordshire but have the look of the Californian sunshine; they can withstand the British rain because of the use of high-tech devices that simulate Californian sunshine, even in my right hon. and learned Friend’s constituency. What he sets out is our absolutely our plan and we will stick with it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
In response to covid, this Government introduced the furlough scheme, and delivered and funded the world’s first vaccine. In response to the energy price spike, this Government introduced comprehensive support for families. The Office for Budget Responsibility, so beloved of the shadow Chancellor, had its long-range forecast for 2025 to 2028 showing GDP increasing every year, GDP per capita increasing every year, average earnings increasing every year in real terms and productivity increasing in real terms. So does the Chancellor agree that when the shadow Chancellor says that we face a 1979 moment, she is right: a choice between a Labour party still in hock to its union bosses and a Conservative party committed to growth?
Jeremy Hunt
I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend’s brilliant list of statistics, except to cite another independent organisation, the International Monetary Fund, which says that in the next five years this country, under Conservative leadership, will grow faster than France, Germany, Italy and Japan.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The British people are paying the price for 14 years of Conservative economic failure, with lower wages, higher taxes and public services on their knees. Time and again, the Conservatives hide behind international factors and take no responsibility for their failures. Yet figures from the OECD confirm that the UK is the only G7 advanced economy now in recession and, according to the IMF, our economy is forecast to have the second slowest growth in the G7 this year. So can the Chancellor tell us: why is the UK so far behind other major economies under the Conservatives?
Jeremy Hunt
Well, it is not, because it is actually growing faster than France, Germany and a bunch of other countries. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because we can look at what has happened under 14 years of Labour in Wales, where unemployment is higher, NHS waiting lists are longer, school standards are worse and growth is lower. What is Labour’s reaction to that terrible record? It has just promoted the Economy Minister to First Minister.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Thanks to the combined impact of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, an average worker on £35,400 in 2024-25 will pay over £1,500 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done. These national insurance contribution cuts were possible due to the significant progress we have made in combating inflation.
Paul Blomfield
I heard what the Minister has to say but does he not recognise the OBR’s assessment of the interplay between the Government’s threshold changes and NICs? The OBR concludes that for every 5p gain per year there is a 10p loss, particularly for those on lower wages. Does he accept the OBR assessment?
Nigel Huddleston
I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in society. He will also have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) explain the circumstances as to why we have higher taxes than we would desire. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that Labour party policy is to change the thresholds, perhaps he can have that conversation with the shadow Chancellor, who can explain how she would pay for that.
Dan Carden
The OBR has said that this will be the worst Parliament on record for living standards and the only one in which they have fallen: people are poorer after 14 years of this Government. We do not need fiscal tweaks; this economy needs renewal. It needs to bring in investment on a major scale, and a new age of education, training and employment in the real economy. My constituents cannot afford to wait while the Tory party looks for its polling fortunes to change. Have we not now reached the point where the best thing for the economy is a general election?
Nigel Huddleston
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s explanation. Not only will I repeat that our constituents completely understand the difficult global circumstances, with the pandemic and the cost of living challenges following the invasion of Ukraine, but I can say that we have grown faster since 2010 than many other major economies, and the IMF forecasts that we will grow faster than Germany, France, Italy and Japan. In the year to the third quarter of 2023, real household disposable income per person was around £1,100 higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility expected in its spring Budget 2023 forecast. We have turned a corner, and the best thing to do is to stick with the Conservatives.
Rachel Hopkins
The Minister says that the economy has turned a corner, but households will be £870 worse off on average under the Conservatives tax plan, and they will also be seeing their costs up by £110 a week compared with before the last election. Is the Minister proud of his record?
Nigel Huddleston
We are immensely proud of our record since 2010: living standards have increased, and growth is now better than that of many other major economies. Our absolute commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in society was shown recently when we provided an average of £3,400 in cost of living support for each household. We have turned a corner, and the economy is improving. I am just disappointed that the Opposition constantly talk down the UK economy and their constituents.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, following the 4p cut in national insurance that the Chancellor has introduced, the tax take on workers will be the lowest it has been for 50 years? In St Austell and Newquay, two people in a household on average incomes will be paying £1,800 less this coming year than they did last year.
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, absolutely, my hon. Friend has pointed out an important point on how we have had a laser focus on reducing the personal tax rates. Furthermore, the measures announced in the autumn statement and in the spring Budget will significantly add to economic activity, contributing about 200,000 full-time equivalent jobs to the economy, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome that.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Pensioners can often struggle because they have a fixed income, so I was pleased that the Chancellor stuck with the triple lock last year, guaranteeing an increase of 10.1%. Will the Minister explain how the 8.5% rise that people will be getting in a couple of weeks’ time will make a difference to their living standards?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the case that not only have the measures in the autumn statement and the spring Budget helped workers, but we have also focused on helping pensioners. Those on the new state pension will benefit to the tune of about £900 a year, which is significant, and the national insurance cuts will benefit the average worker —27 million employees—by £900 a year. Therefore, we have implemented a fair and balanced Budget and fair and balanced measures.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Families in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke have been supported by this national insurance cut, which means that the average family will be £1,800 a year better off. The freezing of the fuel duty means that motorists will be able to get around without being unfairly charged at the pump. Money from this Government has enabled Stoke-on-Trent to cut bus fares by a third, so that people can travel around. We have had £56 million from the levelling-up fund and £17.6 million for the Kidsgrove town deal, which means that the sports centre will be refurbished and reopened, improving people’s health chances. The Labour party closed it because it could not be bothered to pay a single pound to save it back in 2017. Is it not the reality that we have a clear plan that will help the families of our great constituencies, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, while Labour will borrow more, tax us higher and lead us back into recession, just as it did in 2008-09?
Nigel Huddleston
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is fantastic, and I think it is a recurring pattern, Mr Speaker. We have positivity, optimism, and confidence in the future of the UK economy from Conservative Members, but absolute negativity from Opposition Members, because they have no plan, they have no clue and they have no hope. We have a plan and it is working.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Why does the Treasury Minister think people feel worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said, we are turning a corner and have therefore made measures to put money back into people’s pockets. I do not think it would come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, or to those of any Labour Member looking at the Labour Opposition’s recent record, that Labour claimed on the one hand that it was supportive of tax cuts, but last week failed to support those tax cuts when it came to it in Parliament.
Darren Jones
The Minister did not answer the question about why the public feel worse off. We on the Labour side of the House know why. He mentions tax cuts, but he does not talk about the freezing of tax thresholds, or indeed about the council tax that is about to be levied on people, not just this year but each year for the next five years. Why cannot he admit that, for every 10p extra in the pound taken from people since 2010, the Government are only now giving back just 5p?
Nigel Huddleston
If I am hearing correctly, the Labour Front Benchers are announcing fundamental changes to policy that they have not yet costed. They did not object, as far as I am aware, to any of the measures required to support households and businesses during the pandemic, which necessitated increases in taxation. We are now reducing the level of taxation because we have turned a corner. They did not support that. It is interesting that they say one thing but then do not take action. I think they need to explain to their constituents why they failed to support the tax cuts last week.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
As a result of decisions at the spring Budget, the Scottish Government are receiving around £295 million in additional funding in 2024-25 through the Barnett formula.
Martyn Day
According to the Commons Library, the Government have cut the Scottish Government’s capital funding by 16% in real terms from 2022-23 to 2024-25. The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts that there will be a further 16% cut by 2029. After 14 years of austerity, inflation and covid, can the Minister tell me why the Chancellor is taking a hammer to our Scottish public services?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the block grant has been going up in real terms. He will also be aware that the Scottish Government can switch resource to capital—unlimited amounts, if they choose to do so. He will also be aware, I am sure, that the Scottish Government can borrow up to £400 million of capital each year if they so wish.
Deidre Brock
The Tories have failed to invest in our public services and high-growth industries, dragging the nations of the UK into recession and increased income inequality. The UK Government continue to impose hard cuts to public services. The Commons Library has found that the Scottish block grant will have fallen in real terms in every year since 2020, yet UK Government Ministers continue to deny that fact. Does the Minister understand what “real terms” actually means, and does she see the devastating impact that this is having on public services?
Laura Trott
Just to be absolutely clear, the Scottish Government’s total departmental expenditure limit is growing in real terms over this Parliament by over 1% a year on average.
Alan Brown
Obviously, the Minister does not understand what “real terms” means after all. Analysis by the Institution of Civil Engineers shows a multiplier effect: every £1 spent in the construction industry brings in an additional £2 of spend. That means that the real-terms cut to the Scottish Government’s block grant for capital by £1.6 billion over two years further deprives our economy of a wider £3 billion. Why do this Government think that it is okay to decimate infrastructure spend in Scotland?
Laura Trott
The Scottish Government are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities, and receive 25% more funding on average per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in other parts. That translates to £8.5 billion more a year on average.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Consequentials have consequences. The Chancellor announced in his Budget £20 billion of cuts for the public sector, including cuts of 13% in some Departments, and that defies logic. The public sector is crying out for funding, but his choices, if implemented, will lay waste to it. Does the Minister agree with the IFS, which said that it would be genuinely surprising if the Chancellor’s plans could be carried out, or with the Institute for Government, which said that
“these spending plans will be impossible to deliver”,
or with the Resolution Foundation, which said that the plans were fiscal fantasy?
Laura Trott
Over the next Parliament, our plans are for spending to go up in real terms—I want to be absolutely clear about that. Equally, spending has gone up in real terms over this Parliament too. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that at the beginning of my answers, I explained that Scotland is getting £295 million extra this year through Barnett consequentials.
Drew Hendry
It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there is a “conspiracy of silence” from both the Government and the Labour party over the scale of these cuts. As a percentage of UK spending, the Scottish block grant is set to fall to its lowest ever level under devolution, dwarfing its other plans. For Scotland, House of Commons Library figures show capital funding falling by 16% over the next two years. The Chancellor has already confirmed that the Scottish energy sector is the biggest loser from his Budget, and he is doubling down. Why are this Government and this Chancellor trying to be the new hammer of Scots?
Laura Trott
The only area in which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that I would love to know what the Labour party’s spending plans are for the next Parliament—perhaps Labour Members will enlighten us this evening. I will repeat what I said at the beginning about capital: the Scottish Government have unlimited ability to switch from resource spending to capital spending. That is a choice that they have.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The Government continue to tackle regional economic inequalities and level up the United Kingdom. The Government are empowering local leaders through a range of devolution deals, regenerating places across the country and investing in vital infrastructure.
Afzal Khan
In response to this month’s Budget, the director of the Institute for Public Policy Research North has said that
“This Budget is the government’s admission that it has given up on levelling up this parliament, despite there being much left to do.”
Delivering on the Government’s levelling-up commitments would mean that my constituents would benefit from reduced social welfare dependency, increased earnings potential, and improved health and wellbeing. Does the Minister not think that my constituents and all citizens outside London and the south-east deserve the benefits that come with economic prosperity?
Gareth Davies
We are committed to levelling up, and are delivering on it across the country. Median pay growth has been higher in every region outside London and the south-east under this Government, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is receiving £19 million from round 1 of the levelling-up fund and £20 million from round 3. We have announced a Greater Manchester trailblazer devolution deal and a Greater Manchester investment zone, which will bring more jobs and prosperity for all of his constituents.
Kim Johnson
I have heard what Ministers have said this morning, and I must be living in an alternative universe. Liverpool has some of the most deprived wards in the country, which have experienced poverty and destitution over the past 14 years as a result of austerity. Some 300,000 people have accessed the household support fund, and while we are a resilient city and will continue to support those households, can the Minister explain what safety net will be put in place to support those in poverty and destitution when the household support fund ends in six months’ time?
Gareth Davies
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that we have extended the household support fund for the most vulnerable. That is on the back of £96 billion of support during the energy crisis and nearly £400 billion of support through the global pandemic. I would just point out to the hon. Lady that the fundamental difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members is that we believe the best route out of poverty is through work, and our party is increasing employment.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, most jobs are supplied by very small businesses, many of which fall below the VAT threshold. Given the economic inequalities around the region, the increase of the VAT threshold to £90,000 is very welcome, but the threshold being that low and the cliff-edge effect of going from zero to 20% have a chilling impact on growing small businesses and providing all-year-round jobs. Will the Minister consider introducing some sort of taper for that £90,000 threshold, and increasing the VAT threshold further—maybe in the region of £120,000?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right: we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses, which will benefit 28,000 businesses across the country. We feel that the £90,000 threshold strikes the right balance between managing public finances sustainably and supporting businesses, but as my hon. Friend knows, we keep these things under review.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The port of Milford Haven in my constituency has been right out in front, taking a lead in investing in decarbonisation and showing how it can boost the economy of Wales and reduce inequality. Yesterday, it was told that its bid to the Government’s floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—its port funding scheme—had been rejected out of hand. Will my hon. Friend ask his good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet me to talk about the important work being done at the UK’s leading oil and gas port, and about how the UK Government can support those efforts financially?
Gareth Davies
FLOWMIS is an incredibly important scheme in improving and enhancing our ability to expand floating offshore wind. We are a huge supporter of my right hon. Friend’s constituents and of the whole of Wales. If the Chancellor cannot meet him, I would be very happy to do so.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government will raise the point at which child benefit is fully withdrawn to £80,000 from £60,000, and we will raise the high-income child benefit charge threshold to £60,000 from £50,000 from 6 April 2024, taking 170,000 families out of paying the charge. Overall, these changes mean that almost half a million hard-working families will gain an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children.
Karl MᶜCartney
These changes are welcome, and they mean that more Lincoln families will receive more support from the Government, as I told the Minister in Lincoln on Friday. Will my hon. Friend confirm when the formal consultation on basing child benefit on household income rather than on individual income will commence, if the civil servants in the Treasury will let him do it?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure, as always, to meet him in his constituency on Friday, where we discussed this matter and many others. The Government will launch a consultation in due course on how to end this unfairness by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis. Doing so would require significant reform of the tax system, as our tax infrastructure does not currently have a mechanism to consider household income, but the Government plan to end the unfairness for single-earner families in the child benefit system by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that. Child benefit income is an integral part of how families make their money last through the whole week. If there are any changes that will reduce it in any way, is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that those who have questions, difficulties or concerns have their concerns and wishes taken on board? It is really important that those facing financial changes can cope with the changes to come.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is precisely because of the complexities involved that we will have the consultation. I am sure that his views and those of his constituents will be warmly welcomed in that.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
At the autumn statement in 2023, the Chancellor set out ambitious growth packages designed to boost business investment, including making full expensing permanent and a tax cut to companies of over £10 billion a year to ensure we have one of the most generous capital allowances in the world. With further growth-enhancing measures set out in spring Budget 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Government policy announced at the past three fiscal events is expected to increase the size of the economy by 0.7% by 2028-29.
Simon Baynes
Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), I was delighted to see the increase in the VAT threshold from £85,000 to £90,000 in the Budget. That will help small businesses invest for the future, such as the Two Doves café and gift shop in Overton, which is popular with people from both Clwyd South and North Shropshire. However, given the vital importance to small businesses, will my hon. Friend prioritise increasing the VAT threshold again in the next fiscal intervention?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend comes to this House with significant business experience, so when he talks, we certainly listen, and I am delighted to hear that he was pleased with the VAT threshold increase. I can tell him that, in addition to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) about the £90,000 threshold, this level is higher than that of any EU member state and is the joint highest in the OECD. Many of his businesses will be among the 28,000 that will benefit from the increase, so we have no plans at this stage to change it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
But the actual record of this Government over the past 14 years is abysmal. It is a fact that business investment has been consistently among the lowest in both the OECD and the G7, and now the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a further 5% fall this year. Why?
Gareth Davies
Announcements in each of our last three fiscal events have enhanced our business investment environment for international investors: we have the second highest foreign direct investment stock in the world; we have some of the best universities in the world, which are attracting businesses; we have announced full expensing, which is a £10 billion-a-year tax cut; we have the lowest corporation tax in the G7; and we are reforming our energy grid, bringing investment into our net zero ambitions. We are reforming our systems, reducing our taxes, and encouraging investment.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I recognise that this has been a very challenging time for Safe Hands customers. The hon. Member will be aware that the FCA, as the independent regulator of the funeral plan sector, is responsible for dealing with specific cases. However, the Treasury and the FCA have worked closely throughout the process of bringing the sector into regulation, as well as during the implementation of the new regulatory framework.
Nick Smith
My experience of the FCA and the Safe Hands funeral plan fiasco is that it took six months to reply to my freedom of information request and pleaded commercial confidentiality to key questions, and that, despite being warned, the Treasury failed to support consumers moving from an unregulated sector into regulation. It appears to me that the Treasury missed opportunities to support consumers and is still shuffling its feet. At least 47,000 people are out of pocket to the tune of £60 million. They were trying to protect their loved ones from expensive funerals at the worst of times. Will the Minister consider an independent review of this matter? A constructive response is needed to ensure that Safe Hands victims can have confidence in a system that for too long has let them down.
Bim Afolami
I share the hon. Member’s anger at how Safe Hands customers have been treated. The business is under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and its administrators are bringing legal action against the former owner of the Safe Hands business. In the Treasury, we do not believe it is right to use taxpayer money to compensate consumers who lose out due to the conduct of unregulated firms; Safe Hands was not within the regulatory perimeter at that time. However, we have worked with the sector so that the two largest providers of funeral plans have agreed to provide significantly discounted replacement plans for the customers who have found themselves so badly treated.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
The rise in inflation caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy price shock has put enormous pressure on households. Thanks to work by the Bank of England and the Government, the rate of inflation is going down, with the Office for Budget Responsibility expecting it to be back to target next autumn.
Chris Stephens
Since the disastrous Tory mini-Budget of 2022, households are continuing to feel the squeeze at the supermarket, with food prices continuing to rise and real wages falling for the longest unbroken run since records began. Food prices have risen by 26% over the last two years. When will the Government listen to those who wish to follow the lead of Canada and France by introducing a price cap on staple food items at the supermarket?
Laura Trott
Real wages are now, happily, starting to rise and, as I have said, the OBR has said that inflation will be back to target next quarter. What would not help the cost of living is putting people’s taxes up, as the Scottish Government are doing.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The tax burden is at a record high, wages are stagnant, rents and mortgages are up by hundreds of pounds, and food prices have gone up by 25%. The Resolution Foundation has confirmed that this is the only Parliament on record during which living standards have fallen. Our constituents deserve better. When is the Minister going to give the British public a chance to vote for change and call for a general election?
Laura Trott
We have talked a lot today about the £400 billion of support that we put in during the pandemic and the £100 billion of support that we put in to support people during Putin’s energy price shock. The Labour party did not disagree with any of those things, and I think the hon. Lady in her heart of hearts will know that we have to pay for that—at least, I hope she does. We have had to take some difficult decisions, but because of that, the economy is turning a corner. We are able to reduce working people’s taxes, and I hope that she and her party will find it within themselves to support us in that endeavour.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Small businesses drive our economy and we support them to thrive using levers across Government, whether that is through our small business rate relief, by increasing the VAT registration threshold, by providing reliefs such as the annual investment allowance or through various programmes offered by the British Business Bank.
Dr James Davies
The Welsh Government are increasing the burden on small businesses by reducing retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to just 40%, despite the UK Government rightly extending that relief in England in the Budget. That means that businesses in my constituency, such as the Little Cheesemonger, Now to Bed, Presents with a Difference and Tu Mundo, are all facing unsustainable business rates bills. One business has to find an extra £35,000 a year for business rates alone. What advice does the Minister have for small businesses in north Wales facing these onerous bills?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right that at the autumn statement, this Government extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief in England—a tax cut worth £2.5 billion for small businesses. The Barnett formula applies to allow the Welsh Labour Government to offer similar relief if they want to. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that when given the opportunity, Labour decides not to cut taxes for working people.
Paul Holmes
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best steps that the Government can take to support small businesses in Eastleigh, Hedge End and Botley is through a package of business rate reductions? Will he outline to the House the progress the Government have made in this regard, which was desperately needed?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right. Business rate relief is a great way to support small businesses in Eastleigh and across the country. Our small business rate relief means that one third of all properties in England already pay no business rates at all. We have frozen the small business multiplier, protecting more than 1 million properties from a multiplier increase. As I was just saying, we are supporting high streets with our retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
Mrs Drummond
Just after the Budget, I met some of the small businesses in my constituency at the Flower Pots in Cheriton. While they were pleased with some of the Budget, they talked about improving productivity and growth by raising the VAT threshold far beyond £90,000, and possibly to £250,000. They felt that that would incentivise sole traders and small businesses to expand and work longer hours. They feel at present that growth is restricted because of the level of the VAT threshold. Has the Chancellor given any thought to increasing the threshold to improve productivity?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right to engage in the way that she is with her small businesses. We believe that the £90,000 threshold, which has just been increased, strikes the right balance between managing the public finances and supporting small businesses. I encourage her to look at the wider package of support that the Government are providing for small businesses, not least the business rate relief that I was just talking about.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister have discussions with his counterparts in the devolved institutions to ensure that the likes of sole traders and small businesses see a reduction in bureaucracy to make them more profitable, offering more business opportunities to more people across the United Kingdom?
Gareth Davies
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government engage frequently with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Administration, and that will continue to be the case.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
According to the Federation of Small Businesses, two in three small businesses are suffering from late payments. We are now 14 years into a Tory Government. Why do the Government not follow Labour’s lead and strengthen the law on this?
Gareth Davies
We are acutely aware of this issue, and I have had meetings with the FSB. That is why the Chancellor has announced plans to improve the situation for small businesses. I am happy to outline that in writing to the hon. Gentleman.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
One of the requests from female-led businesses in my constituency, including Cùrlach and Rock’n Rollers, was for a VAT cut for hairdressing businesses. Can the Minister tell me why that was not considered in the Budget? These businesses are an important part of our high streets and they are often led by women, who have missed out significantly in the Chancellor’s Budget.
Gareth Davies
We of course support hairdressers, our high streets and women-run businesses, which is why we have extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief to 75%. Cutting taxes for hard-working people is what the Conservative Government do.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government have nearly doubled the personal allowance since 2010, and in 2024-25 it will be more than 20% higher in real terms than if it had been uprated by inflation since 2010-11. The personal allowance is currently set at a high enough level to ensure that pensioners whose sole income is the full rate of the new state pension, or the basic-rate pension, do not pay any income tax.
Helen Morgan
I have been contacted by pensioners in my constituency who get a full state pension plus protected payments from the old scheme. The increase in their pensions in line with inflation has put them over the personal allowance threshold for paying income tax, which has eaten away at that increase. Was it the Minister’s intention in the Budget to drag pensioners into paying income tax?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have outlined, and as the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, pensioners have gained about £1,000 on average as a result of the Government’s decisions since 2010 to increase thresholds. Some pensioners rely solely on the state for their incomes, and we are supporting pensioners through a variety of other measures: not only the triple lock but pension credit and cost of living support. Pensioners across the country will benefit from the 8.5% increase coming in April.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I welcome the recent tax cuts. We need to ensure that those who work hard and do the right thing are rewarded in their old age. Can the Treasury please stop allocating funds to France, which is clearly not stopping the boats, stop extortionate amounts being spent on hotels for illegal migrants, and reduce the foreign aid budget? Maybe then we can give even more to our pensioners.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend will be well aware that Government Members are implementing measures to tackle the very problems she outlines while turning the corner in the economy and doing everything we can to put more money back in people’s pockets, whether workers or pensioners.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
As set out at the spring Budget, we are considering the findings of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s review of the original costing of the withdrawal of tax-free shopping, alongside industry representations and broader data. The Government welcome further submissions from stakeholders in response to the OBR’s findings as we keep all taxes under review.
Nickie Aiken
Last week, the OBR informed the Treasury Committee that it has not assessed the Treasury’s forecast that it would cost £900 million to extend tax-free shopping to EU visitors. The OBR has also failed to support the Treasury’s assumption that EU visitor behaviour and costs can be extrapolated from assessed non-EU data. The UK retail industry firmly believes that it will cost as little as £50 million to reintroduce tax-free shopping for tourists. As we mark English Tourism Week, is it not time that we had a full, independent review of the Treasury’s data on tax-free shopping?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent championing of tourism, particularly during English Tourism Week. It is not in the OBR’s remit to consider the effect of alternative policies and, as expanding tax-free shopping to EU visitors is not current Government policy, it has not considered that. However, the findings of the review will be useful in giving insights on the overall behavioural incentives of the policy, which will be relevant for both EU and non-EU populations. It is therefore right that the Government take time to consider the OBR’s findings along with other representations and within the context of broader data, as announced in the Budget.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on living standards in the UK. The most recent data suggest that despite a tough couple of years caused by the pandemic and the energy crisis, living standards will return to their pre-covid peak next year: a full two years earlier than originally predicted by the OBR. They have risen by £1,700 a household in real terms since 2010, and this year’s cut in national insurance will increase living standards by 1%. In other words, to coin a phrase, now is not the time to go back to square one.
Andrew Bridgen
Given that the Prime Minister has been forced to abandon his plans for an election on 2 May and could soon be facing a leadership challenge, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that his Budget landed well with the public or even his colleagues on the Government Benches?
Jeremy Hunt
I say very simply to the hon. Gentleman, who used to be an hon. Friend, that the Budget will mean that the UK economy will grow faster than that of France, Germany, Italy or Japan in the next five years. That is doing the right thing for the country.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First, it is important to note her consistent championing of this issue for her constituents, for which she deserves huge commendation. To her precise question, it is important that industry, not the Government, makes decisions about bank branches or banking hubs, but she has made her case very ably. I urge her to work with Cash Access UK and LINK to ensure that she has the best chance of securing one of those new 225 banking hubs, as outlined by the industry, in her constituency.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
After the Budget, the Chancellor wrote to Conservative party members telling them that the Government planned to abolish national insurance. The Economic Secretary said that “national insurance will vanish”, and the Prime Minister said it was his “ambition” to abolish it. Will the Chancellor confirm whether he asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to cost the Government’s unfunded plan to abolish national insurance contributions?
Jeremy Hunt
I am very glad that the right hon. Lady asks about national insurance cuts, because first she supported them, then she abstained in the Lobby, and now she appears to be against them—like the bankers’ bonus tax, which she was strongly in favour of and then strongly against; like £28 billion of borrowing, which she was strongly in favour of and then strongly against. Is not the actual truth that, where Labour should have an economic policy, there is just a black hole filled with platitudes?
Rachel Reeves
The Chancellor did not even attempt to answer the question. The chair of the OBR told the Treasury Committee the week after the Budget:
“It was not a measure given to us to cost”.
Even the Chancellor’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who was sacked for his own kamikaze Budget, said, “If you’re going to reduce taxes, you have to show at least partially where the money’s going to come from.” So I ask the Chancellor: where will the money come from? Will it come from cuts to the NHS, the state pension and public services? Will it come from increasing taxes, including for pensioners? Or will it come from increasing borrowing? Which one, Chancellor?
Jeremy Hunt
Even Torsten Bell from the left-leaning Resolution Foundation said that the right hon. Lady’s argument that this was a mini Budget-style black hole was nonsense, because we specifically said that we would not fund national insurance cuts from increasing borrowing or cutting spending on public services. I gently ask her, if she wants to put on the mantle of fiscal rectitude, where is Labour going to find literally billions of pounds to fund unfunded spending pledges, from grid decarbon-isation to NHS waiting lists? We all know what that will lead to: higher taxes, like under every Labour Government in history.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
I commend my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on their great work on this project. There appears to be a compelling case, and I know that the programme team at the Department of Health and Social Care is looking closely at the proposal.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Our support for the Scotch Whisky Association is long-standing, and it was a pleasure to meet its representatives recently. We have frozen or cut duty for Scottish whisky in fiscal events going back many years. We are representing the Scotch Whisky Association in trade agreements, and that support will endure long into the future.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
I would be delighted to do that. The independent Resolution Foundation said that, because of measures that this Government have taken, pensioners are £1,000 better off in real terms than in 2010. We did two things specifically in the Budget: we put £6 billion into the NHS, which is used more by pensioners than anyone else; and we backed workers’ tax cuts to support growth in the economy, which means that we can continue to fund the triple lock for many years to come.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Bim Afolami
I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the precise circumstances of his constituent’s case. In general terms, it is a priority for us to ensure that people get access to that money if it is due to them.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Did the Chancellor see an article yesterday in which the independent director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the average earner in the UK now has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975—lower than in America, France, Germany or any G7 country? Someone on £35,000—the average earnings for those working full time—faces an income tax and national insurance bill of nearly £2,000 less than they would have done on the same real earnings back in 2010. Does the Chancellor agree that now he has changed the rules on residence and domicile, the Opposition’s unfunded spending plans could lead to higher taxes—
Mr Speaker
Order. These are topical questions, and I want to get to the Members who have not yet been called.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. She is right that it is not just the lowest effective tax rate for someone on average earnings since 1975, but the lowest headline tax rate and the lowest tax rate in the G7. That is the fundamental divide in British politics: taxes have gone up, and on the Government Benches we do not think that we have to accept the status quo; on the Opposition Benches they do. Why is that? Because lower taxes mean higher growth.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
May I gently correct the hon. Lady? As I said, living standards have risen by £1,700 per household since 2010, and the number of people in absolute poverty is down by 1.7 million. She is right to talk about the debt pressures that people face, which is why in the Budget we abolished the £90 fee for debt relief orders, having talked to Citizens Advice.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The proposed changes to wine duty will add huge costs and complexity to business. Further to my Westminster Hall debate, will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives of wine businesses to hear their concerns, and make permanent the easement that is due to end on 1 February next year?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is talking about the largest and most significant reform of our alcohol duty system in 140 years. We are making it more simple by saying: the stronger the alcohol by volume, the more duty paid. We introduced the wine easement to give the wine industry two years to prepare for the changes. I continue to engage with the industry, and I will continue to engage with him.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
Let me say to the hon. Lady, who I very much enjoyed working with on the Select Committee, that our record is 800 more people in work for every single day of Conservative government since 2010. What will wreck that is Labour’s new deal for workers, which the president of the CBI says will destroy the job-creating machine that the UK has become.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I commend the Treasury for good fiscal policies that have resulted in inflation falling significantly since the pandemic. When might we see a commensurate fall in interest rates?
Jeremy Hunt
I am very sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but Chancellors never comment on decisions made by the Bank of England on interest rates. What I can say is that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted at the Budget that inflation would fall to around target in the next few months. That gives the best possible prospect of interest rates starting to fall.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
Last night on BBC’s “Newsnight”, it was clear that the needs of Wales, in particular on health, are not met in the UK. When has the UK Government ever given England Barnett consequentials based on needs in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland? Surely the model of spending under which the Government in England decides for England, and everyone else gets a consequential of that, must end. Nordic countries do not calculate spend as a percentage of their neighbours’ spend. Why is the spending of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dependent on what England decides to spend?
Laura Trott
The Barnett consequentials formula is long established. It gives a clear framework, through which we can understand spending in the devolved nations. The hon. Gentleman will know that it means higher per-person funding in each of the devolved nations than in England.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to make the tax system more family friendly, including by collecting household data in the years ahead, but being family friendly includes looking after the family home. Sweden abolished inheritance tax in 2004. The result was a boom in entrepreneurship, economic growth and higher tax revenues. Will he, or one of the excellent ministerial team, meet me to discuss that further?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his advocacy in support of families. We have had conversations, and I know that he very much welcomes the changes to the high-income child benefit charge and child benefit. We always keep taxes under review, and I am always delighted to meet him.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor accept that he has caused a great deal of anxiety and further distrust among those who have been infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal by not making any provision in his Budget for compensation, although the recommendations for compensation were made to the Government last April?
Jeremy Hunt
I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I stand by every word I said when I gave evidence, twice, to the infected blood inquiry. The Government have an absolute moral responsibility, not just to pay the compensation owed, but to pay it as speedily as possible.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I would like to join the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) in discussing the closure of banks. Barclays bank, in particular, is both shameful and shameless in this regard. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need full transparency on the decisions made by Link and the Financial Conduct Authority? Something we learned yesterday that may be of interest to those in Chorley, Mr Speaker, is that the criteria take into consideration only the town plus areas within a 1 km circumference. That is not how the rural economy works. Will the Economic Secretary work with me to ensure that the criteria take into account the wider economy?
Bim Afolami
My right hon. Friend is another good example of a Member who is an excellent champion for her constituents, on this issue and so many others. As for her specific point, it is right for the industry to work out how it will increase provision and adapt the criteria for rural areas, but I will work with her to ensure that the banking hubs are rolled out in an equitable way, to rural as well as more urban areas.
Israel and Gaza
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza and Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question.
Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history on 7 October last year. The scenes that we saw on that day were appalling, and Hamas’s disregard for civilian welfare continues today, more than five months later. We remember all the time those who are still being held hostage and their families, and we call once again for their immediate release. However, we naturally remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the impact of the conflict on all Palestinian civilians. We have borne witness to death and displacement on a vast scale. More than 1,700,000 people have had to leave their home, many on multiple occasions. We are deeply concerned about the growing risk of famine, exacerbated by the spread of disease, and, of course, about the terrible psychosocial impacts of the conflict, which will be felt for years to come.
We are totally committed to getting humanitarian aid to all those people in Gaza who desperately need it, doing so either ourselves or through UN agencies and British or other charities. We and our partners are pushing to get aid in through all feasible means, by land, sea and air. We have trebled our aid funding to the Occupied Palestinian Territories this year, providing just under £100 million, of which £70 million has been delivered as humanitarian assistance. On 13 March a further 150 tonnes of UK aid arrived in Gaza, including 840 family tents, 13,440 blankets, nearly 3,000 shelter kits and shelter fixing kits, 6,000 sleeping mats, and more than 3,000 dignity kits. A field hospital, provided through UK aid funding to UK-Med, arrived in Gaza from Manchester last Friday. This facility, staffed by UK and local medics, will be able to treat more than 100 patients a day. Along with Cyprus, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and others, Britain will help to deliver humanitarian aid by sea to a new temporary US military pier in Gaza via a maritime corridor from Cyprus.
We have made it clear, however, that air and sea deliveries cannot be a substitute for the delivery of aid through land routes. Only through those routes can the demand for the volume of aid that is now required be met. We continue to press Israel to open more land crossings for longer, and with fewer screening requirements. There is no doubt that land crossings are the most effective means of getting aid into Gaza, and Israel must do more. There is also no doubt that the best way to bring an end to the suffering is to agree an immediate humanitarian pause, and progress towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life. Reaching that outcome is the focus of all our diplomatic efforts right now, and a goal that is shared by our international partners. We urge all sides to seize the opportunity, and continue negotiations to reach an agreement as soon as possible.
Mr Lammy
Yesterday, a UN-backed report revealed the shocking reality that famine in Gaza is imminent. Half the population is expected to face catastrophic levels of hunger—the highest number of people ever recorded as being in that category under this system. Only twice in 20 years have famine conditions been reached, but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that it is not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made. It is the consequence of war. It is the consequence of aid that is available not reaching those who need it. Food is piled up in trucks just a few kilometres away, while children in Gaza are starving. It is unbearable, and it must not go on.
International law is clear: Israel has an obligation to ensure the provision of aid. The binding measures ordered by the International Court of Justice require it. The world has demanded it for months, yet still aid flows are woefully inadequate. Aid actually fell by half between January and February. That is outrageous. The continued restrictions on aid flows are completely unacceptable, and must stop now—just as Hamas must release the hostages now. I do not doubt that the Minister agrees with me, but will he have the courage to say that the ICJ’s orders, including on aid, are binding, and that Israel must comply with them? Do the lawyers at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office believe that Israel is currently in compliance with its obligations?
Amid this accelerating hunger crisis, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly approved plans for an offensive against Rafah. That would risk catastrophic humanitarian consequences. It would be a disaster for civilians and a strategic mistake. How are the Government working to prevent a further attack on Rafah? The truth is this: it will not be possible to address the crisis in Gaza if the fighting does not stop—and that is also the best way to secure the release of hostages. Will the Government finally join us and dozens of countries, and call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and comments, which I will try to deal with more or less sequentially. First, he asked me about the reports of famine. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, report is clear: it says that famine is a very real scenario. We are doing everything we can to try to head that off, as I set out in my response to the urgent question. In addition to famine, there is also the danger of disease, the lack of health services, and the acute danger from the lack of clean water and effective sanitation. We are doing everything we can to head off the appalling circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman set out.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of trucks. I can tell him that on Sunday, 192 trucks did get in, but that is woefully short of what is required. It is more than have been getting in in March, which has averaged 165 each day so far, and in February that figure was only 97—although he will be well aware that before the crisis, more than 500 trucks a day were getting in.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the ICJ. As everyone in the House will know, the ICJ judgment is binding. In respect of the offensive against Rafah, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, and indeed all our allies, have consistently warned that an offensive against Rafah at this time would have the most appalling humanitarian consequences.
May I finish by taking the point that the right hon. Gentleman again made about a ceasefire? As far as I am aware, the position of the Labour Front Bench is still the same as the position of the Government: we are calling for an immediate pause so that we can get the hostages out and aid in—followed, we hope, by a sustainable ceasefire. That is what we are working towards.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
May I start by putting on the record my gratitude to the Minister for the Middle East, who made significant representations ahead of Ramadan to reduce tensions in Jerusalem and allow access to the Al-Aqsa mosque, which so far remains calm? The IPC report makes for breathtakingly difficult reading and the humanitarian situation is catastrophic, but it need not be. May I ask that we please push harder on truck entry from Jordan and ensure that it is fully operationalised, and can my right hon. Friend tell me when the House will be formally updated on whether Israel is demonstrating commitment to international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about my colleague Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the Middle East, which I will pass on to him. In respect of international humanitarian law, we are going through the necessary legal processes, which are complex, but I can tell her that as soon as we are in a position to update the House on what we have set out clearly before, we will do so.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I take absolutely no satisfaction in saying that a month ago in this Chamber I said that innocent people will die because of Israel’s decision to prevent food from getting to those who need it. The reports of an imminent famine should surprise no one; we have all known that this deliberate, man-made famine was coming. The Foreign Affairs Committee has just returned from al-Arish, on the Egypt-Gaza border, where we saw hundreds and hundreds of lorryloads of food and aid waiting for permission to get into Gaza.
Let us be very clear about our language here: the people of Gaza are not starving; they are being starved. Does the Minister accept that there is no food shortage in the region? Does he accept that people are starving to death just 44 miles from Tel Aviv—the distance between Glasgow and Edinburgh—as a direct result of the Israeli siege and the premeditated decision to cut off food supplies? Does he also accept that starving a civilian population to death is a war crime? Finally, does he still believe that the UK is right, both legally and morally, to continue selling weapons to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he is well aware of the arms sales regime that Britain adopts. As I have said to him before from the Dispatch Box, it is the toughest regime anywhere in the world. [Interruption.] If I may say so, the difference between him and me is that he sees things as we would wish them to be, but we in the Government have to deal with them as they are. That is why we are taking so many steps to try to achieve the release of the hostages, and to get aid and support into Gaza.
One of the points the hon. Gentleman makes is right, and it is echoed by the shadow Foreign Secretary: the way to get aid into Gaza is by road and by truck. Of course we are doing everything we can to explore every way, including the maritime route and dropping aid from the air, but at the end of the day, aid is delivered by road. That is one reason why we are working so closely with Jordan to ensure that the aid route into Gaza by road is enhanced. At the end of the day, that is the right route to get aid in, and we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that it is pursued.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Last time, I asked my right hon. Friend about progress on trying to have a hostage transfer, because right at the core of this conflict is the visceral feeling of the Israelis that they want their people home, which anyone can understand. Has any progress been made, and would he like to update the House on where we are with that?
Mr Mitchell
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, which is why trying to get the hostages home and out of Gaza, and trying to get food in, are absolutely our twin objectives. In an extremely difficult circumstance, Britain is certainly right at the front of all countries in trying to achieve that. It would not be sensible for me to give the House a running commentary on hostage release, but he will have seen that negotiations have resumed in Qatar. Obviously, everyone in the House will hope that those negotiations are both speedy and successful.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
A new independent multi-agency investigation by the United Nations into an Israeli military airstrike on a residential compound housing an emergency medical team—including from Medical Aid for Palestinians, a UK charity—has found that it most likely involved a 1,000 lb US-manufactured bomb fired from an F-16 jet. Those F-16s include parts supplied by the UK. Can the Minister today set out conclusively that no parts supplied by the UK were used to bomb a compound housing medical staff from a UK charity—will he rule that out?
Mr Mitchell
The events that the hon. Gentleman describes are appalling, and what the British Government would say is that there must be a full and transparent inquiry and examination into how those events took place.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It remains incredible that some people in this place can barely utter a word of criticism of the Hamas regime in Gaza, who themselves are being accused of stealing and hoarding aid. With regard to the operation in Rafah, the Israeli Government have been very clear that hostages are being held there and that some of them have been subjected to sexual violence and other abuse. Are we saying to the Israeli Government that they have no right to go in and seek to rescue those hostages?
Mr Mitchell
No. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been absolutely clear throughout that Israel has the right to self-defence, and what he is describing is covered by the right to self-defence. He sets out eloquently that absolute blame for what has happened lies with Hamas for perpetrating the events of 7 October, and once again he is absolutely right to set out that context.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
We are talking as if famine is imminent, but the fact is that the UN reports that 27 Palestinian children have already died from starvation and hunger. Josep Borrell has said that hunger should not be used as a weapon of war, and I hope that the Minister would agree. We need that ceasefire immediately. We need it to get the hostages out, we need it to get aid in, and we need it to get all the killing to stop. My question to the Minister is simple. What we are doing is not working, but there is one more thing we can do, which is to change how we vote at the Security Council. Will the UK stop abstaining and join the rest of the world in calling for that immediate ceasefire now?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady speaks on these matters with great knowledge and great sincerity, and I greatly respect what she says. The problem with calling for an immediate ceasefire is that it may salve our consciences but it is not deliverable, because neither side in this appalling brutality is willing to embrace a ceasefire. That is why the policy of the British Government is to argue in every way we can for a pause, so that we can get the hostages out and get aid in, which can then lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is what we will continue to do in all international fora, including the United Nations.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Over the past few months we have all listened to the Minister explaining that the Government have been begging, pleading with and pressing the Israeli Government to allow more aid in, but seemingly to little effect. Has he now reached the conclusion that the Israeli Government are wilfully obstructing the entrance of aid into the Gaza strip? If so, that would presumably be a breach of the International Court of Justice’s ruling, and indeed of international humanitarian law. What would be the consequence of that conclusion?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend’s premise, because I do not think we are in the position to reach that judgment, but the point he is making is that it is essential to get more food, aid, support and medicine into Gaza, and every day the British Government are working intently to that end.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Mr Speaker,
“Famine is a reality…the highest hunger level of anywhere else in the world in terms of total numbers…all manmade…A ceasefire is an absolute requirement”.
Those are the words of Matthew Hollingsworth, the country director of the World Food Programme, and of the UN Secretary-General. Starvation is indeed being used as a weapon of war. In Gaza, it is clear that Israel is engineering a famine for more than 2 million civilians. It is also clear that UK diplomacy has failed, so the Minister must now indicate what action the Government will take to escalate pressure to stop Israel’s military assault, to demand a ceasefire and to ensure that emergency assistance is provided through UNWRA to those being starved to death.
Mr Mitchell
I think that many people in Israel and elsewhere will find part of what the hon. Lady has said profoundly offensive. She is right to say that the characteristics of famine are present in Gaza, as I set out in my earlier response, and that is why we are doing everything we can, together with our allies, to get as much food and support into Gaza as possible.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Officials on the ground have stated that Hamas are appropriating —or misappropriating—as much as 60% of the humanit-arian aid entering the Gaza strip. This is part of a long pattern of prioritising fighters, abusing aid to produce rockets and using construction materials to build hundreds of miles of tunnels for their terror activities. We know that they do it; they have done it for years and they are doing it now. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Hamas are flagrantly disregarding the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, while Israel has been increasing the amount of aid going in exponentially?
Mr Mitchell
I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that Hamas are using ordinary people in Gaza as a human shield. It is utterly repugnant as well as completely against international humanitarian law and, like him, I condemn it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Humanitarian organisations have been warning repeatedly that this would happen. A group of us met them last week, and when this conflict started I met Islamic Relief, which is based in my constituency. We now end up here, where we are seeing healthcare being attacked and systematically degraded. We are seeing no safe zones left. We are told of the onset of famine, and that the number of people being killed keeps rising. Will the Minister finally please listen to the calls of Members across this House, of the international communities and of the people working on the ground and call for an immediate ceasefire and unrestricted aid?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out several times already today why calling for an immediate ceasefire may make us feel better but is not a practical resolution. That is why—[Interruption.] There is no difference between the analysis that the hon. Lady makes, and the NGOs in her constituency, and my analysis. The question is: what do we do about it? That is why Britain, along with our allies, is continuously, on a 24/7 basis, doing everything practical that we can to get more food and support into Gaza.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the floating pier to be constructed by the United States. What assurances has he received that the pier will be used solely for the delivery of humanitarian aid and not, as has been suggested, subsequently repurposed for military use?
Mr Mitchell
It is early days yet to see precisely how that maritime initiative will deliver, but I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend fears will be allowed to happen as we tackle that issue. We are giving strong support to all mechanisms for getting aid into Gaza—air, sea and land—but he, like me, will understand that the best mechanism is always by land.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I do not think I have ever received as many emails of concern from constituents as I have about the situation in Gaza. As has already been said, over 500,000 Palestinians are at starvation levels and 27 children and three adults have died so far as a result of starvation and dehydration. In the words of Medical Aid for Palestinians:
“This is not happening because the rains have failed or there has been a poor harvest. It is because…the Israeli authorities refuse to allow enough food into Gaza”.
So I have this question for the Minister, and my Edinburgh South West constituents will be listening to the answer: does he agree that starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime?
Mr Mitchell
The point that I hope the hon. and learned Lady will make to her Edinburgh constituents is that she and I, the Government and the whole House are intent on ensuring that more food and more support get into Gaza as rapidly as possible. That is what the Government are doing every day.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I welcome the hard work that the Minister is doing to get more aid in, to bring an end to the fighting and to get the hostages released, but it is appalling to think that large numbers of innocent people, including children, are about to starve when there is aid just over the border. He is right that aid must flow across the border and that it is better to transport it in trucks, but if that is not possible, we must think of this like the Berlin airlift. We have to get aid in by sea and by airdrops. I welcome what the Americans are doing to drop aid on the shore, and we have to do whatever it takes to get the aid to the kids who are going to starve unless we get it to them.
Mr Mitchell
I completely agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses so profoundly. He is right that every single mechanism must be explored, but he will know that the amount of aid we can drop from the air, the danger to those underneath and the danger of the aid being misappropriated and stolen by Hamas are very real difficulties. He will also be fully aware of the difficulties of maritime entry. That is why we are doing everything we can to argue for more points of entry into Gaza, more trucks and more land routes to get the aid in that is desperately needed.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The ICJ’s interim ruling makes it clear that the killing of Palestinians in Gaza must stop, but it has not; that immediate humanitarian aid must be allowed into Gaza, but it is not; and that the safety and security of civilians must be guaranteed, but it is not. As a result, more than 1 million Palestinians in Gaza are left starving and on the brink of famine, as confirmed by today’s IPC report.
The Israeli Government continue to flout international law by using starvation as a weapon of war. Children are starving, civilians are being killed and medical facilities are being attacked. What will it take for this Government to stand with international humanitarian law and oppose the actions of the Israeli military? How many more innocent Palestinians must be massacred? How many more children must die through starvation? When will the Government call for an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The one thing that is missing from the hon. Gentleman’s list is an urgent call for the release of the hostages.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, Israel must do more. We set out very clearly the five steps it needs to take: an immediate humanitarian pause; increased capacity for aid distribution inside Gaza; increased humanitarian access through land and maritime routes; expanded types of humanitarian assistance allowed into Gaza, such as shelter and items critical for infrastructure repair; and the resumption of electricity, water and telecommunications services. I hope that we can unite with everyone else in this House on going after those five key aims.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Israeli hostages must be released, and innocent Palestinians in Gaza must be supported. The Foreign Affairs Committee met Egyptian President el-Sisi when we were in the Gaza border region a fortnight ago. What particular support can this country provide to the Egyptians on delivering aid and averting a potential humanitarian and refugee crisis if the situation is not stabilised?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend and all the Select Committee members for their work, their visits and the powerful arguments they have added to those of the Government.
In response to my hon. Friend’s direct question, I met the head of the Egyptian Red Crescent in Egypt. We are in very close contact to make sure that British aid and British support enhance the excellent efforts that the Red Crescent is doing everything it possibly can to prosecute.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It is clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not taken the slightest notice of anything the British Government or even the Americans have been saying. Mrs Thatcher suspended arms sales to Israel in 1982, and Tony Blair did the same in 2002. What on earth would it take for this Government to follow their example?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he will know that both our Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have engaged directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that he is fully aware of what Britian thinks.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that Israel is a pluralist democracy—the only one in the region. He will be aware that Israeli Minister Benny Gantz, whom the Foreign Secretary recently met in London, has different views from Prime Minister Netanyahu. There are many different views, and Britain strongly supports the views that I have set out to the House today.
It is not for Ministers to make policy on arms sales and the arms regime from the Dispatch Box. It is for the proper due processes—as laid down and approved by Parliament, and as laid down in law—and that is what we follow.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Given the impending famine in Gaza, as outlined by the IPC report, will the UK align with the EU, Sweden, Australia, Canada and many other countries by restoring funding to UNRWA as the most effective way to urgently and immediately scale up the delivery of aid, food and medical supplies to Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
As my hon. Friend knows, we expect the report from the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services and, indeed, the interim report from Catherine Colonna, the former Foreign Minister of France, tomorrow, and we will read it with very great interest. Catherine Colonna is working with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, and we hope that her report will show a road map by which funding to UNRWA from Britain and many other countries can be restored.
My hon. Friend will equally be aware that UNRWA is fully funded for some months hence, and that British funding is fully paid up until into the next financial year.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is estimated that people in northern Gaza have gone entire days and nights without heating at least 10 times over the last 30 days. Lord Cameron has said that UNRWA is the only body with a distribution network in Gaza, and the Minister mentions the report that will hopefully be available tomorrow. Will he assure the House that the UK Government will take a decision on resuming funding as soon as possible, and at least before the end of this month, which is only 12 days away?
Mr Mitchell
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise timetable, but I can answer yes to his question about it being done as soon as we think it is possible to do so.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Every life matters, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, another faith or no faith. At the centre of this crisis—a crisis started on 7 October by Hamas’s unprovoked attack on innocent civilians—whatever their faith or lack of faith, are children, women, men and vulnerable people who are suffering right now as we go off to our lunch or afternoon tea.
The Minister will know that I have been supportive of the Government, and that I will continue to be, but I hope he will note a change in tone. The figures vary, but it is estimated that 30,000 civilians and roughly 10,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed in Gaza. If it is true that 10,000 other terrorists are despicably hiding in Rafah among the civilian population, making it difficult to deliver aid, are we likely to see another 30,000 civilians killed so that Israel can find those terrorists? What is the British Government’s position? Is this something the Minister would support?
Mr Mitchell
The awful symmetry that my right hon. Friend sets out is certainly one that no one wants to see. But the point he made so eloquently earlier in his question, setting out the views and feelings he holds, is widely reflected across the House, and I agree with him.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Half the population of Gaza is at risk of imminent famine, described by Melanie Ward of Medical Aid for Palestinians as meaning starvation, destitution, acute malnutrition and death. So does the Minister agree that all available aid corridors must be opened without delay and that there must be an immediate ceasefire, to enable food, water and urgent medical supplies to reach more than 1 million people in desperate need? All hostages must be released and this living hell must end.
Mr Mitchell
I agree with almost everything the hon, Lady has said, but she will be aware, from what I have said today and previously, that calling for an immediate ceasefire is not, in the opinion of the British Government, a practical proposition. That is why we continually argue for a humanitarian pause, so that we can get the hostages out and food in, followed by a sustainable ceasefire.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Yesterday, the Israeli Prime Minister vowed to press ahead with the assault on Rafah, despite warnings from the international community. The prospect of millions in Rafah, who are there only as they desperately escape conflict to the north, being subjected to further suffering is intolerable. Will the Minister update the House on work that is going on with our international partners to make clear those concerns to the Israeli Government, while continuing to press Hamas to release the hostages?
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her call for the release of the hostages. In respect of any military operations in Rafah, may I draw her attention to the words of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister about the terrible dangers, loss of life and humanitarian consequences involved in that? She, like me and, I hope, everyone else in the House, will be hoping that no such operation goes ahead.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have no problem condemning Hamas, but I also have no problem condemning the use of starvation as an act of war. Israel has control on the ground in Gaza—enough to oversee the distribution of aid and to make sure it gets to the people who need it most. Do the Government agree that Israel, as the occupying force, has a legal duty to oversee the distribution of that aid?
Mr Mitchell
The important point about the distribution of aid is that it should be able to get into Gaza, preferably through road and land routes. I set out for the House earlier the amounts that are getting in. Although they are increasing, they are nothing like adequate and do not come anywhere near the numbers before 7 October. That is why the Government are doing everything they can to augment those figures.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
We all want to see a ceasefire that is sustainable and holds out the prospect of a lasting peace. But the very definition of the word “ceasefire” means that both sides have to agree to end hostilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone calling for an immediate ceasefire needs to make it clear that that must include Hamas releasing the hostages, ceasing all hostilities and committing to a future peace?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is correct in what he says, but the important point, which I have repeatedly made in the House, is that in order to have a ceasefire we have to have agreement from those taking part in these actions that they will abide by a ceasefire. Israel has the right of self-defence and the right to protect itself from the appalling acts that Hamas perpetrated on 7 October ever taking place again. Hamas have made it clear that they wish to repeat those awful acts. Those things do not sound to me like a strong basis for having a ceasefire.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Three standout statements from today have been that starvation is being used as a weapon of war; Israel is provoking famine; and the UK is still selling arms to Israel. When will the Minister understand the damning nature of this and the damage it is doing to the UK’s international reputation—or, rather, what is left of it?
Mr Mitchell
We have been clear that Israel has the right of self-defence but it must abide by international humanitarian law and the rules of war. Britain is one of the leading nations on finding ways to get aid into Gaza and helping our allies and other regional powers to do everything we can to get the hostages out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is proud of our country’s intervention in both those respects.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I welcome the recent news that the UK will be sending a UK Aid field hospital to Gaza. What assurances have been sought and what assurances have been given in respect of sufficient force protection for all the staff there, some of whom may be British?
Mr Mitchell
We are acutely conscious of the way in which humanitarian workers—not just in Gaza, but all around the world—put themselves, unarmed, in harm’s way for the sake of their fellow human beings. My hon. Friend is right to say that a field hospital provided by UK Aid funding to UK-Med arrived in Gaza from Manchester last Friday. That facility is staffed by UK and local medics, who will be able to treat more than 100 patients a day. We are acutely conscious of the contribution they are making and we do everything we can to ensure that they are protected.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
To any reasonable and informed observer, the conduct of the war in Gaza by Israel contravenes basic international humanitarian law, in failing to distinguish between armed combatants and civilians, in using force beyond what is militarily necessary, and in offences against the prohibition of inflicting unnecessary injury, and it is wholly disproportionate. More than 100,000 Palestinians have now been killed or injured by Israeli forces in Gaza since last October. The Minister relies on Israel being a democracy that is capable of abiding by its legal obligations, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is not doing so, so what legal advice has he received about the complicity of and dangers to our country in failing to take sufficient action under the relevant treaties to which this country is a signatory, to deter such gross breaches of international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
As I said, we continue to assess Israel’s commitment and capability to comply with international humanitarian law. Those assessments are supported by a detailed evidence base, conflict analysis, reporting from charities, non-governmental organisations, international bodies and partner countries, statements and reports by the Israeli Government, and their track record of compliance. We take all of that into account in making our judgments. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when it comes to targeting and military action, the Israel Defence Forces have their own lawyers embedded in those units, in much the same way of prudence that the British military do. That is not something we see in any other force in the region and it should give some confidence that the Israelis are seeking to abide by international humanitarian law.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome reports that Israel is opening new routes to directly deliver humanitarian aid into northern Gaza, amid a slowdown in UN operations and the widespread Hamas misappro-priation of that aid, which was referenced earlier. Significantly, at the same time, every day the IDF documents more and more Hamas infrastructure, weapons and missiles within civilian buildings—this week at al-Shifa Hospital and last month underneath UNRWA’s own headquarters. So is the grim reality not that as long as Hamas remain in control of Gaza, no matter how many times people cry for a ceasefire, there can be no peace?
Mr Mitchell
As my hon. Friend sets out, it is clear that there is no place for Hamas in any future for Gaza. What happened on 7 October is uniquely appalling and I agree with him that until Hamas are removed from Gaza, the opportunity of peace is very limited.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The UN’s special rapporteur has been crystal clear that arms sales to Israel for use in Gaza are unlawful, given the clear risk that they will be used to violate international humanitarian law. Yet the Government have consistently refused to disclose whether licences, for example, for F-35 fighter planes, have been reviewed, let alone amended. Will the Minister take the opportunity finally to give Parliament a straight answer on this? I do not want to be told that reviews are possible, because we know that. I want to know whether those reviews have happened and whether he is going to publish the details. I do not want him to tell us simply that the arms regime in the UK is the toughest in the world. I know that, but it gives no reassurance at all to the more than 1 million people facing famine in Gaza right now.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady asks me whether these matters are kept under review, and I can assure her that they are always kept under review. Equally, they are not decided at the whims of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box; they are decided through a detailed, proper, legally governed, code-governed process, and that, as always, is what the Government are doing.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
As we debate this topic, children are starving to death in Gaza. Babies are so malnourished that UNICEF says that they do not have the energy to cry. Famine is not just imminent; it is happening, according to the head of Refugees International. This is not a natural disaster and it is not accidental; it is intentional. Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war to collectively punish the Palestinian people. Israel blocks food from entering Gaza while bombing the people trapped inside. Will the Minister finally admit that officials have warned him that Israel is breaking international humanitarian law, or does his whole Department refuse to accept the truth that Israel is committing war crime after war crime in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady uses florid language to describe these matters, but I hope that she will agree that the right thing is to do everything we possibly can to get the hostages out, support the people whom she so eloquently describes, and get support into Gaza, and that is what the Government are seeking to do.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Every month in Hammersmith, we hold “Ukrainian open house” to bring together all those supporting Ukrainian families who have fled that war. Every month, I am asked why there are not similar visa schemes to allow Palestinians to join their relatives in the UK, or to be hosted by families who wish to give them refuge here. What is the Government’s answer to that?
Mr Mitchell
The Government’s answer is that the two positions are not analogous; they are very, very different. The hon. Member will know that we are doing everything we can to help individual cases in both instances, and we will continue to do so.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Save the Children has reported that 1.1 million people across Gaza are facing catastrophic food insecurity at the hands of Israel, with one in three children acutely malnourished. Does the Minister agree that Israel’s tactic of starving the Palestinian people is a war crime?
Mr Mitchell
As I have set out several times, we are doing all we can to make sure that the necessary food and resources get into Gaza, so the point that Save the Children makes in the evidence that the hon. Member read out is addressed, and we will continue to do precisely that.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Minister will know that the UK supplies approximately 15% of the components used in F-35 stealth bombers currently being deployed in Gaza—the very same bombers allegedly being deployed from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Earlier this month, a Dutch court ordered the country’s Government to block all exports of F-35 parts to Israel after concerns that they were being used, in violation of international law, during the ongoing war in Gaza. Will the Minister commit today to suspending the supply of F-35 components, and will he also confirm whether RAF bases are being used as a launch pad for bombing in Gaza, or indeed, in any military operations supportive of the IDF and the Israeli military forces?
Mr Mitchell
I repeat that these decisions are not made at the whim of a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. They are made in the normal way through a proper legal and coded practice. The Government will always operate on that basis in these situations.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Canada, Australia, Sweden and the European Union have now confirmed that they will restore the funding to UNWRA, refuting Israel’s position that 450 members of the agency’s staff had participated in the 7 October attack. With people dying from the imminent famine in Gaza and Palestinians being killed trying to get flour to feed their families, the international community holds a degree of responsibility for failing to stop this situation. In light of the catastrophic situation in Gaza, will the Minister commit to restarting and increasing this funding to UNRWA as a matter of urgency?
Mr Mitchell
We have already increased funding significantly, including to UNRWA. The hon. Member will know that Britain is not at the moment in the position of having to make that decision, because we have fully funded what we said we would fund and are not due to provide any further money until the end of April. The answer to his question, I hope, will be contained in the report from the Office for Internal Oversight Services and from Catherine Colonna’s interim report, which we are expecting tomorrow. I know that, like me, he will read it with great care in the hope that it shows a suitable way ahead that we can all endorse.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Can the Minister try to help the House in understanding the Government’s position on who they believe is directly responsible for blocking the aid going into Gaza? What is the Government’s direct response to the comments of the UN Secretary-General, who has said that this is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the integrated food security system anywhere?
Mr Mitchell
Regardless of the accuracy of those final comments, there is no doubt at all, as I set out in my earlier responses, that the IPC report says that
“famine is a very real scenario”.
That is why we are trying to do everything we can, by every possible means, to make sure that aid gets into Gaza. I have explained to the House the difficulties of the air and maritime options, but those difficulties are not stopping us from pursuing those opportunities. At the end of the day, it is by agreement with Israel that we will get more trucks in, open up more points of entry, and find other ways of bringing aid in by road. We are pursuing all those matters and will continue to do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The need for an arms embargo in Israel was laid out by the International Court of Justice in January due to genocidal risk and serious harm to civilians. Since then, we have had no action from Ministers. UN experts have rightly called for hostage exchange and release, but they have also warned that the transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel should cease immediately. We have seen more than 13,000 children killed, the destruction of 60% of civilian homes and hospitals destroyed. Water and food supplies are so low that Gaza is already in the midst of a catastrophic, man-made, state-made famine.
The Minister boasted moments ago that the UK has an arms licensing framework with some of the toughest regulations in the world. It is plain for all to see that that claim is in tatters. When will Ministers finally match their words with actions, hold the Israeli Government to these standards, and hear the calls from aid agencies, the UN and my constituents to stop arms sales to Israel and to stop the onslaught against innocent Palestinian men, women and children?
Mr Mitchell
As I have repeatedly said to the House, the issue of arms sales is dealt with in a legal and coded way. The Government have no intention of varying from that process. It has been shown, as I have said before, that we have the toughest regulatory regime in the world and we continually keep it under review. None the less, it is important that these things are done properly and in accordance with the rules laid down by Parliament and laid down by the law, and we will not vary that.
In respect of the early part of the hon. Member’s question, I agree that it is essential that we are able to get more supplies into Gaza. We spend all our time arguing for new ways of entry and for new opportunities to get aid in, but, as I set out in our five key aims, we want the resumption of electricity, water and telecommunication services as well as infrastructure repair to start as soon as possible.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Across the House, we are all desperate to see the release of the hostages, but the negotiations for their release are not aided by the treatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and detention centres. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, has reported that 27 Palestinian detainees have died in Israeli custody since the war and some during direct questioning. It has reported beatings, abuse, torture, sexual assault, and prisoners being prevented access to doctors, lawyers and medication. A magistrate in Jerusalem has reported that the prisoners are detained in cages not fit for human beings. Now we have had the family of Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian leader who many hope will secure peace, say that he has been beaten with clubs by guards. Will the Minister demand that the Israeli Government provide access to the detention centres and prisons for humanitarian bodies to investigate these abuses and bring forward a report, which, hopefully, will end the abuse and assist in the negotiations for the release of the hostages?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger specifically on the treatment of detainees. As he will be aware, the treatment of detainees is governed by international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. He will have seen what the Foreign Secretary has said about the treatment of detainees, and Britain has consistently called for an inquiry, and for transparency in that inquiry, into any alleged abuses.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Minister has laid great weight this afternoon on the legal and coded process that governs the export of arms, but a new international humanitarian law compliance assessment process cell has been created in his Department. Will he publish every assessment that that cell has made of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and will he tell the House whether the threshold has now been reached to review or cancel any extant open general export licence for arms sales?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman has served at a senior level in government and knows what Governments do and do not publish. However, he can rest assured that when we receive advice on international humanitarian law, we look at it extremely carefully, and when the Law Officers make their judgments on this matter, we come to the House and update it. That is what we will do in due course.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Many of us in this place have been calling since November for the release of the hostages, the removal of Hamas, an immediate bilateral ceasefire, and humanitarian aid. Sometimes, it seems the only thing that has changed is that the situation has got worse for people in Gaza. My constituents write to me constantly. They feel that the Israeli Government are ignoring pleas, and that the people of Palestine have been abandoned. The Minister said that he would do whatever it took in this situation —I have every respect for him and believe him when he says that.
Does the Minister accept that one of the biggest barriers to peace is illegal Israeli settlement in the west bank? Recently, there were sanctions against four Israeli settlers who had committed human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats hope that that is just the start. Will the UK Government consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who promote that extremist agenda, and all the settler movements connected to them in a way that finally makes a difference to what is happening?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will be aware that Britain has consistently condemned settler violence. We have made it clear that we expect those responsible to be caught, arrested, tried and punished for it, and we will continue to do so. As she mentions, four settlers have been sanctioned. We do not discuss on the Floor of the House the operations of the sanctions regime, but she may rest assured that the opinion of the Government is that the settlements and the acts that she described are illegal, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they stop.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
As MPs from right across the House have said this afternoon, children in Gaza are starving—they are being starved—and we cannot tolerate it. If the UK’s standing on the rules-based order and international humanitarian law is to be worth anything around the world, the ICJ ruling must be binding, and there must be consequences for failure to comply with it. What are those consequences?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady says that people are starving in Gaza. Everyone agrees that that is the case. The issue is what we can constructively do to bring about an end to the very worrying starvation figures that have been revealed this week. We are doing and will continue to do everything we can. I have set out at some length to the House the various different ways in which we are trying to achieve that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I will follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), which went to the heart of the situation. My constituents are heartbroken by the images that they are being sent from Gaza of children dying of hunger, and they want to know why the world is largely doing nothing to help them. I believe in the rules-based system, which is under enormous strain right now from a variety of different quarters. International law matters, and we must show leadership when it comes to the rulings of international institutions such as the ICJ. What is Britain doing to ensure that Israel and other parties hold to the rule of international law and the judgments of the ICJ?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman says that his constituents are heartbroken by what is happening; we are all heartbroken by what is happening. The issue is what we do about it. I have set out throughout the course of the last hour a number of ways in which Britain is showing real leadership in trying to address the humanitarian situation and to ensure that negotiations to get the hostages out are successful. We will, along with our allies, continue to bend every sinew to ensure that everything that can be done is done.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister spoke of the detailed evidence that his Government are relying on, but the world’s media are prevented from reporting inside Gaza almost entirely. If we saw the daily reality of life there in more detail, I suspect the international pressure on Israel would be even stronger. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that any deliberate targeting of journalists—particularly Palestinian journalists—who are protected under international humanitarian law, is being passed on to the International Criminal Court for its investigation into war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
As I have set out, in the IDF—as in the British military—the issue of targeting is, unusually, governed by legal advice. Lawyers are embedded with the people who are making those decisions. In respect of the media, any such targeting would be absolutely outrageous. I pay tribute to the brave journalists who are ensuring that accurate reporting comes back from Gaza and the middle east.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I want to make it clear that I have opposed Hamas since 2007, I deplore the action taken on 7 October, and I totally believe that the hostages on both sides must be released. However, I agree with the Minister that the Israeli blockade is leading to famine and to death and displacement. Young children are dying of malnutrition and hunger. He says continually that the two sides will not sit down together. Why, then, does he not put a Security Council resolution to the United Nations to ensure that something is done on an international level, such as putting in a peacekeeping force to deal with the issue and allow people to continue normal lives?
Mr Mitchell
The House will understand that the issue of a policing force inside Gaza is premature. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Hamas and for what he said about deploring all the things that Hamas have done—I agree with him about that. He sets out the scale of humanitarian need. Throughout this urgent question, I have been setting out how Britain is, along with our allies, seeking to help move the dial to get more aid and support into Gaza and get the hostages out.
In terms of the United Nations Security Council and its resolutions, the hon. Gentleman will know that Britain is one of the leading architects of those resolutions in our role as one of the permanent five in New York. I pay tribute to Barbara Woodward, Britain’s permanent representative at the United Nations. The British mission at the UN is working ceaselessly to ensure that there is agreement on resolutions that can help bring an end to this.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The unfolding famine is entirely man-made and is being used as a weapon of war by Israel. It is a war crime, and those who continue to support that collective punishment and deny aid are complicit in this unfolding tragedy. Last week, Janez Lenarčič, head of humanitarian aid and crisis management at the European Commission, said that neither he nor any other UNRWA donor had been presented by Israel with any evidence of UNRWA involvement in the 7 October attacks. When the International Development Committee visited northern Egypt recently and spoke to the head of UNRWA, they also had no evidence, so my question is very simple: has the Minister been presented with any evidence to support his decision to pause the UK’s life-or-death funding to UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have seen the evidence that has been put before the international community, and will know that it was sufficiently strong for the head of UNRWA to immediately act against some of his officials. On all these matters, tomorrow we will hear the interim report from Catherine Colonna, the former French Foreign Minister. We look forward to studying that report when we have a chance to read it, in the hope that it will take matters forward.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister will be aware, thousands across Israel have protested in opposition to the approach that Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking, including the hostage families—they know that the situation in Gaza will not help release their family members. People in Israel see what is happening to the Palestinians; they hear the words of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, who has said today that what is happening and Israel’s continuing restrictions on aid
“may amount to the use of starvation as a method of war”.
He is explicit about that and the concerns that it raises. I understand the Minister telling us that he does not want to make policy from the Dispatch Box, but will he tell us whether he has sought explicit legal advice on the question of whether Israel is now committing a war crime in its use of starvation—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
We are always in receipt of legal advice, and we act on it. When we receive it, we take the necessary steps, as the hon. Lady would expect.
In the first part of her question, the hon. Lady she set out a point that I was making earlier, more eloquently than I did: Israel is a pluralist democracy. There are different views, and I tweeted last weekend about the extraordinary, moving work being done by two people who had come together from opposite sides, whose families had suffered so grievously in the aftermath of 7 October. It is that pluralist democracy that gives us the chance that accountability will be properly followed in Israel, which—as I say—is the only pluralist democracy in that part of the world.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The IPC report published today shows that one in three children under two years old in the north of Gaza is now acutely malnourished. In February, that figure was one in six. This month, people of Muslim faith across the world will be observing Ramadan. The situation in Gaza is dire and urgent, so will the Minister call for an immediate ceasefire to ensure that no civilian goes hungry, malnour-ished or without medical support in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman and I both share the desire that people should not go hungry in Gaza. That is why the Government, along with our allies, are working so hard to get more food in. We will continue to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the suffering that has been so eloquently set out by Members from all parts of the House is brought to an end as soon as possible.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the deliberate starvation of a civilian population constitute a war crime—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
There would be, I think, very serious doubt about the term “deliberate starvation”, so I am unable to give a yes or no answer to the hon. Lady’s question.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We all know that behind Hamas sits the malign power of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The same is true of Hezbollah and the Houthis. With the Foreign Secretary having been in post for five months, can the Minister update the House on what progress has been made on proscribing the IRGC?
Mr Mitchell
As the right hon. Lady knows, the issue of proscription is not one that we discuss on the Floor of the House, but the arguments for and against are kept under very close review by the Government and will continue to be kept under review.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
To deal with the grave and worsening humanitarian crisis for the sake of the dying children and innocent civilians as Palestinians desperately try to survive and observe the holy month of Ramadan, it is imperative that both sides agree to an immediate ceasefire, which is what I recently voted for in Parliament. Aid in huge quantities is critical, and any attempts by the Israeli Government to block it must be condemned, so what are the UK Government doing to achieve an immediate ceasefire, get hostages released, and put pressure on the Israeli Government to allow unimpeded aid into Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have seen the words of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the absolute imperative of getting more aid and humanitarian supplies into Gaza. I have answered the point about an immediate ceasefire on a number of occasions over the past hour and a quarter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in order to get a ceasefire, both sides in this terrible conflict need to agree to one, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Hamas have any intention of a ceasefire—indeed, they have made absolutely clear that they wish to perpetrate once again the terrible events that took place on 7 October.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Hamas’s cold-blooded murder of at least 1,300 Israeli civilians on 7 October was truly abhorrent, but sadly, those horrific numbers are now dwarfed by the number of innocents of all faiths who have had their lives taken away from them in Gaza. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving on their position, but I believe they are going to have to move further and faster to prevent a catastrophe and further loss of innocent lives. The Minister has stated that the International Court of Justice ruling is binding; will he inform the House how that ruling can be enforced?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government moving on their policy is not true. Basically, the Government have made it clear throughout that we will do everything we possibly can to achieve a pause, so that we can help get the hostages out and food and support into Gaza. We are continuing to do everything we can, night and day, to reach that conclusion.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The head of the UN, António Guterres, the head of security policy for the EU, Josep Borrell, and multiple accounts on the BBC have all indicated that famine is under way. The Minister has repeatedly said this afternoon that he is moving the dial, and that the Government are doing everything they can. My constituents would like to understand how he is doing absolutely everything he can and how he is showing leadership to ensure that all routes are opened by Israel and that we avoid further human catastrophe. Can he explain that in very practical terms?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out for the House the work that we are doing, in respect of both the maritime corridor and supporting food and medical supplies delivered from the air. At the end of the day, though, those are inevitably going to be relatively small amounts, particularly from the air. The answer is to try to open up more access points into Gaza by road and to make sure that trucks flow more easily through those access points. The British Government have been doing everything we possibly can with our allies to ensure we take that agenda forward, and we will continue to do so. As I set out, a number of tonnes of aid arrived in Gaza on 13 March; a very large number of family tents, blankets, shelter kits, shelter fixing kits, sleeping mats and dignity kits went in. That is on top of the enormous amount of aid we have provided previously to UNRWA, and also to UNICEF, the Egyptian Red Crescent and to other NGOs, charities and medical organisations that are doing everything they can to try to alleviate the suffering in Gaza.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I am absolutely clear that the hostages must be released. I am also absolutely clear that the situation in Gaza has gone from dire to horrendous to cataclysmic, and my constituents do not understand why it is being allowed to continue. The majority leader in the US Senate has identified Netanyahu’s ultra right-wing Government as a barrier to peace, and the European Union foreign policy chief has said that Israel, one of the richest and most militarily powerful nations in the world, is “provoking famine”. So will the Minister say clearly that it is unacceptable for Israel to prevent aid from entering Gaza? Will he also say clearly what he is actually doing about it—what demands he is making of Israel, what consequences he is setting out to Israel for its actions—beyond wringing his hands?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Member for her clarity on the issue of the hostages. She asks why all of this is being allowed to continue. I would point out to her, as I have consistently this afternoon, that the Government, along with our allies, are doing everything we possibly can to stop it continuing. She asks me about what else we can do to try to ensure that it does not continue. I would point her to the comments I made in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary about all the different ways in which Britain, along with our allies, is seeking to alleviate the suffering taking place in Gaza.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Children in Gaza are dying at the fastest rate the world has ever seen, according to the IPC report. Instead of calling out Israel for its culpability, the Government still refuse to sign UN resolutions and they still sell arms to Israel. Their great wheeze is to try to find ways to bypass the Israeli blockade by delivering aid by air or by sea, which is clearly not going to get enough aid in. The Government are not going to admit how absurd their position is, but will the Minister answer this directly: have the Government received legal advice that Israel’s hindering aid getting into Gaza violates international law?
Mr Mitchell
The Government keep our legal advice under review at all times. The current legal advice is that Israel has both the capacity and the will to abide by international humanitarian law, and if that position changes as a result of the advice of the Government lawyers, we will of course make that clear to the House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We heard this morning how half the population in Gaza—and this is the first time in modern history that such a large population has been affected—is being subjected to famine. We also heard about the absolute imperative that we as a country, and also our allies, obey and abide by international law. Given that, and that the Minister has said that he and his Government are doing all they can, can I ask on behalf of everybody here—and, most importantly, on behalf of my constituents, because they do not understand—what exactly that is, and in apologising for being so blunt, why it seems to be so ineffective?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Lady’s first point, everyone must abide by international humanitarian law, and Britain is doing everything it can to ensure that the rules of war and international humanitarian law are respected. She asks why our efforts are “so ineffective”. I would argue with her wording, but this is not a situation that Britain is tackling alone. All of us—the Americans, the European Union and those across the region—are doing our very best to ameliorate the suffering going on in Gaza. It is a collective effort, and Britain will not be found wanting in continuing to exert all the pressure we can, along with our allies, to ensure that this situation is brought to a conclusion.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The horrific famine in Gaza is made even worse by the fact that we know it is man-made. There is no agency better than UNRWA at delivering the small amount of aid that there is currently. I have listened to the Minister’s responses, and I have heard him tell the House that there is a report due out tomorrow and that funding from the UK Government remains in place until the end of April, but the end of April is now 43 days away. How will the Minister ensure that there is no break in funding for UNRWA? Will the Government urgently resume the funding so that UNRWA can deliver what little aid there is to the people who so desperately need it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right that UNRWA has the logistics hubs, warehouses, vehicles and infrastructure that are essential for the delivery of aid in Gaza, and everyone understands that. She asks me whether I can guarantee that we will be able to resume funding at the end of April. I very much hope that will be the case. It will be very much dependent on the report tomorrow from the former French Foreign Minister, and indeed on that from the United Nations. We are doing everything we can to advance the case to make sure that we can resume funding when it is possible. I will update the House in due course on the results of those reports and on the judgment that the British Government make at that point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed with his Cabinet that he plans to proceed with an operation in Rafah. We know this assault will end in the killing of many civilians, including children, and it will of course impede aid flowing into Rafah, which is the main place where aid now enters Gaza. The consequences will be catastrophic. How is the Minister using the ICJ and sanctions to stop further assaults in Gaza, not least in the light of the comments from the Prime Minister of Israel that
“no international pressure will stop Israel”?
Mr Mitchell
On military operations in Rafah, the hon. Lady will have heard what the Prime Minister has said and the advice he has given to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and she will have heard what the Foreign Secretary has said very clearly indeed. She will have heard what the European Union has said, and indeed what President Biden has said. We very much hope that the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed these words, which come not from enemies of Israel, but from friends of Israel.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
One million people face the imminent prospect of famine. Matthew Hollingworth, the country director of the United Nations World Food Programme has confirmed that the situation is reversible. In fact, in January, the Foreign Secretary—the Minister’s boss—confirmed that Israel has a legal obligation as the occupying power to provide food and water to the Gazans. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government must allow the full reopening of land bridges into Gaza, and that they should recommence the issuing of new visas for humanitarian workers? Finally, will he confirm whether his Government are in lockstep with Chuck Schumer and President Biden, or with Prime Minister Netanyahu?
Mr Mitchell
We are working incredibly closely at all levels with the American Administration. The hon. Member asks about new visas. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to grant the UN visas and, indeed, renew visas as swiftly as possible. He is quite right about the effects of famine being reversible, and that is why Britain is seeking to ensure that aid in much greater amounts gets in by road, sea and air in every way we possibly can.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Famine in Gaza is imminent and the death toll is rising. Like many, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, I cannot help but be concerned that continued restriction of aid, and therefore starvation, is being used by the Israeli Government. The holy month of Ramadan risks turning into a further tragedy for millions of Palestinians facing hunger and disease. Stern words just are not cutting it with Netanyahu, so what will it take for the Government to go further, and stop the export and sales of weapons to the Israeli Government? I respect the Minister for saying that he cannot make up policy on the hoof at the Dispatch Box, but when will he be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and give this House answers to the serious questions on arms sales, unimpeded aid, the restoration of UNRWA funding and potential sanctions?
Mr Mitchell
On all those matters, I have been clear to the House about where the Government stand and their direction of travel. The underlying points the hon. Lady makes are the reason why we are arguing with such force and passion for a humanitarian pause in which we could get resources into Gaza and get the hostages out, and such a pause could lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is what the Government will continue to do.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
We urgently need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a massive surge in aid, all hostages released, and a lasting peace with a two-state solution. I recently met with Medical Aid for Palestinians to discuss the desperate and unbearable humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Can the Minister explain the details of what the UK Government are doing to press for the necessary food and aid to get into Gaza and, critically, for it to be distributed there rapidly?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right in his final point about the logistical difficulties. We are working with all the resources we can to make sure that the aid can be delivered and is not siphoned off, pilfered or attacked by people who are very short of food and desperate to get it. He sets out the importance of a humanitarian pause, hostages being released, and a new political vision of the future for Palestine. Those three things are very much at the heart of what the British Government are seeking to achieve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions, and his focus on finding a lasting ceasefire and peace, because that is what everyone in this House wants. Will he outline what aid and assistance have been provided to those in the Gaza area who can use arable land to attempt to grow food for community use? Can we in this place do anything more to provide self-sustaining aid?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue of arable land use inevitably takes a bit of a back seat at the moment because of the difficulty growing crops in Gaza, but in a future settlement, and in building towards a two-state solution, that would definitely be part of reconstruction. I very much accept the wisdom of what the hon. Gentleman says on these matters, and I am sure that the issue will be addressed when we reach that stage. I point out to him, as I have mentioned to the House before, that the progress made at Oslo was on the back of appalling events in the second intifada, and we must hope that, in spite of the desperate current events, we are able to lift people’s eyes to the political possibilities of a two-state solution in which both Palestine and Israel live in peace behind secure borders. Ensuring that that happens, when the moment comes, is the central aim of the British Government, and a great deal of work and planning is going into what such an initiative would look like.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Over 1 million people in northern Gaza are on the verge of famine, and aid groups are issuing dire warnings of catastrophic levels of hunger and man-made starvation. Just last week, the UN reported that humanitarian aid is being denied or postponed by Israeli authorities. We are not powerless—this Government can and should take action—so what else can the Government do to lobby the Israeli Government on allowing more aid to enter Gaza as a matter of urgency? Do Ministers agree that we need a ceasefire now, and that is the best way to get the release of hostages?
Mr Mitchell
I set out to the House and for the hon. Lady the issues around a ceasefire, and why it is the view of the Government and many others that a pause for humanitarian purposes could lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is the sensible way to proceed. She asks what more the British Government and others could be doing. I submit that Britain is doing everything it possibly can to achieve aims that are commonly held across this House: bringing an end to the situation in Gaza; getting the hostages home; and getting aid and support into Gaza. I reassure the hon. Lady and the House that we will continue to do everything we can, night and day, until we reach those objectives.
Points of Order
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 19 September 2023, the chair of the Brook House inquiry, Kate Eves, published her report on the mistreatment of individuals detained at the Brook House immigration removal centre. The report contained shocking accounts of incidents at Brook House, including serious problems with the way that force was used by detention staff on detained people. These accounts were so disturbing that the Select Committee on Home Affairs held a private session with the chair of the inquiry. I have met the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, and later this week we will visit Brook House to discover what progress has been made. We will also hold an oral evidence session on the subject after the Easter recess.
Although we welcome the Government’s written response to the Brook House inquiry today, I am very disappointed that the Home Office chose not to update the House through an oral statement, but instead used a written ministerial statement. The matters raised in the report are very serious indeed, and Members should have the right to question the Minister on the situation at Brook House and the action that the Home Office will take. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can ensure that Home Office Ministers are brought to the House at the earliest opportunity to answer questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who Chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for giving me notice of her point of order. As she points out, the Government have not so far sought to make an oral statement to the House on this issue, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will pass them back, perhaps to Home Office Ministers and officials. In the meantime, the right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of the House, and I am sure that she will be aware of the various options open to her in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and indeed through her Select Committee.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 January 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) led an Adjournment debate in this House on the UK special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I attended that debate not only as a constituency MP, but as the brother of someone who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who, like the majority of the armed forces, did so diligently and with the utmost professionalism. In response to my hon. Friend, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who I have informed of this point of order, stated:
“There have been allegations made by individuals, a very small number of whom worked within the investigative teams.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 362.]
Only last month, the Minister submitted evidence, not only in person but in writing, to the independent inquiry on the deployment of special forces in Afghanistan, in which they stated that they had inadvertently misled Members of this House by reading out statements that they later found to be incorrect. Indeed, that was also communicated through a letter that they sent in August 2020 to the then Secretary of State—it was part of the evidence submitted last month—which states:
“That I have been allowed to read out statements to the House of Commons that individuals in strategic appointments in the department knew to be incorrect is completely unacceptable. These were clearly not complaints by ‘a small number of individuals within the investigations team’ but widespread.
I have continually downplayed these allegations in public, too, to support”
the special forces
“and the department.”
The Minister had the opportunity to correct the record when the House returned from the summer 2020 recess, but they have yet to do so in this Chamber.
You may correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope you will not—but the ministerial code is very perjink that it is of paramount importance that Ministers of the Crown be accurate and truthful in giving information to the House. It states that Ministers of the Crown must correct
“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
Indeed, the Minister stated recently on social media platforms:
“I am an elected politician who serves the public. I am not an appointed official and my position relies on my reputation and my ability to sustain public confidence in my character.”
I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, agree with the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who advised the House that the Minister may have been guilty of
“letting the House of Commons down”.
It sounds like major incompetence.
The House of Commons is based on trust in the word of Ministers of the Crown, and trust that what Ministers say is true. If they promise to do something, it undermines the integrity of the political system when they do not keep to their word. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how the Office of the Speaker will ensure that after more than three and a half years, the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to correct the record and apologise to the House, and to those members of the armed forces who conduct themselves in a professional manner?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order, and for confirming that he has informed the right hon. Member to whom he referred that he intended to raise this issue. Mr Speaker has always been clear that if Ministers feel that the record needs to be corrected, they should do so as quickly as possible, but it is also true that Ministers are responsible for what they say in the Chamber—hence why they should correct the record if there is a problem. The operation of the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair, and I hope that the hon. Member understands that. Having said that, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, and will feed them back. If the Minister considers a correction is necessary, one will be forthcoming. I think we will leave it at that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, in this House, I called on the Government to not only publish their contingency plan in the event of Thames Water’s financial collapse, but go a step further and put this failed, polluting giant into special administration. In preparation for that debate, I tabled a number of named day written parliamentary questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, scheduled for publication on Friday 15 March, yet I still have not received—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have to listen carefully to Members, so if others could refrain from chatting, that would be helpful.
Sarah Olney
I still have not received a response to those questions, two days after the deadline. The questions I asked were: how many meetings the permanent secretary of the Department has held with Thames Water on Operation Timber in the past 12 months; if the Secretary of State will the publish the minutes of meetings that officials in his Department have had with Thames Water on Operation Timber in each of the last six months; and when the permanent secretary of his Department last met officials from Thames Water to discuss Operation Timber. The continued failure of this Conservative Government to be transparent about their rescue plans for Thames Water amounts to nothing short of a cover-up. It is now crucial to raise this issue in the Chamber through a point of order. What steps can I take to receive a response from the Department to my questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order, and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members, whether they are here or not, would agree that answers to parliamentary questions should be given promptly. Again, I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order. She may wish to take up any undue delay in ministerial answers with the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who chairs the Procedure Committee, which keeps under review departmental performance on answering questions. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is lucky that the Chair of that Committee happens to be in the Chamber, and I can see that she has heard what the hon. Lady has had to say.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance on a matter that many MPs will understand through that bread and butter work that we do on behalf of our constituents. I have informed the Minister’s office of my intention to raise this matter. Last December the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), said that he
“would love to sit down with the hon. Lady to talk through the details of the cases.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 636.]
Those were the cases of two constituents who are British citizens but whose families are stuck in Pakistan, even though they served in support of our armed forces in Afghanistan. Their families are at high risk of harm.
I am yet to have that meeting with the Minister. Indeed, the meeting has been cancelled several times, and now my office has been told that we probably need to wait until another Minister is appointed. I wonder whether the Secretary of State or Ministers could help. We all know that Ministers are busy and we understand that these things are complicated, but this is a life-or-death situation for my constituents and I am at a loss as to how to assist them, four months on from the original query. Can Ministers advise on how best to make progress?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Can the hon. Lady just clarify in which Department the Minister sits?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She has successfully shone a light on what has happened in this instance. I see that there is a Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench, so I am sure that her comments will be fed back and hope that the meeting to which she refers can take place accordingly. I think she has achieved her objective of highlighting the problem.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sat through today’s urgent question and listened to the various questions raised on the supply of arms to Israel. It is clear that the Government are continuing to supply arms to Israel, some of which will have been used in the attacks on Gaza. Some of those attacks have been judged to be contrary to the International Court of Justice judgment and are potentially war crimes. Can I ask Mr Speaker to seek and publish legal advice on the legal responsibilities of individuals of this House in holding the Government to account to prevent complicity in those war crimes, so that we are all aware of our responsibilities and the role we have to play, as this Government receive their authority from this Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He did not give me notice of it, so I have been unable to seek advice on the legal point he raises. I am unclear on whether he is asking Mr Speaker to publish legal advice.
John McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise; I could not give notice of my point of order because it arises from the urgent question, which has only just concluded. I am asking Mr Speaker to seek legal advice on our behalf and to publish it, because it is important that we all know our legal responsibilities in respect of the potential complicity of this Government in war crimes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
My initial response is that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has come here and answered a number of questions on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The Minister is indicating that he may be able to help me out a little on legal advice. It feels highly unusual for Mr Speaker to seek legal advice on an issue affecting the Government, because the Government obviously get their own legal advice. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister before going any further.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is an extremely experienced Member of the House, is seeking—ingeniously—to continue debate on the subject of the urgent question. He knows perfectly well that the Government operate under the rule of law. When it comes to arms sales, the arms regime and the work of the arms inspection committee, all those matters are determined by the law of the land. When it comes to international humanitarian law, the position is precisely the same: the Government take advice from the Law Officers, who are charged with advising us on these matters, and the Government act on that advice.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is the point that I was trying to make, but obviously the Minister, who I am sure often works with legal advisers, was able to make it much more coherently. I am not sure that we can pursue this much further. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have one more go, but I think that we will have reached the end of the questioning after this.
John McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to extend the debate at all; this is an incredibly serious point. The Minister just said that the Government are operating under the rule of law, but some of us believe that is not true any more, because of how the ICJ judgment was phrased. So we need advice as individual Members, separate from the Government—and it is the Speaker’s responsibility to ensure that we are properly advised—about our responsibilities when we believe there is potential complicity in war crime. All I seek is that advice should be sought and published.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I said, the Government perform within the legal advice that they receive, not least from the Attorney General. Separate legal proceedings are going through the ICJ, and I do not think it is for Members of the House to interfere in that process either. The right hon. Gentleman will know that individual Members of the House have the right to seek legal advice. His comments will have been heard, and if there is anything further to be added to them, I know that the Clerks will advise us whether we should return to the matter, but I think his request for specific legal advice to the Speaker would be highly unusual. If I need to add anything to that, I assure him that I will come back to him.
Bill Presented
Football Governance Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Lucy Frazer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary David T. C. Davies, John Glen and Stuart Andrew, presented a Bill to establish the Independent Football Regulator; to make provision for the licensing of football clubs; to make provision about the distribution of revenue received by organisers of football competitions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 187) with explanatory notes (Bill 187-EN).
Illegal and Unsustainable Fishing (Due Diligence)
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal and unsustainable fishing (due diligence) Bill 2023-24 View all Illegal and unsustainable fishing (due diligence) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require suppliers and retailers of fish and related products to establish and implement due diligence systems to ensure that those products are not obtained from illegal or unsustainable fishing; and for connected purposes.
In recent years the House has extensively debated the disastrous loss of biodiversity and habitats around the world. Our focus in doing so has rightly been on the threat to forests—in particular, the major forest areas in the Amazon, the Congo basin and south-east Asia—and on the implications of a situation where illegal deforestation to grow products such as palm oil and soy is doing huge damage.
The Government have done the right thing by being at the forefront of creating legislative frameworks to help address the commercial exploitation of those forest risk products. The Environment Act 2021 created the first real framework requiring UK businesses to know where their supplies come from and whether they come from areas affected by illegal deforestation, although I would nudge Ministers—I see the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries in his place—about the need finally to sort out all the secondary legislation that goes with that Act. However, illegal deforestation is not the only threat to biodiversity around the world. The loss of marine life and of marine ecosystems is as serious a priority for us all.
The destruction of fish stocks is nothing new: huge fisheries in the Atlantic have been destroyed through excessive levels of catch over the past century; massive stocks of herring and cod off our shores have steadily disappeared; huge cod fisheries off Canada suffered a similar fate; and more recently the common fisheries policy has failed to halt the pressure on fish stocks, with politics often overriding scientific advice. But that excessive extraction of fish stocks in a regulated environment is just one dimension of the problem facing marine life.
Over the course of this Parliament, I have pushed for a rapid extension of the ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas around the United Kingdom. I am pleased that we are now free to change those practices, which were permitted under the common fisheries policy, and that the Government are making real progress on moving away from an unacceptable situation, though there is still much to do on that front. The creation of highly protected marine areas is also a major step forward as long as it is done in the right areas, but even once the bans are in place I am in little doubt that rogue vessels will continue to push the rules to the limit and exceed them when no one is looking. These new laws will not stop the practice altogether.
The frank reality is that illegal practice is a feature of fisheries around the world. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is doing massive damage—ironically, particularly to the small coastal communities that depend on their fisheries for their local economy. Illegal operators have little regard for national or international law. They use illegal equipment, and they have no regard to whether the species they are catching are endangered and protected, or whether it is a closed season. Backing those fleets up are refrigerated transport vessels and supply ships moving vast quantities of catch to markets around the world.
In many maritime regions of the world, IUU fishing has massively contributed to the depletion of fish stocks, especially in developing countries’ coastal waters. One of the biggest problem areas is west Africa, where IUU fishing accounts for an estimated 40% of all fish caught and about 20% of worldwide illegal fishing. Apart from the environmental damage, it is estimated that the practice costs those coastal communities in Africa billions of dollars a year. IUU fishing is practised in particular by China and Russia, and it tends to target species that are already over-exploited by legal fishing or are subject to restrictions. They target high-value species such as cod, salmon, trout, lobster and prawns.
The UK and the EU have tough rules on IUU fishing and systems in place. Imports have to be properly certified, but it is generally accepted that that does not stop fish from IUU vessels getting into Europe. There is seldom enough enforcement available to prevent illegality from taking place.
One thing we learned when the Ukraine war started and we began to put restrictions in place was just how much of our white fish imports were sourced from Russia; less well known was how much comes from China. Those two countries—together with Norway and Iceland—are by far the biggest suppliers of fish to the UK, and they are the biggest global source of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. To be frank, we should not trust either country to be ensuring that its fishing vessels conform to international norms and rules on good fishing practices. It is therefore right that we have a tight national regulatory regime and that it becomes tougher still, but I do not believe that a regulatory regime should be the only weapon in our armoury to tackle IUU fishing, and indeed illegal fishing closer to home.
I believe that we need to take an additional step in protecting fisheries here and around the world, which is to place the same duty on retailers for fish sourcing as we have for forest risk products. That means having a mandatory system of due diligence for retailers, and particularly those buying their supplies via third-party wholesalers and other intermediaries, on which a big part of the industry depends. All we need those retailers to do in taking their purchasing decisions is to be clear that they know they are sourcing their stock from trusted and reliable sources and that they have a line of sight over their supply chains. That is what we are moving to do with forest risk products, and we need it to apply to fish as well.
I would like to see clear rules on the sustainability of UK fish stocks in the revised fishing arrangements that will need to be put in place in the next Parliament, regardless of the EU approach, which all too often allows catch limits above scientific recommendations. When the new agreement is reached in the coming years, there has to be a clear line that fishing must be sustainable in UK waters. Due diligence rules should then be applied to UK-sourced fish as well, particularly if there is a risk of illegal operations in marine protected areas. I fear that, notwithstanding the change to the rules, we will see that in future.
The purpose of the Bill is straightforward, and my proposal is very simple: we simply extend what we have already done in one area of critical biodiversity risk to another area—the future of our oceans. I am proud that this Government and this country were one of the first to address the issue of forest risk products and take action on the risks of those products coming to the UK. I want us to go a step further and apply the same principle and the same rules to fish from illegal fisheries around the world. I want us to be absolutely certain that when we buy fish in our shops, we know that we are not contributing to more unsustainable biodiversity loss in this country and elsewhere. With this Bill, we can protect our oceans and fisheries and do the right thing for our environment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Grayling, Andrew Selous, Harriett Baldwin, Alex Sobel, Dr Matthew Offord, Ian Levy, Barry Gardiner and Trudy Harrison present the Bill.
Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 186).
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 View all Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 March 2024 - large print - (19 Mar 2024)
16:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Assessment of impact of CPTPP on deforestation and import of certain products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on—
(a) the volume of UK imports of palm oil;
(b) the volume of UK imports of tropical wood;
(c) the rate of deforestation in Asia;
(d) the UK’s ability to fulfil its obligations under—
(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
(ii) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”
New clause 3—Report on the impact and use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP on the UK.
(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) must include—
(a) analysis of the likely use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK, and the likely impact of such on the UK;
(b) details of discussions held with other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK; and
(c) discussions held with, or agreements made with, other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the exclusion or exemption of the UK from any use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure.”
New clause 4—Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP—
“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.
(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”
New clause 5—Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 6—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters of the CPTPP on—
(a) environmental standards,
(b) food standards, and
(c) animal welfare standards.
(2) An impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed and every two years thereafter.”
New clause 7—Report on business impact of CPTPP—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a plan outlining the steps being taken to—
(a) measure the impact on UK businesses of the implementation of the CPTPP; and
(b) support UK businesses to benefit from the UK's membership of the CPTPP.”
New clause 8—Impact assessment: labour standards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Labour Chapter not more than eighteen months after the day on which this Act is passed and every 18 months thereafter.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the impact on the Government’s commitments to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation;
(b) steps that have been taken to ensure adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation in CPTPP partner countries; and
(c) how the experience and impact of implementation might inform negotiation of future trade agreements.”
New clause 9—Comparative analysis of impact on UK businesses—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on the matters listed in subsection (3).
(2) The report must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.
(3) The issues which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) tariffs paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;
(b) costs of non-tariff border control measures paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;
(c) inflation in the UK;
(d) the extent of alignment of regulations relevant to UK businesses;
(e) the ability of UK businesses to trade with the EU;
(f) the implications for UK businesses of introducing new trade and climate regulations, including for carbon pricing;
(g) tariff and non-tariff costs facing businesses trading with the EU; and
(h) trade volumes for UK businesses trading with the EU.
(4) Within 10 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate on the findings of the report in each House.”
New clause 10—Report on economic impact of implementation of CPTPP—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the economic impact of the implementation of the CPTPP.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.
(3) The matters which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) the UK’s trade in goods;
(b) the UK’s trade in services; and
(c) UK GDP.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a comparative analysis of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on UK trade and GDP.
New clause 11—Impact assessment: new states acceding to the CPTPP—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report assessing the impact of the accession of new states to the CPTPP on the United Kingdom.
(2) In respect of states that have submitted a request to the Depositary of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP since 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of this Act coming into force.
(3) In respect of states submitting a request to the Depository of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of a request being made.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made and will make a formal request to join the CPTPP.
New clause 12—Impact assessment: UK performers’ rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of performers' rights provisions in the CPTPP.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) consideration of the impact of performers' rights provisions on qualifying individuals in the UK;
(b) an assessment of the reciprocity of rights across qualifying countries;
(c) consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would mean the Government must publish an assessment of the impact the performers’ rights provisions in the CPTPP will have on qualifying individuals in the UK.
New clause 13—Review of regulatory impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on UK businesses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the regulatory impact of the implementation of the CPTPP treaty on costs to exporting and importing businesses in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must take account of the existing levels of costs to exporting and importing businesses arising from trade regulations.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on the costs to businesses in the UK. The report would need to take the existing trade costs facing such businesses into account.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before Government has moved a substantive motion to resolve that the UK Accession Protocol should not be ratified.”
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must, after a period of three years from the passing of this Act, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the impact of changes made in this section.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1, which is signed by a cross-party group of MPs who all believe that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise trade deals. It seeks to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s position toward the accession of economies that are designated—that word is very specific—as “threats” or “systemic challenges”. It would achieve two things. First, the Government would be required to produce a report assessing the impact of the economy’s accession on the UK, and both Houses of Parliament would have a non-binding vote on the UK’s position regarding the accession of the economy in question. In other words, we would take the temperature of Parliament’s view, even if it disagreed with the Government. That is important, because the public need to know about it, so we should not be frightened of this.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the new clause. Some of us have been arguing for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals for the last four years. There is a mechanism in the form of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Is that not the better vehicle, because it has already passed? It also offers a vote, theoretically, for us to be able to scrutinise our trade deals.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will come to that in a minute, because it does not, and that is the whole point of the new clause. In the 2023 integrated review refresh, the countries defined as threats were Russia, Iran and North Korea, while China was designated a systemic challenge. The new clause does not directly mention China, but of the eligible countries under the current integrated review, China is the only economy that has applied to join. In fact it is theoretically next on the list to go into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I completely understand the point my right hon. Friend is trying to make, but one of the interesting things about being a member of CPTPP is that countries then have a power of veto. That gives us quite a lot of strength to potentially prevent China from joining.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I enjoy the idea that my hon. Friend puts such trust in Government never to take other arrangements into consideration. We know how that works. It will be fine today with my right hon. Friend the Minister here, but there may be others in charge in future, and I am not sure I would always want to rest my defence in Ministers.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for this new clause. Was he as surprised as I was that when we asked the Secretary of State whether she would block China’s accession to CPTPP she was unable to give us an unequivocal answer?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I think the right hon. Gentleman makes my point. I sat in Government and all I can say to him is that one cannot always say that Ministers will necessarily do the right thing; rather, they will do the right thing by the Government, which is sometimes not the same. I do not mean to cast aspersions on my party’s Government by any means, but that has happened in the past. I simply want to make the point that China’s potential accession has huge implications for all sorts of things, including because of its immense economic and political influence in the region and the pressures on the UK if we were almost isolated in our observations.
China is not a likeminded party—there may be other countries that are rather similar. It openly seeks to revise the liberal, open and rules-based order and establish itself as a regional hegemon. If admitted, it would be the largest economy and dominant economic and trading partner in the CPTPP, with unrivalled political influence. It could block a future US entry. As we join it is important for us to make way for the US and bring it in, which will help in a whole range of areas. China’s accession would help to cement Beijing’s desired leadership in global trade. I will remind the House that China is next up for the CPTPP, so this is not something conjured up.
China’s entry also risks further increasing economic dependence on it, which is already too high, and building resilience into the Chinese economy to weather sanctioning should tensions over Taiwan escalate, which they almost certainly will. That would run counter to the UK’s strategic efforts to de-risk and maintain the status quo in the region. Serious human rights abuses are and continue to be embedded within Chinese supply chains. China is the most egregious offender in this regard, with its actions on religion in Xinjiang and in Tibet, where slave labour is also practised. Slave labour undercuts the World Trade Organisation and normal trade. Those are good commercial reasons why the membership of any country with the views China happens to have would have a real impact.
China’s accession is unlikely to drive economic reform in the country. There is no political ability to drive such reform under President Xi, who has moved China further away from the spirit of the CPTPP on labour rights protections.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I have just returned from leading a parliamentary delegation to Lithuania, where my right hon. Friend was talked about by many Lithuanian politicians. They mentioned the leading role he is taking in warning western democracies about the conduct of the Chinese Communist Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lithuania is a very interesting case for us to study, so that we can perhaps learn from how a European country confronts and takes on the increasingly nefarious conduct of the Chinese Communist party?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is always kind to be referred to in another country, which leads me to wonder whether I should stand there. [Interruption.] I need no encouragement from those on the Opposition Benches, thank you very much. My hon. Friend is quite right; Lithuania is a tiny country, but rather bravely it has recognised Taiwan and it has come under the cosh from China as a result. I thank him for that intervention.
As I said, this is not a pipe dream. China applied to join the CPTPP on 16 September 2021, and is next in line. It is widely reported that Beijing is already lobbying hard for membership, and that countries previously opposed have softened their line. Australia has done so because it has had trade problems, as we know. All that is required for Chinese accession is for other members to permit it. The current labour regulations would seem to preclude China’s accession, but the risk is there and we should not take it.
An actor-agnostic approach—linking to the integrated review rather than naming any specific actor—would also enable the Government to create a threshold that is reflexive to developments rather than static. That would means that a report, debate and vote would be required only where the integrated review had designated specific economies as threats or systematic challenges. The language in the review is weak in its own right, but none the less it is there.
I want to deal with the CRaG process quickly. The new clause is in line with the Government policy, but exposes a loophole in the CRaG process. There is currently no provision for a debate and non-binding vote on future accession to plurilateral trade agreements. The process would not require the Government to produce an impact report on China’s accession to the CPTPP, nor would it provide for a parliamentary debate or vote. Given the long-term significance to the UK of being in a plurilateral trade agreement where the biggest partner is China, it is appropriate for Parliament to be furnished with an up-to-date, accurate report, and to have the opportunity to consider the matter—after all, there is no other reason why we are here if not to discuss such important matters.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about some of the weaknesses of CRaG and the need to strengthen it, particularly when there are accessions or other material changes to a treaty to which we are a member. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I sit on, has published a report that outlines some of the changes to the way that the Government operate under CRaG. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to change it so that significant changes to treaties and accessions should always automatically be subject to a report and potential vote in this House? Otherwise, we will sign ourselves up to things without knowing what will happen further along the line.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree. I was not so certain about this, so I looked at what Lord Lisvane, the one-time chief Clerk in the House, said about it. He produced a note on it, which I quote:
“The issue, as I recall, was whether a Motion to approve the PRC’s accession could be amended. Commons S.O. No 24B says that when a Motion in neutral terms (in the judgement of the Chair) is tabled, no amendments to it may be tabled. I think this would probably rule out seeking to amend a simple ‘take note’ or ‘has considered’ Motion.”
I want to emphasise that it is not true that a motion to take note can be amended—that was used in the other place as a defence. The CRaG process does not provide for a vote; it does not even guarantee a debate. That is why the new clause is needed.
Under UK trade policy, it is not unusual for bilateral trade agreements to be subject to parliamentary approval—free trade agreements are routinely subject to it. In response to criticism of the CRaG process in 2021, the Grimstone rule was established, whereby the Government agreed in principle to allow time to debate prospective FTAs where the International Agreements Committee has published a report. I happen to believe that there are Ministers who are keen and happy to have debates—I mention no names, but that is the case. However, I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office absolutely opposes them, because it hates to have any serious debates about its prerogative.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is keen on debates. On that basis, I invite him to sign my prayer against this treaty, to urge the Government to give us a debate on the treaty as a whole.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to tempt me beyond my new clause. I always happy to look at this issue, and I believe in debate. It is vital, otherwise Governments are never held to account.
Daniel Kawczynski
My right hon. Friend is highlighting the various concerns about China’s conduct and why it should not join the CPTPP. Does he agree that the conduct of the Chinese Government in the South China sea—a waterway through which 60% of the world’s trade passes—where it has stolen hundreds of atolls from Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others, is also a cause for concern?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is, although I cannot follow my hon. Friend through Lithuania and the atolls of the far east, because I would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I hope he will forgive me, but he makes a strong point.
I say gently to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), that it was a Labour Member, Lord Leong, who tabled the amendment in Committee in the Lords. Labour said that it would whip for the amendment if it were reworked to not mention China. Strangely, the new clause does not mention China, so I would have hoped that Labour would support it, but it does not. I understand that Labour has tabled its own new clause.
Parliament should be able to make its voice heard on a matter of such national significance. The new clause does not overturn constitutional conventions by a long way. Having a report, a debate and a non-binding vote would not determine Government policy, but it would determine the House’s view on the elements of this particular trade deal. I note that Opposition new clause 4 also seeks to look at this, but there are other issues that I will not bring up now.
There are elements in the Government who believe that debate is not a bad thing, because it allows them to make their case for why such a trade deal is important. I urge the Government to be positive about this, because being positive about debate in the House of Commons is a restatement of democracy. It allows people to decide whether they agree. More importantly, this is about accession. If those who follow us in seeking to join the treaty are defined as a threat, as they are in the review, that will at least inform the Government. It will also allow the House to pressure the Government over its real concern about what they might be doing. In future, a Government from either side of the House or of whatever form may choose, under pressure from China over economic issues, to let it accede to the treaty. Who knows? I do not say that that is the mood, but it is for Back Benchers to make their point about what the Government should do and for them to take note. In that regard, I commend my new clause to the House.
Liam Byrne
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will speak in support of new clause 1, which he tabled, as well as the new clauses tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I welcome this debate and the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, but I lament the fact that we have not been permitted a full debate on the treaty—something the right hon. Gentleman argued for very eloquently. We needed a debate today not merely on the three chapters of the CPTPP covered by the Bill, but on the full 30 chapters of the treaty, with all the associated annexes and bits of analysis and argument.
I do not want to detain the House for very long, because the Business and Trade Committee went to the length of writing and publishing a report earlier this year. However, I want to underline the point about the lack of scrutiny. Of course, it was the Government themselves, in the Grimstone rule, who said that no new free trade agreements would be ratified by His Majesty’s Government without a full debate on whether we should agree to them. When I asked the Secretary of State on 23 January whether she would agree to a debate under the terms of the CRaG process, she said she would be “happy to support” such a debate. Her officials then wrote to the Clerks on the Select Committee to say that such a debate had been requested, only to be told by the Leader of the House that no time was available. The Leader of the House confirmed that in writing to me last week in a letter in which she said:
“it has not been possible to find time for a debate in Government time.”
The House of Lords is having a debate on the treaty today on the recommendation of the International Agreements Committee, so why can’t we? Are we second-class representatives in this House? Are we unqualified to have a debate on all 30 chapters of the treaty? Are we not qualified to speak, on behalf of the people we came into public life to represent, about how the treaty will affect their future? I think we are. I think we should have a debate on the full treaty.
And I cannot believe that we are out of time. Members will have seen the report in the Financial Times last week, which said that the working day in this Chamber
“has been shorter on average this parliamentary session than in any other in the past quarter century”.
Are we seriously saying that we have not been able to find time for a debate, which it is the Government’s policy to support, on one of the only free trade agreements that His Majesty’s Government have been able to bring forward since we left the European Union?
On Twitter, the Minister—I am a keen follower of the Minister on Twitter, he will be pleased to hear—said last week that there have been four parliamentary debates on the treaty, but I wonder if he is sure about that. When I asked the Clerks on the Select Committee to check that, they were left scratching their heads a little bit. They could not find all four that the Minister referred to. We have to accept that there is no shortage of controversy in the Bill, not least because the Secretary of State herself resiled from the figures that describe the benefits of the treaty to the country.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with him. I thought I might just throw a bone in the form of cross-party support on this point. Having a debate is not just about pointing out controversies; it is about having the opportunity to justify and debate things about which our constituents care. These trade deals make a difference not only to the businesses, but to the services and agriculture sectors in our respective constituencies. That is why it is damaging not to have a debate: it fails to allow us the opportunity to persuade people that trade deals can be a force for good.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I commend his contribution both to the Committee and to the report that we published on the CPTPP earlier this year.
There are a number of important new clauses and amendments not only about the future expansion plans of the CPTPP and what our policy on those might look like, but also, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, about investor-state dispute settlement. This is important because in all the fanfare, arguments and passionate bits of literature and speeches offered by the Government about the virtues of the treaty, it was always positioned as a gateway to the fastest-growing economy on Earth that will represent a significant fraction of economic growth in the future. Of course, what was often missing from those eloquent descriptions was a recognition that the countries in the CPTPP represent only about a fifth, at best, of the Indo-Pacific region.
We are surely right to worry that there could well be a Government drive to expand the orbit of the treaty to a much wider group of nations. If the Government really want to take aim at the biggest economies on Earth, they may well encourage China to join. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether it was her policy to agree to or block China’s accession, she said that that was not something we could discuss on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee. That is why safeguards are needed. We might even be so bold as to merely ask for a little bit of clarity on the Government’s future strategy. That is why the amendments on the future pathway of the treaty are so important and why I hope we will have a vote on some aspect of that today, even if it is not on the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.
I will talk briefly about new clause 3, which relates to ISDS. It is important, because His Majesty’s Government have agreed side letters with a number of countries to take us out of the ISDS process. That is not an exemption or safeguard that we saw when it came to agreeing to the treaty, yet the treaty includes countries such as Canada—I think we are just about on fraternal terms with Canada at the moment; we may have failed to agree an FTA with it, but quite why is a matter of some dispute between the Canadian Government and the Secretary of State. Canada is home to some of the biggest pension fund investors on the planet and we know that those funds are especially litigious. Although the Minister was right, when he answered these questions in earlier conversations, to say we have never lost an ISDS case, the reality is that many fear there will be a chilling effect on the regulations we bring forward because of a fear of the peril of ISDS procedures.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My right hon. Friend is speaking very well on some of the new clauses I have tabled on ISDS. It is of course true that getting the side letters for all member states was good enough for New Zealand, so it was protected more—not fully protected, I grant him. If it was good enough for New Zealand, it should have been good enough for us. Is it not a sign that Ministers have lacked ambition, or is it a sign of complacency?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps it is because we did not want to overly annoy the Canadians, but the truth is that the talks with the Canadians have broken down—at a cost, by the way, to the UK automotive industry. In fact, UK cars will be hit on average by a £3,000 tariff in about a month or two, because of the breakdown of those talks. It is important for us to have a vote on why we do not have those procedures, why we do not have those safeguards and why we do not have those side letters.
Finally, I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a House, we must become far more skilled, far more ready and far more adroit at debating the kinds of treaties we will be asked to sign. Once upon a time, when the Berlin wall came down, we promised ourselves that we could look forward to a new world of free trade, and we hoped that that free trade could bring political progress and a democratic process—Wandel durch Handel, as the Germans liked to say.
However, that reality is now smashed; that era ended with the second invasion of Ukraine. We are now in new times, when we have to debate not just military security but economic security, and economic security questions are always freighted with dilemmas. We are a small nation and our adversaries are big, so we must always act with our allies, but not all our allies are good, and many of our friends would prefer not to pick a side. Our adversaries plan for self-sufficiency, but we cannot. We prefer open, free trade, but global supply chains are risky. We like markets to decide, but security always requires state action. We know that we need to work proactively to shape the long term, but democracies frequently entail a short-term change of Government, and too often our politics is reactive.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne).
I rise to echo the comments made so eloquently and clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and to add just a few comments of my own. I have always been in favour of the CPTPP, and, as I said from the Front Bench in 2019,
“It is absolutely essential, particularly given the rise of protectionism globally, that we commit ourselves to a rules-based system based on the WTO. Of course, we have abilities to augment that by other regional relationships, which is why we have had the public consultation and the debate in Parliament about the potential accession to the CPTPP”.—[Official Report, 6 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 250.]
I have also always believed that the benefits of the CPTPP have been at least as much about geopolitics as about simple import and export numbers. As the Royal United Services Institute put it,
“Joining the CPTPP provides the UK with not just economic benefits, but the means to help define and defend a rules-based order in the face of China’s diplomatic and economic heft.”
At a time of tense relations between China and the United States, the United Kingdom has joined a trade agreement in which neither is present, although the United States was instrumental in its creation—a point to which I shall return later.
The March 2023 integrated review refresh describes the Indo-Pacific as
“critical to the UK’s economy, security and our interest in an open and stable international order. Developments there will have disproportionate influence on the global economy, supply chains”
—that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill—
“strategic stability and norms of state behaviour.”
The CPTPP, in turn, is about a contribution to the stability of the global trade and investment system.
Within that debate, what do we perceive China’s security threat to the UK to be? In their reply to a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, in a section entitled “The Strategic Context”, the Government stated:
“China almost certainly maintains the largest state intelligence apparatus in the world. The nature and scale of the Chinese Intelligence Services are—like many aspects of China’s government—hard to grasp for the outsider, due to the size of the bureaucracy, the blurring of lines of accountability between party and state officials, a partially decentralised system, and a lack of verifiable information.”
They also stated:
“The Chinese Intelligence Services target the UK and its overseas interests prolifically and aggressively. While they seek to obtain classified information, they are willing to utilise intelligence officers and agents to collect open source information indiscriminately—given the vast resources at their disposal…To compound the problem, it is not just the Chinese Intelligence Services: the Chinese Communist Party co-opts every state institution, company and citizen. This ‘whole-of-state’ approach means China can aggressively target the UK”
—and UK interests, wherever those interests are globally. Sadly, we have discovered that to our cost in many of our governmental institutions here.
The question, given all that, is this: could China actually be admitted to the CPTPP, and if it is theoretically possible, how likely is it? I think it instructive to look first at the experience of the World Trade Organisation, a brief that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I shared over several years of my extremely enjoyable time working with him at the Department for International Trade. When China acceded to the WTO in 2001, the west saw it as promising and promoting economic and political reform. It was a time of great optimism that the Chinese communist system could be pulled in a direction that would be advantageous to, and in the interests of, the west. However, Jiang Zemin, the Chinese leader at the time, claimed that the motive of the United States in all this was to
“westernise and divide socialist countries”.
Thus the WTO itself was heading for a stalemate in its direction of travel almost from the point at which China acceded to it.
This has added to other WTO problems—and I mention that because we need to look at the CPTPP within the wider trading framework. The WTO’s problems have been compounded by its adoption of the concept of unanimity, while its rules talk about consensus. If consensus and unanimity meant the same thing, there would not be two different words for it in the founding documents. This has meant that virtually any country in the WTO now exercises a right of veto, which has prevented us from moving forward in what we perceived to be a process of genuine liberalisation of global trade.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. The key was, we were told at the time, that the move would change China, and that persuaded the Government, but what we have found is that China is now changing the terms of the debate, because it has not changed at all—it has got worse. Is that not a very good reason why we need to debate these issues whenever we can?
Sir Liam Fox
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. As I observed at the time, President Clinton took the view that the treaty was the best hope that the west had of pulling China into a much more market-orientated, rules-based economy, where we could gain the benefits of a more liberal, global economy, but that is not how it turned out. We have had only one multilateral treaty since the WTO was created, the 2017 trade facilitation agreement.
There is a hierarchy of agreements that we can secure in terms of liberalisation. A multilateral agreement is the best, but given the effective veto that countries have, that is unlikely, and it is very unlikely to give us the benefits that we would like to see, especially the liberalisation of trade in services. The next best is a plurilateral agreement, the next best after that is a regional agreement, and then we are down to what some people would unkindly describe as the bargain basement of bilateral FTAs. All those are useful in creating a more liberal global trading environment. However, if China were to seek to join the CPTPP, it would need to commit itself to liberalisation in line with CPTPP requirements, which would require a reduced role for the Chinese state. If anyone who keeps an eye on current affairs thinks that the Chinese state is tending in the direction of a smaller influence, they are watching different news outlets from the ones that I am watching.
China could, of course, seek a bespoke agreement to join the CPTPP, but the UK has already set the precedent by joining on current terms. Even if China could join the CPTPP, could it be trusted to meet any of the conditions of accession? Although Chinese leaders have declared their willingness to meet the conditions, many countries are extremely sceptical, given China’s behaviour as a WTO member. China has a poor record when it comes to complying with WTO rules and observing the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, openness, reciprocity, fairness and transparency on which the WTO agreements are based. China’s subsidies over capacity, intellectual property theft and protectionist non-market policies exacerbate distortions in the global economy, and—even more worryingly—China’s use of trade as a tool of coercive diplomacy has raised concerns further, especially given its behaviour towards Australia and Japan. This is not the sort of partner we should be wishing to join us in the CPTPP, unless there are previously unimagined changes in behaviour.
Finally, a word, if I may, beyond this Chamber to our US colleagues: I believe that the decision to leave the CPTPP by the United States was a mistake. It removed from United States policymakers a tool in its strategic ability to shape events in the region. UK accession provides an opportunity for the United States to seek to join this new grouping and gain greater direct influence over China trade relations with the fastest growing economic zone in the world. These are all reasons why we must keep a very close eye on what happens with China and our new membership of the CPTPP. We have gained a great deal; we cannot afford to have it thrown away, by ourselves or by others.
Damien Egan (Kingswood) (Lab)
It is with great pleasure that I rise to give my maiden speech as we speak to this Bill, which aims to boost international trade and economic growth. Stimulating growth and trade is vital to my constituents in Kingswood, as it creates new jobs and is ultimately about how we fund our public services.
As is traditional in a maiden speech, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Chris Skidmore. I learnt during the campaign that there was a reason why Chris’s votes would go up every time he stood for election. Throughout the by-election campaign, people talked very warmly about Chris; he was described as being “a good man” and someone driven by values—a double-edged sword, some might say—but perhaps most importantly as someone who cared. I heard about some really complicated pieces of casework, where Chris had personally given a lot of his time to get people the help they needed, so I would like to place on record my thanks to Chris for his 14 years of service to the people of Kingswood.
Kingswood had four MPs before Chris. Roger Berry was a tireless campaigner—in fact, he still is—for disability rights. He brought forward the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1993, which galvanised support for future legislation that made discrimination against disabled people illegal. Kingswood’s three other MPs were Rob Hayward, Jack Aspinwall and Terry Walker. On my second day here, when I got into my office, the first letter I received was from Terry Walker. If you are listening, Terry, thank you.
I have been asked by some Members, “So where exactly is Kingswood?” Kingswood lies on the eastern side of Bristol, and I would say that more people than not would say that they live in Bristol. It is a suburban collection of towns and villages that stretches from the edge of the city and extends into beautiful countryside.
Kingswood has an interesting story. In medieval times it served as a royal hunting ground: quite literally, the King’s wood. In the 18th century it was a thriving home for workers from nearby coalmines, and it was at that time that John Wesley was encouraged to deliver his very first outdoor sermons—in Kingswood. I must be one of thousands of children over the years who at primary school was taken to the site of those sermons, Hanham Mount, where today a spiring green beacon illuminates the spot where Wesley once preached.
In the early 20th century, Kingswood hosted the largest motorbike factory in the world, the Douglas motorbike factory, where 25,000 motorbikes were made to support the military in world war one. In one of those quirky bits of history—this did catch me out in a radio interview—legend has it that Kingswood hosted an elephant burial when Nancy, who was part of a travelling menagerie, died of yew leaf poisoning. I am told that archaeologists are investigating.
Being elected in a by-election towards the end of a Parliament does focus the mind; you have to think about making your moments count. Indeed, Rishi could still call a surprise election tomorrow! So I thought, Mr Speaker, that as well as giving you a little bit of information about Kingswood itself, I would also share what the people of Kingswood told me during the campaign, which I hope includes issues that are pertinent to all Members, whichever party in this Chamber they represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Anthony Mangnall
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), and may I congratulate him on his maiden speech? It is somewhat frustrating, as one of the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House, to find new Members turning up who look fresher, healthier and readier for the fight. He also managed to unify the House when talking about potholes; I do not think he will find any disagreement on that subject. He comes to this place with a huge amount of experience, not just from fighting other seats, but having been Mayor of Lewisham, where he did extraordinary work on community land trusts that Members from across the House have commented on and would like to follow in our constituencies. I am sure that his family are somewhere in the Gallery and will be proud of his maiden speech. He has done very well.
I would like to make a few remarks about CPTPP, the tongue-twister that seems to have made many Members of this place fall sideways. We should start by recognising what the United Kingdom has managed to do over the last four years. We have recognised the global ambition of fulfilling our trade objectives. We have succeeded in joining CPTTP, but we have also secured deals with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as joining the Singapore digital partnership. I spend my life repeating the fact that we have made those deals; it is important that we recognise their true value, not just to GDP, but to businesses, the economy, the environment and business people across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. It shows that we are determined to fulfil our promise and commitment to sign deals to bolster our position in the world. Of course, negotiations are also under way with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Israel and others.
In joining CPTTP, we are signing a deal with the fastest-growing region in the world. Now that we have tariff-free trade relations, the UK is set to increase trade with the countries in CPTTP by £37 billion by 2030. It is a market worth £110 billion to UK trade. With growth at 8% between 2016 and 2019, UK membership is only expected to boost that figure. Conservative figures—I say “conservative” because I feel that they are underestimates—suggest that there will be a £1.8 billion increase to GDP and an £800 million boost to take-home pay for workers. Additionally, estimates are that trade with the 11 members will increase by an average of 65%, with the west midlands, Scotland and Northern Ireland benefiting most, so I look forward to hearing the SNP’s point of view, and whether it will support the Bill.
As has already been mentioned, the point of this deal is that it allows us to have tariff-free trade in goods. CPTPP has new product regulations, expands our role and opportunities for services, and ensures mobility for business people. Digital trade will be enhanced and intellectual property enshrined, with benchmarks created by the United Kingdom, and the CPTPP has sustainability at its core. However, I would like to focus my remarks on new clauses 1 and 4.
It has been my cause, war or campaign—however one wants to phrase it—over the last four years that Parliament should do better on our trade agreements. We should spend more time scrutinising and debating them. It is always a source of frustration that when we have debates on trade, so few people show up. The ability of this House to explain the value of a trade deal to our constituents, to justify its economic value and to talk about the potential security risk is diminished when we do not have opportunities on the Floor of the House to discuss the merits or demerits of any trade agreement.
I disagree with new clauses 1 and 4 not because I am being belligerent, or because the Whips have me under the cosh, but because we need to focus on reforming the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Parliament cannot opine on every single international treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about whether accession to CPTTP should be debated on the Floor of the House. There could be no limit to that, but he did not explain—I will let him intervene if he wants to—how he would get around the royal prerogative issue; international trade agreements are not in the hands of Parliament, but in the hands of Government Ministers. That was not considered in his remarks.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree. I could have taken this even further, but my point is that the Foreign Office dislikes any idea of debate and discussion. However, we have a Trade Department, which needs to be imbued with the power to ensure that debate happens. I am completely in favour of just punching through the nonsense and the poor use of the prerogative.
Anthony Mangnall
I understand that, but I feel that punching through on this occasion would be the wrong approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Office’s appetite for us debating these issues in this place should not matter one jot, because it is our right as parliamentarians to discuss free trade agreements and whether they work. Respectfully, I say that the mechanism for ensuring that we get better trade agreements, and can be reassured about their economic value and benefits to the British people and our national security, has to be achieved by upgrading the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made an excellent point when he referred to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report’s recommendation on enshrining a methodology to ensure that CRaG operates within 21 sitting days, and that a meaningful vote is held at the end of that period. If that were ever to take place, it would be meaningful, because it would delay the signing of any free trade agreement by 21 days.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the need to change CRaG; we mentioned that need in our report. Our report made it clear that a lot of changes do not necessarily need legislation, but they do need a change of approach from the Government. There should be a clear commitment made at the Dispatch Box that debates will always be called when there is significant interest in a subject, and particularly when there are commitments around new accession. If the Government made those commitments, it would be enough, but they are still not forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and give those commitments, so that we can move forward with some certainty?
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman and I served for a long time on the International Trade Committee, as it was previously known, and I should start my response to him by paying enormous credit to the Secretary of State, who came in front of the Committee a number of times, and who wrote to the Leader of the House to ask for time to debate CPTTP within the CRaG period. I am afraid that my ire and irritation at our not having secured that time must now be focused on the Leader of the House, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say there are simple steps that we can take to make sure that this House is properly briefed on these issues. One of them—I absolutely declare my interest—would be to give Privy Counsellor status to members of the Business and Trade Committee. I do not think anyone would disagree with that suggestion. It would certainly be a very popular move, and when it has been mentioned in the Committee, it has been welcomed with open arms. I am glad that it has the approval of the House. But, in all seriousness, there has to be a set process and the CRaG mechanism allows us that opportunity if done properly. It is there and it must be reformed, regardless of who is in government. It is in the interests of the entire House to amend and implement CRaG.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s wider purpose, but I come back to the point that Lord Lisvane made very clearly, which is that we still do not have the ability to debate the entry of a security risk country. He pointed out that CRaG does not do that because of its nature. I agree with my hon. Friend’s wider point that CRaG must be reformed, but we have a Bill going through the House at the moment and this is a better time to at least get a foothold in that debate rather than say that we will do it another time.
Anthony Mangnall
I really do accept the point that my right hon. Friend makes—how could I disagree when he is making that absolutely essential argument on national security. But what he is asking for might be viewed in very different terms by the other 11 members of the CPTPP. There are standards to join the CPTPP in the first place that would prevent China from joining unless it improved its act. He has talked about the lessening of appetites in places such as Australia for China to join. I am not sure whether that is the case, but there is a standard within the CPTPP that would prevent China from joining, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has already remarked, we have a veto in this instance. I think this is more about ensuring that we have a debate and a vote in this place on the values of a trade agreement. If we are worried about a new accession to the CPTPP, it is for us to make that case to the Secretaries of State in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade, and for them to go back to the other 11 countries and make the case in that way.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I welcome almost everything that the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—is saying, he and I having worked together a lot on this issue, but the reality is that other countries in the CPTPP have arrangements that allow their Parliaments to have deliberations on significant treaty changes and on the incoming of new members. We are talking not about the CPTPP arrangements but about our arrangements for authorising our Government to go ahead and agree. Surely he must agree that it would not undermine the CPTPP if we were to make our own arrangements on how we were to instruct our Government.
Anthony Mangnall
Forgive me if it sounds trite to say that I worry about mission creep, but if we did that on this, might we not also do it for the World Health Organisation, or for any other body that might be under suspicion of having some adverse state actor involved in it? I worry about how we go about this. I worry about Parliament always trying to have a say and slowing the process of how our trade agreements are signed and ratified. We need to be efficient and quick in the way we do it, but we must also ensure that we have the opportunity for debate, as we have today in this debate on the merits of the three chapters in the Bill.
I want to end with a parting shot. As has been mentioned by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we were told that we would have the opportunity to debate the full 30 chapters of the CPTPP within CRaG, and it is disappointing that we do not have that. The Government—the Secretary of State and the Minister—have done an amazing job in engaging with the Committee, but this is a serious disappointment. It lessens the progress that has been made to date on signing new trade agreements and ensuring that this place has a say on our future.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I stand to speak to new clause 12, which stands in my name, and also to new clauses 11 and 13. I would like to begin by stating once again that the Liberal Democrats want to see an ambitious trade policy aimed at creating opportunities for British firms around the world and new jobs here in our country. The Bill and our accession to the CPTPP are a step in that direction. The point has been well made, in this House and in the other place, that the projections in the Government’s own impact assessment are for GDP growth of just 0.06% by 2040, so although the UK’s accession to the trading bloc can and should be welcomed, the cause for celebration is limited.
I would like to speak to three new clauses that aim to address some key issues with the Bill and the UK’s accession. New clause 12 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the CPTPP’s performers’ rights provisions. We know the worries of our creative industries surrounding the Bill. The lack of reciprocal agreements for UK artists in CPTPP countries leaves our creatives exposed. The UK is rightly proud of our world-leading creative industries and we should also be proud of a world-leading intellectual property regime. We must be sure that this Bill and this trade deal do nothing to jeopardise that. There is a need for clarity and certainty in this area, and that is why I tabled new clause 12, which I hope Members will support.
New clause 13 would require the Government to conduct a review examining how the implementation of the treaty affects the costs faced by exporting and importing businesses in the UK. That report would have to consider the existing costs that those businesses were already facing as a result of trade regulations. We know that the stated ambition of the Government is that the deal will minimise red tape and trade regulations when trading with other CPTPP countries, which is a welcome goal. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has found that almost two fifths of businesses list regulations and red tape as a significant barrier to exporting. We need to be assured that our businesses will be supported to trade and flourish. With that in mind, it will be worth while, after our accession, to take the time to assess how the deal and the wider trade regulation landscape are affecting British businesses. That is the purpose of new clause 13.
It is clear that the CPTPP will likely grow over time as new countries join and accede to the deal, which will bring new opportunities but may also pose risks. The potential accession of China is one example, and the concerns regarding that possibility have been well discussed by colleagues in this Chamber and the other place. New clause 11 would require the Government to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made, and will make, a formal request to join the CPTPP. This will allow us to have a clear and informed vision of what the accession of each new country would mean for the UK. I believe this would be a reasonable and common-sense measure.
I finish by echoing what has already been said about parliamentary scrutiny. It is welcome that we are having this debate today but, in reality, we are debating a very limited and narrow Bill. We need proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I ask the Government to ensure that it happens in future.
John McDonnell
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan) on his excellent speech. He mentioned that he has been elected at the tail-end of a Government and that an election is coming soon. I reassure him that the diligence he has already demonstrated in this House and his constituency should secure his re-election. It is wonderful to hear a Member speaking for a constituency with its accent.
I will address amendment 2 and new clause 8, although I support virtually every amendment that has been tabled, which shows the weakness of the process by which we have examined this treaty. I have been involved in discussions with the Secretary of State and the Minister over a number of months on ISDS, and I am concerned about the contradiction between their refusal to secure a side letter with regard to this treaty and what happened with regard to Australia and New Zealand. The negotiating brief for the Canadian free trade agreement also had a specific remit to prevent an ISDS process. I have never got to the bottom of that contradiction.
Amendment 2 follows our lengthy debate about the scrutiny of treaties. I have not given notice to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) that I will be referring to him in the Chamber, although I am not sure that we have to give notice ahead of praising, rather than criticising, another Member. I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and he has become the 21st-century Walter Bagehot, with a solid mixture of Trollope. He steered our discussions on the formal process for examining treaties with immense skill, drawing on a range of evidence that led to consensus—there is almost consensus in the Chamber at the moment—and this is what our report says:
“CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties… the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.”
That is a common theme of all the debates. We have to do better than this.
Having read the report, the worry is that the Government have not responded positively by trying to get some order, particularly on the early negotiating processes and the debates that should take place. The Committee’s general view on this treaty, like the others, is that Parliament has been largely bypassed. We were offered no say on the Government’s negotiating objectives at the earliest stage, which is important, and no oversight of the negotiations as they progressed. Now we are refused a vote on the final terms of accession. This is not acceptable as a democratic process. The formal CRaG period, under which we can nominally have a say on the agreement, concludes this Friday, after a 21-day period. We are offered no vote or even a debate on the substantive terms of the CPTPP during this period, and accession is likely to receive our consent without any of us being given a single vote.
As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have tabled a prayer to try to secure a time extension to enable the Government to bring forward time for a debate. My view is exactly the same as his: we are debating a narrow, technical, implementing Bill and that is no substitute for a confirmatory debate and vote on the accession itself. I agree with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, who has raised this issue with the Government in correspondence over the past two weeks. It is preposterous for the Government then to say with a straight face that there is not parliamentary time to have such a debate, given our current sitting arrangements. Those who have been here for as long as me, or perhaps even longer, will know that there has not been a problem on parliamentary time in the past, as we have simply found the time and sat and gone through the business when it is so important.
My amendment 2 seeks to address that wrong by formalising a requirement for the Government to ask for Parliament’s consent for the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. That is a basic democratic point of principle. If the Government do not accept that, I come back to the urgings of Members from across the House and say that I hope the Government will take seriously the recommendations of the PACAC report for reform of the process overall. We are dealing with an undemocratic structure. The PACAC report’s incredibly practical proposals are for a sifting process, a sifting Committee, the identification of treaties that require longer consideration and giving the House itself a proper process of democratic scrutiny and democratic decision.
I shall deal briefly with new clause 8, which stands in my name and deals with the labour chapter of the CPTPP. I have raised this issue before, and the point has been made by a number of colleagues, the TUC, in particular, and various other campaigning organisations throughout this ratification process. The labour provisions of the CPTPP are outdated and inadequate. This treaty will include a number of countries, some of which have been mentioned, with the prospect of others joining, where abuses of labour rights are widespread. Putting in place effective labour provisions is therefore vital in any treaty we undertake.
That view has been expressed across the House for a number of years now, but let me give some examples. In Brunei and Vietnam, independent trade unions are banned—they are not allowed legally to operate. In Malaysia, which has been mentioned in our previous debates, forced labour has been documented extensively. That issue has been raised in this House time and again.
In that context, it is crucial that the CPTPP’s labour provisions are readily enforceable and are linked to the removal of trade preferences, to ensure that membership does not lead to a race to the bottom on labour standards, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree with him on the fear about China, because union colleagues of mine from Hong Kong, whom I have worked with for decades, are in prison at the moment purely and simply because they are trade unionists and have stood up for democratic rights.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The point I was trying to make is that there is also an economic issue here. If China practises slave or forced labour, as it does on a wide scale, it undercuts all the reasonable labour. One good example is that the UK is desperately trying to get more solar arrays, but the polysilicon that is critical to those is mined in Xinjiang under slave labour conditions. No wonder everybody else is undercut, but we still pay for this.
John McDonnell
It is a point of economic principle that such things will occur if we do not have proper rights or regulations installed, or the appropriate sanctions when anything takes place. At the moment, those are not contained in the treaty. One member state can challenge another for failing to uphold labour rights, but, as we have seen time and again across various treaties, it is notoriously difficult to prove that such failure has affected trade. To challenge those labour practices, we have to demonstrate the effect on trade, but, under current provisions, that is almost impossible to do.
The International Trade Union Confederation has rightly pointed to the ability of states to buy their way out of issues via dispute settlement, as the amount of compensation has been calculated time and again as a fraction of the violation’s impact on trade. So the sanctions do not work, and they will not work under this treaty.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). What a great way of upstaging his sister a week after her wedding—after a by-election is forced, he goes on to win it. But I suspect that it was a happy moment for all the family, and it is a delight to have him here.
I have tabled two new clauses. I have sat on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and, in its previous iteration, the International Trade Committee, when we scrutinised the Bill almost, I felt, to death. The problem with scrutiny without any teeth is that words produced in Parliament all the time are lost in the ether. The reality is that, unless there is debate in the main Chamber, there is not the right body of weight behind those words and those concerns.
It is clear to me that we need to change constitutional make-up of how we do trade deals. I support everything that PACAC has said, of course, but personally I would go further. I think we do need legislative changes to CRaG, despite the fact that we could make some changes through trust—that would be a good start. The reality is that, since we left the European Union—I know we are not meant to go on about that—this House has had less scrutiny over trade deals than we did before. It used to be that consent was required, which would go via the European Scrutiny Committee. That consent was required to be sent to the European Union before a trade deal could be signed off.
We know that in other places around Europe, legislators did hold back inappropriate trade deals. The EU-Canada free trade deal, for example, was held back by the Wallonian Parliament because it failed to address things such as workers’ rights, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned. The deal was renegotiated and the Europeans got a better deal. We could have done that at any step of the way when we were in Europe, but now we are out of the EU, we are less able to do so and less able to hold our negotiating person to account. Our negotiating person at that point was the European Commission. Our negotiating people now are our Ministers and civil servants, but we are less able to hold them to account. We cannot set their negotiating mandate or stop a trade deal, as we were able to do before. Yes, we can delay it, and yes, this Minister is fantastic in coming to be held to account through questioning, but the hard stop that means that people listen to you rather than just having a nice debating club with you has now been lost. We need to reflect that changing world.
Mark Garnier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He and I have discussed this at great length in two Committees that we have both sat on. I am hugely sympathetic to every point that he is making, but there is one counter-argument that has not yet been put forward. The position of our negotiators in striking these deals in the first place could be slightly weakened by the fact that they would then have to check back with the legislature on whether or not it will ratify. Were we to take the final decision away from our negotiators, they would not be able to negotiate such a strong deal. I put that forward not necessarily as a definitive answer, but as a counter-argument.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some people claim that that would happen, but others claim that it would strengthen our position. When the EU says, “This is our backstop,” we know that it is not bluffing because the backstop has been set by the EU Parliament. Now, negotiators can say, “Well, we know that that is not really the backstop, because you can go away and cajole your Back Benchers to vote this through anyway,” whereas in other systems, they can say, “I’m sorry, but the Senate will not approve this because the committee is holding my feet to the fire.”
However, there are other ways of doing it. As other Members have mentioned, we could allow the matter to have Privy Council status and meet in camera, to allow involvement in negotiations. In multilateral processes, other Governments embed parliamentarians in their negotiating teams. The Norwegians, for example, embed parliamentarians in their WTO negotiating teams in the day-to-day back and forth. Of course, in Norway, the WTO is dealt with by a different department from bilateral treaties, so there is a slightly different way of negotiating different kinds of deals. We can determine what kind of deal it is from the level of negotiation and whether Parliament is involved. If Norway were dealing with the CPTPP, parliamentarians would be embedded in that process, but if it were dealing with the Japan deal, they would not.
There are granularities of parliamentary overview and scrutiny, but almost all systems have developed them over the past 50 years as trade deals have basically become international lawmaking processes rather than dealing just with trade—they deal with all aspects of our life. However, we effectively paused our processes when we joined the European Union, and we have now reverted to where we were before joining. Although I accept that our process are now in the CRaG law, they have not evolved properly.
Let me address my new clause 2. Around 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown in just a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, less than 20% of that palm oil has received certification for sustainable palm oil forestry. The CPTPP will remove tariffs from palm oil. Of course, the aim of removing tariffs is to increase trade, so it seems implausible to say that we do not think it will increase the amount of palm oil in the UK that comes from unsustainable forests. The same could be true of tropical woods. Two of the 11 forests that supply our tropical woods and are identified as in danger are in the CPTPP region, but they have no additional protection.
Anthony Mangnall
First, Indonesia is not part of CPTPP. It is also important to note that the Malaysians have introduced a certification and standard for more sustainable palm oil plantation. I am not saying that that is perfection—it certainly is not, there is a lot further to go—but it is a good example of how, by forming a trade agreement through CPTPP, we can raise standards, not lower them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sound point. That is why my amendment does not say that we should not join the CPTPP, or that we should disallow it for those purposes. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a monitoring report on the level of unsustainable palm oil and forest products that are entering this country before we join the CPTPP, and to report regularly on those imports. If and when this House, or Ministers themselves, believe that action is needed, the data will be there to prove it. If we do not collect that data, we will not know, and we will be blind to the problem.
The same is true of our obligations on climate change and biodiversity. Personally, I would prefer a stronger environmental section in the Bill, but it is what it is. However, it should be noted that 119 pesticides that are permitted in CPTPP countries are not permitted in this country, 56 of which are considered to be highly harmful to human beings. Yes, we have standards for food, but there are no production standards, and there are no standards for pesticides that are not food-based. The problems with some of those pesticides—the killing of bees and other wildlife—are not just about human consumption: sometimes, those pesticides are banned not because they harm human beings, but because they harm the fauna and flora around us. When we import goods that contain them, they can enter the food chain; even worse, they can enter the animal food chain, which is not regulated by the same food standards and therefore causes huge problems. We need Government oversight of those points to ensure that we do not end up damaging some of our crops through pesticides that we ourselves have banned.
Turning to new clause 3, I am particularly concerned about ISDS. At long last, the Government have agreed that we should withdraw from the energy charter treaty, primarily because in a changing world, we need to make changes to our energy policy to make it more green. Our continual inclusion in the energy charter treaty would bind us to ISDS agreements, which we have seen targeted at a number of European states that have made moves to increase their environmentally friendly sources of energy. That is now a danger to us: even though we have not lost an ISDS case, it is a danger to our future and to policymaking. If we have made that case for energy, I think the same case could be made for almost all our arrangements.
It is useful to note that our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan—all of which are part of the CPTPP—did not include ISDS. In fact, the agreement with Japan included a clause to say that we would not enact ISDS unless we signed or entered into another agreement that includes it, so the very fact that this agreement includes ISDS triggers a number of ISDS courts in other agreements that we have signed, which I think is risky and dangerous. We need a report on the risks that ISDS poses to the UK, because we could have rogue investors who end up taking us to court even if it is against the national interest of the two respective states. Of course, citizens cannot access ISDS—it is not a global court where citizens who have been harmed can seek redress from a Government. Only corporations that have invested in a particular country can do so.
ISDS actually means that corporations that invest into Britain from outside have higher protections than a British corporation that invests in plants here. I think it is totally wrong that a British corporation is more vulnerable to changing policy than a foreign one. It should be a level playing field, but at the moment, a British corporation that has invested here has no recourse to ISDS if policy changes in Britain, but corporations from outside do—the Minister is frowning a bit, so I was just trying to explain the difference. There is also a well recorded chilling effect from ISDS that we must be particularly aware of.
Fundamentally—again, I go back to the thing that we are not meant to mention—under the European Union, at least there were open courts to which we appointed judges. ISDS means secret tribunals that do not always have British judges, so there is a problem there. If we are meant to be taking back control, surely we should be taking power away from secret courts and allowing sunlight to be the justice that we seek.
Apart from the matters covered by the two new clauses I have tabled, I think this treaty is a step in the right direction. We should support it, but I wish the Government had negotiated as well as New Zealand and other countries that sought and won protections that, I am afraid, our Ministers failed to even bother seeking.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like everybody else, let me start with a moment of consensus. It was a privilege to be present for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). On my visit to his constituency, I did not get to see the beacon that he mentioned, but that is clearly an oversight on my part and I hope to rectify it at some point. May I be the first to congratulate his sister on her wedding? Brothers who usurp their sisters are brave men, and only being elected to this place is a justifiable reason for doing so.
I am going to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in that I think we have to talk about Brexit in this debate, not least because the Government have talked about Brexit in promoting the benefits of the CPTPP, and the people of the UK deserve better. They need to understand what is being offered to them and what is being done to reflect their growing recognition of the severe damage that this Tory hard Brexit has done to the British economy and to British businesses.
I rise to support not only the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, but the concerns that have been raised about democratic oversight and scrutiny of those who might join the CPTPP. I will also speak to new clause 9, which I have tabled. I am pleased to say that it has support from across the House, including among people who disagree on whether Brexit has been a good idea. When so much fantasy has dominated the debate, it is about time we had some facts.
New clause 9 refers to the very real experience of British business right now of the damage that Brexit has done. Research suggests that £140 billion has already been drained from the economy; those trading opportunities and business opportunities have gone. The average Briton is £2,000 worse off, and in my London constituency people are £3,500 worse off. British businesses are crying out for support and help with trade. Research from the University of Sussex last year showed that only 6% were positive about Brexit, and seven in 10 manufacturers reported problems with their supply chain. That is why it matters that we look at the CPTPP.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am here not to oppose joining the CPTPP, but to hold the Government to account. It is Government Ministers, as well as their chums and various right-wing think-tanks, who promoted the idea that we should not worry about the damage that Brexit under their watch has done to our economy, because programmes such as the CPTPP were going to replace all those trading opportunities and be the hallowed ground that British business could look to.
The Trade Secretary herself said:
“Our accession to CPTPP sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and using our post-Brexit freedoms to reach out to new markets around the world”.
She is one of the milder advocates for the idea that not only has Brexit been a roaring success, but that the CPTPP will add to those trading opportunities.
“It’s no exaggeration to say that CPTPP+UK is an equivalent economic power to the EU-28”,
said Shanker Singham of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Goodness me, what a claim to be making. I tabled new clause 9 because I think British business and this place deserve to know the truth about the relative merits of such partnerships and the challenges to our businesses and communities, particularly small and medium-sized businesses struggling with the impact of Brexit, as well as whether help is indeed coming.
The honest truth is that nobody wants to name consistently the impact of this partnership deal, not even the Secretary of State herself. Mark Littlewood, who is also from the Institute of Economic Affairs, has claimed:
“The benefits to Britain will likely be significantly greater than some official estimates driven by static economic models.”
The challenge to that argument is that, when we ask anybody who promotes it what the actual data might be—where the evidence is that this will be the help needed by British businesses that are being clobbered by Brexit, with all the rules, regulations and tariffs they are now facing—we get the Facebook setting response of “It’s complicated”. That is not good enough for British business.
Even the Secretary of State tried that model with the Business and Trade Committee, telling it that she disputed the idea that the results or the benefits to British businesses of joining the CPTPP would be small, but she could not give an alternative model or an alternative number to give people some crumb of hope that they might actually solve the problems in their supply chain.
All we are left with are the claims of greatness—claims that disintegrate on hard contact with the here and now about what is actually being proposed and what actual damage has been done by Brexit. Here and now, British businesses find that Brexit border taxes are increasing, although I note that today in a written ministerial statement the Government have decided to rewrite some of those Brexit border taxes, which are due to come in at the end of April. So that is great for British businesses! That is stability and planning, when even the Government do not know how much they are going to charge people. The CPTPP is supposed to reduce the tariffs and non-tariff barriers we now face as a direct result of having left the European Union, because after all it is about reducing tariff barriers.
Let us look at the data we have to hand and whether we can really judge this partnership as offering that salvation. It has been claimed again, this time by The Daily Telegraph, that the bloc will represent 16% of global GDP, “leap-frogging the combined EU.” It is currently 10% of global GDP—but you know the Telegraph and figures—compared with 14% for the European Union. It is said that the CPTPP member countries have a combined population of 500 million and a GDP of £9 trillion. That is fantastic; we can be part of trading with them—nobody would dispute that that would be helpful to British businesses. There is a small reference point to take into account, however. Although the EU is of a similar size with a GDP of £11 trillion, the total value of our trade with the EU is £557 billion. That is 45% of our total trade, but that trade is falling as a direct result of Brexit, because it used to account for 55% of UK exports.
That is because, for all the smoke and mirrors and all the bluster about the CPTPP, there is a simple fact: geography matters. We can fight many things in life but air miles and transportation costs are not among them. Our ability to trade with our nearest neighbours easily and freely matters to British business far more than anything we could do with those further away. That is why the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that the CPTPP might only make 0.06% of difference to our GDP, or £2 billion. That is in part because we already have trade deals with most of the countries from when we had them as part of the EU. So only a further 0.33%—not 33%—of total UK trade will come under the new trade agreements.
The reality in all this and the conundrum we face is that this trade partnership will only really be a big deal if more countries join. I am sorry the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) is no longer in his place. He was disappointed that the United States of America were not part of the CPTPP. It will only be the game changer that people talk it up to be if more countries join. Then we would be looking at the Indo-Pacific region. Right here, right now, that is not what we are signing up to and that is not what is being offered to British business. That is why scrutiny and looking at who else might join matters, but it is also why new clause 9 matters. It is not fair to British business to suggest that help is coming when help there is none.
Membership of the CPTPP bears no comparison to EU membership. The sum it will generate is just one fiftieth of what the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit has already cost the UK economy. Indeed, it estimates that leaving the single market means that our GDP will be 4% less over the next 15 years, and some have estimated that GDP has already reduced by 5% as a result.
In 2022, the UK exported £340 billion-worth of goods and services to the EU. By way of comparison, we exported £64 billion-worth of goods and services to the CPTPP countries. New clause 9 is about being honest with British businesses about where those markets lie and where they should invest their time. It is also about understanding that free trade is not just about tariffs; it is also about regulations and the non-tariff changes we face. It is about understanding that this deal could lead to a lowering of food standards and problems with our food supply chain. It could affect our ability to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with Europe that might help remove those silly Brexit border taxes which mean that in a couple of weeks our constituents are going to be asking us why there are food shortages and food inflation and loads of lorries queued up at Dover trying to get to Sevington. It could lead to challenges for our environment, too: my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) rightly raised questions about palm oil and deforestation. There is an absolute irony in those who championed Brexit and who now champion the CPTPP not seeming to understand what the investor-state dispute settlement provisions are and the lack of democratic accountability and lack of control we might have. I do not know who is taking back control under those circumstances, because it is behind closed doors.
Clearly, we could have been working on other deals as a country that would have made a bigger difference to British business. That is why the amendments and new clause are so important. Our constituents demand that we ask those questions and get those answers from Government about the tariffs that are being retained and the impact that they will have, such as for British cheese producers. After all, Canada’s dairy industry is being protected—no Wensleydale for Winnipeg. The Trade and Agriculture Commission has warned of the potential increased costs of products due to tariff reductions, because UK producers will be held legally to higher sustainable standards. It is also about the rules of origin and details around what content is allowed.
Nobody is disputing that it is helpful to have content accumulation, because it helps with those difficulties within supply chains. Ministers have made much about that, but the reality is that had they spent as much time on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we would have far greater benefits for British business. That convention binds together more than 60 bilateral trade agreements within the Euro-Mediterranean area. It is not just the EU; it is much broader than that. There are 23 contracting parties, each with free trade agreements between them and a single rules-based origin protocol.
British businesses and those struggling supply chains could have got much more help, had we looked at what would really benefit them and just admitted the geography at stake in all this. We have short-changed ourselves and we are short-changing the British public if we try to claim that the CPTPP is in any way compensation for the damage that Brexit is doing.
In challenging those on the right who claim that the benefits of CPTPP will far outweigh the problems of Brexit—their hope and intention is that UK accession will kill off any likelihood that we will ever be part of the EU customs union or single market, as in that article in The Daily Telegraph—and that we could not have dynamic alignment, we have to recognise that that is just not true. There is plenty of evidence that whatever we did, we could rethink, and thank goodness for that. When things are at stake for British business, it is only right that we ask those questions. There is a process for changing regulations as we join the CPTPP that can be reversed if we can do a deal with Europe and work out what is in the best interests of British business. The only way we can do that is if we have the facts, and that is what new clause 9 is about.
Whether Members agreed with Brexit or opposed it, they should support new clause 9 and that ethos of having the data. If I am wrong and the CPTPP is the light at the end of the tunnel for British business, let us prove it, stand behind it and celebrate it. Nobody wants to see British business struggling as a result of Brexit with no help in sight. Every Member in this House should get behind the idea that we need good economic modelling. We should understand the extent of alignment, what new trade regulations on carbon pricing might do for British business and what is happening to trade volumes as a result of these partnerships. Without the new clause, we will not get that data. We will still get the Facebook answer of, “It’s complicated. We cannot really tell you.” All the while, global Britain is going-broke Britain—it is gutted Britain, with businesses across the country facing reams and reams of paperwork because of Brexit, with no end in sight, because this Government will not put British business first and renegotiate with Europe for a closer deal.
I am sorry that new clause 9 has not been selected for decision. I understand why, but I hope that Members will join me in demanding better for British business when it comes not just to trade deals, but to our relationship with Europe, because every manager of a small business in this country right now will be looking at all the paperwork, all the complications, all the further regulations and excessive costs and frankly the fact that the Government cannot even tell them what they will charge them on the Brexit border tax, and they will be coming to our constituency surgeries asking for help. We owe them the respect of having an answer.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)? She makes an excellent case for rejoining the European Union. I could have scarcely put it better myself, and I hope her leader is listening. She makes some important points, any teasing aside, about the importance of economic data and of being able to model the impacts of the Government’s decisions.
I rise to speak to new clause 10, which is in my name, but first I would echo a number of voices from various parts of the Chamber that have expressed regret that we have before us a narrow Bill to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CPTPP, rather than a debate on the substance and fundamental principle. That is something on which, collectively, we could do much better.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 7 and amendment 1. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to BPI. Let me at the outset say what a particular pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of my new hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). His description of his constituents’ comments to him during the by-election will chime with all on the Opposition side of the House. It is clear that he will be an asset to the House, and I think it is fair to say that south London’s loss is undoubtedly Kingswood’s gain.
We support accession to the CPTPP because of its geopolitical benefits and the benefits to trade, relatively limited thought they are set to be. Given that the Conservative party has delivered a recession, a cost of living crisis and the worst growth rate in the G7, any uptick in trade and ultimately growth, however limited, would be welcome. There remain, however, a series of concerns about the Government’s approach to the CPTPP and trade deals. Our amendments and new clauses seek to address the weak arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals; the growing concern about the investor-state dispute settlement; and issues around performers’ rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards, and the help that businesses will be offered to exploit the benefits, however limited, of this deal.
On new clause 1, I recognise the concerns articulated by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which were echoed by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and I am sympathetic to the former’s call for an enhanced role for Parliament. I am also sympathetic to new clause 11 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), under which Parliament would require an assessment of the impact of any new country’s joining the CPTPP. However, I think we need to go further than both those new clauses do. Labour’s new clause 4 would require Ministers to publish such an impact assessment in Parliament and to give the House a vote on any new country joining the CPTPP. Given the security issues, the impact on particular sectors of the economy and on jobs in the UK, as well as the opportunities that an accession could bring, the British people surely have a right to expect this House to consider the merits, or lack of merit, of any new accessions to the CPTPP.
During the Lords debate, the Minister said that he thought that a new state joining CPTPP would trigger the CRaG process in the UK, but the CRaG process, as increasing numbers of Members across the House have largely come to agree, is clearly not fit for purpose; PACAC is the latest Committee to make that clear, in its recent report. New clause 4 provides the opportunity to reform part of that process. Let me refer to what was said by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We were promised by the Secretary of State and by the Minister in Committee that there would be a debate under the CRaG process, as opposed to there being just this small implementing Bill. We now know that the debate will not happen, so that is another broken promise on trade.
The impact of new countries joining the CPTPP will vary, but could be considerable in certain situations. It is only right that this country expects the House to consider those impacts carefully. I hope that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and the hon. Members for Totnes, and for Chesham and Amersham, can be persuaded to support our new clause. It would achieve what they want in practice and go further. With the leave of the House, we will press our new clause to a vote.
On new clause 5, I hesitate to damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made excellent speeches on the ISDS. Over the past 10 years, the marked acceleration in usage of the ISDS by large, litigious corporations to challenge Governments’ climate-related or other environmental decisions has prompted concern at the highest levels in the US, in European capitals and at the UN, so much so that Governments across the world are increasingly excluding or revoking the ISDS provisions.
The problem with the ISDS is that it is secretive; it avoids perfectly effective domestic public legal systems; it discriminates against small and medium-sized businesses; it often prevents the voice of those with a genuine interest in the decisions from being heard; and it holds back environmental and other progressive public policy changes. Strikingly, the OECD could find no sustained evidence that the ISDS was key to securing and maintaining business investment. The Nuffield Trust’s briefing for today’s debate stated that the ISDS could enable companies to challenge some health regulations and NHS policies.
The US, Canada and the European Union have all taken steps to revoke the ISDS provisions in some of their major treaties. The average amount—this is just the published cases—that Governments have been forced to pay, from taxpayers’ money, is about $600 million for climate cases. It seems even more noteworthy that the UN Secretary-General’s special rapporteur on environment and human rights expressed concern just last September that the ISDS was a significant threat to the net zero transition, the Paris agreement and tackling climate change.
Some in government clearly share some of those concerns, as they wanted to exclude the ISDS from the bilateral trade deal with Canada, and supported its abolition from trade with the European Union. The Minister was somewhat evasive in Committee. Initially, he tried to duck questions on why the Government wanted to exclude the ISDS from a bilateral trade agreement with Canada but were quite happy to leave it in the CPTPP for Canadian investors to use. Given that Ministers have signed side letters with Australia and New Zealand to disapply the ISDS between our countries in the CPTPP, it seems bizarre that they have not attempted a similar approach with Canada.
Just after Committee, the Government confirmed that they were pulling out of the energy charter treaty, in which ISDS arrangements play a major role, saying that it does not fit with net zero ambitions. The Minister might want to try again to explain why it is essential that we remain committed to the ISDS elements of the CPTPP. It is time for a clear-eyed assessment of the risk that the ISDS poses to our interests. With the leave of the House, the Opposition will press new clause 5 to a vote.
There continue to be significant concerns about the environmental impact of accession to the CPTPP, and the impact on food standards and on animal welfare. The CPTPP covers two of the 11 deforestation fronts expected to account for 80% of deforestation by 2030. A range of environmental groups are very concerned that when the UK joins the CPTPP, preferential access to our markets will be created as a result of the removal of tariffs on palm oil. That could increase demand for products from threatened zones and exacerbate the risk of further deforestation. Ministers still have not published —never mind presented to this House—deforestation due diligence legislation under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, so it is difficult to accept Ministers’ claims that they are fully committed to our climate change targets, and to protecting important sources of global biodiversity.
On food standards, deep concerns remain that, despite their protestations, the deals that Ministers have negotiated, including the CPTPP, will allow into the UK ever more food produced to lower standards, particularly animal welfare standards. The whole House will remember the words of the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who told the House that the Minister and his colleagues had given away
“far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
when they negotiated the UK-Australia free trade agreement. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union, in particular, have raised concerns that new tariffs negotiated with Mexico and Canada will leave farmers in the UK much more vulnerable to imported eggs, pork and chicken that are produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK. The Pesticide Action Network UK raised concerns acknowledged by the Trade and Agriculture Commission—concerns also raised by an hon. Friend behind me—that more food produced using pesticides banned in the UK will be imported into the UK
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend is making an excellent, excellent speech. [Interruption.] Well, he knows it anyway, but there is nothing wrong with praising. Is it not also a sign of how the Government, time and again, let down our creative industries? If it were steel or farming, Conservative Members would be in the ear of Ministers through their trade partnership committees, but creative industries are locked out of many of them and ignored. That is why Labour has put forward a plan to put creative industries at the heart of our economic development.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is generous in his description of my speech—I am grateful to him—and absolutely right about the importance of Labour’s plan for the creative sector.
Reform of the UK’s copyright framework should not be taken lightly, and it should only follow proper and well-considered consultation. Otherwise, we risk endangering our gold standard of protection for our vital creative sector. I gently suggest to the House that the reforms allowed for under clause 5 should not have been shoehorned into this Bill, and certainly not without a thorough consultation having taken place first. In that regard we are sympathetic to the merits of new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. We will continue to scrutinise developments in this area, and we hope that Ministers will reach a final decision, after the consultation, that will not have the adverse impact that is feared by some outside the House.
As I have said, I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown in new clauses 2 and 3, and I therefore hope he will join us with enthusiasm in the Lobby later today. Similarly, I share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for much greater adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We raised this issue in Committee, and as I said earlier, I share his frustration—and that of other Members—that Ministers have not allowed the House a substantive debate under the CRaG process.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, is right to underline the point about ILO obligations. In the 2022 Queen’s Speech we were promised an updating of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that would have required much stronger action and transparency on supply chains in order to eliminate forced labour. That measure seems to have disappeared, so we must insist on more robust action in our trade agreements if we are to wipe out the scandal of modern slavery.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers will have heard his point; whether they will act on it remains to be seen, but I certainly hope they do. If we are lucky enough to be elected at the next general election, we will certainly work with the ILO to try to drive better adherence to its conventions.
Last but not least, I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who made a powerful speech, for a much more open dialogue on trade and the axing of more of the red tape, bureaucracy and barriers to trade with European markets thrown up by the poor negotiating skills of the last Prime Minister but two.
There remain, in particular, serious concerns about scrutiny of trade agreements and about the damage that ISDS provisions could do, so we will, with the leave of the House, press new clauses 4 and 5 to a vote.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this important Bill. Let me begin with the new clauses relating to new accessions to the CPTPP: new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who always demonstrates his passion on this important matter—new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green).
As the House may know, there is no rule within the CPTPP that requires new applicants to be dealt with on a “first come, first served” basis. Rather, it has been agreed within the group that applicant economies must meet three important criteria—called the Auckland principles—and it is on those key principles that applications will be assessed. Applicants must: first, be willing and able to meet the high standards of the agreement; secondly, have a demonstrated pattern of complying with their trade commitments; and thirdly, be able to command consensus of the CPTPP parties. Those strong criteria will be applied to each accession application. It is right that we in the United Kingdom, as a new member of the CPTPP group, work within the principles of the group to achieve a consensus decision.
I remind the House that while the UK rightly participates in discussions on this topic with CPTPP parties, we will only have a formal say over an application post-ratification and entry into force of the agreement. It is therefore crucial that we ratify the agreement and become a party, so that we can work with CPTPP members decisively on each current and future application. With that in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give a running commentary on individual applicants, not least because to be drawn on individual applicants now, ahead of the UK becoming a party to the agreement, could have an impact on our ability to achieve that important goal of ensuring that the CPTPP enters into force. I should also make it clear that our own accession process has set a strong precedent. The robust experience that the UK has undergone has reinforced the high standards and proved that the bar is not easy to meet for any aspirant.
Regarding the scrutiny of any hypothetical future accession, I can assure the House that any accession of a new party to the CPTPP would require an amendment to the terms of the CPTPP. Therefore, as with the UK’s accession protocol, our firm intention is that such a future accession would be subject to the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the CRaG process. I assure the House that CRaG is applicable to plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP. The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral treaties as outlined in section 25 of CRaG.
Liam Byrne
The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. We obviously sought a debate under CRaG for this treaty. The Secretary of State, who is now in her place, told our Committee that she supported that, but the Leader of the House then refused to make Government time available for that debate. What further assurances can the Minister give us that there would indeed be a debate if the treaty was changed in the way that he described?
Greg Hands
The Government’s position is unchanged. It is always the desire of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in writing to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Select Committee, to urge and to ask for there to be a debate, but that will always be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. In a little bit, I will discuss the opportunities that there have been to scrutinise the CPTPP, which have been manifold in recent years.
Greg Hands
I will give way a little later.
The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral treaties. In addition to Parliament being able to make its views clear through the CRaG process, let me remind the House that, as a dualist state, any legislation necessary to implement the treaty—such as alterations to tariffs legislation, to take a hypothetical example—would need to be fully scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. It is the long-standing policy of His Majesty’s Government not to ratify international agreements before all relevant domestic legislation is in place. Were Parliament to refuse to pass any necessary implementing legislation, ratification of an agreement would be delayed.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for their opening speeches. Both are strong supporters of the UK joining the CPTPP. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who is the former Secretary of State, initiated these talks back in 2017 with me at his side, and successive Secretaries of State have given maximum priority to doing so. I am now in my fourth stint in this role, and it is fantastic to see his and my vision in 2017 now nearing fruition and being very close to UK ratification.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I know that Parliament is perfectly capable of expressing a view on an international agreement and whether a country might join it, and the Government of the day would be very likely to take notice. In debates in this House over some years now, he has made clear his views on trade with China, has gained support and attention, and been effective in doing so. Indeed, he has helped to achieve changes in policy in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang, and I agree with his support for Taiwan —a full member of the World Trade Organisation—as an important trade partner for the UK. We are positive about this kind of debate in the House.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned the scrutiny that there has been in this House for the CPTPP agreement, and he doubted whether there had been four debates. I had a slightly nagging feeling that I may actually remember each of the four debates, so I went back and checked the four debates, which started with the very first one that I responded to in April 2021. There have been four debates in this House and in the other House on the CPTPP. There have also been two oral ministerial statements and 16 written ministerial statements, and five separate Select Committees have taken evidence from Ministers and senior officials on the matter. There has been a Trade and Agriculture Commission report and a section 42 report. This is not an under-scrutinised trade agreement—rather the opposite. As has always been clear, we want the CPTPP to expand to fast-growing Asia-Pacific economies. I also agree with the Auckland principles.
Greg Hands
Of course I will give way—if the right hon. Gentleman first concedes that this has been a well-scrutinised trade deal.
Liam Byrne
Not quite. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the full history, but will he accept that the Secretary of State believed that we should have had a debate, under the CRaG principles, on the full treaty? This Bill covers only three of 30 treaties. It is a matter of disappointment to many of us in the House that even though the Secretary of State no doubt argued vigorously and passionately for the debate, the Leader of the House was unable to grant us time. That is not necessarily the precedent that we want to establish for further trade treaty scrutiny.
Greg Hands
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and he will remember that there are the vagaries of time available. Making an application to say that we would like there to be a debate is not the same as those who run the parliamentary timetable agreeing to there being one.
Let me move on to the new hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), who made a very accomplished and well delivered maiden speech. He spoke fondly of predecessors whom I know and like, such as Roger Berry and Rob Hayward. He won a keenly contested by-election—I have been to a few by-elections in recent years, and I was grateful to be given a bit of time off and to not go to Kingswood. None the less, I have great admiration for those who win by-elections. I have seen at close hand that they are a different kind of contest.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of his support for free trade and for rewarding hard work, and expressed sympathy for the Government, who have faced the challenges of covid and Ukraine. I agree with him on all of those issues, and the Government do too. I look forward to his continuing the tradition of an independent-minded Member for Kingswood—but please do not tell the Labour Whips Office.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke passionately about trade and CPTPP. He is always probing on those issues.
Various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled ask for additional impact assessments. Before addressing some of those amendments directly, I would like to reassure the House that the Government will publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession.
Amendment 1 and new clause 12 would introduce commitments to publish impact assessments on the performers’ rights provisions in this Bill, and I will set out why we consider them to be unnecessary. The impacts of the rules depend in large part on how they are applied in particular cases through secondary legislation made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That secondary legislation may restrict or extend particular rights to particular countries. Wherever the Government intend to make significant changes to the secondary legislation, we will engage with affected industries and carry out an impact assessment. The Intellectual Property Office has done that recently with its consultation and its assessment of the impact of potential secondary legislation on the broadcasting and public playing of recorded music. A commitment to assess the impacts of the measures in this Bill is therefore unnecessary, and risks overlooking the effects of the secondary legislation.
I will now turn to new clauses 2 and 6, which broadly focus on environmental and other standards. I can provide assurance that the UK will continue to uphold our high environmental standards in respect of all our trade agreements, including CPTPP. As I have previously mentioned, the Government intend to publish a comprehensive ex post evaluation of the agreement within five years of the UK’s accession, and I can confirm that this evaluation will include an assessment of the environmental impacts of our accession. In addition, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was asked to scrutinise the UK’s accession protocol and produce a report. The TAC concluded in its advice, published on 7 December 2023, that
“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”
in relation to the aforementioned areas.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is very welcome that there will be a five-year report. Will it include numbers on unsustainable palm oil and rainforest wood to ensure that we are not exploiting more than we are at the moment?
Greg Hands
That is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect the report to do. I must say that I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government’s record when it comes to palm oil, because 86% of UK imports of palm oil were certified as sustainable in 2022—up from 16% under the last Labour Government in 2010, when we took office. Deforestation related to palm oil in Malaysia has fallen by 60% since 2012, according to the latest available figures, and we will keep working with countries such as Malaysia to build on that work.
As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government will be tabling their forest risk commodities legislation under the Environment Act 2021, which will make it illegal for larger businesses operating in the UK to use key forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used. The Government have confirmed that palm oil products would be included under the regulated commodities. Additionally, I once again refer to the report of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which concluded that
“it is unlikely that CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land”.
Moving on to new clauses 3 and 5, relating to ISDS, the UK’s accession to CPTPP will benefit UK investors. I do not think the Opposition understand how business works. We support British businesses operating overseas. They create jobs in this country—jobs that the Labour party does not seem to like.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for progressing CPTPP with all his usual energy, because it will boost trade and be of huge strategic significance. It is an opportunity of Brexit that must be grasped. On investor-state dispute resolution, he is absolutely right that we must not give way to the naysayers. It will be overwhelmingly in the UK’s interest, given the protections for UK businesses and exporters and the certainty it will provide in the massive growth region of the Indo-Pacific.
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend also played a really important role in getting CPTPP through. I remember our joint visit to Vietnam in 2021, when we argued for Vietnamese support. He is right to say that it is important to remember that the UK has never lost an ISDS case. Equally, it is important for us to protect UK businesses operating abroad. They provide jobs and secure livelihoods at home. I find it astonishing that the Opposition, as they lurch ever leftwards, seem to forget that the whole time.
I can assure the House that the UK already has investment agreements containing ISDS provisions with around 90 trading partners, including seven of the 11 CPTPP parties. The UK provides a welcoming investment environment with a non-discriminatory regime, strong rule of law and good governance. We are clear that, where we negotiate ISDS, we will not hinder our inherent right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards.
I turn to new clauses 7, 9, 10 and 13, which focus on the impacts that this deal will have on our businesses and our economy. The Government want UK businesses to benefit from the ambitious provisions in the CPTPP as far as possible after we accede, and we are working to raise awareness of the agreement and ensure that businesses have the knowledge they need to take advantage of the opportunities that CPTPP will present when it enters into force for the UK.
New clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), focuses on labour standards. I notice that there is no official Labour amendment focusing on labour standards. Maybe Labour does not care about labour any more, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman does. The CPTPP labour chapter includes binding provisions on fundamental labour rights and on hours of work, health and safety, and minimum wages. It reaffirms CPTPP parties’ obligations as members of the International Labour Organisation and requires that parties do not waive or derogate from their domestic labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment.
Amendment 2, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, relates to the conformity assessment regulations referenced in the Bill. The amendment would allow changes to the conformity assessment regulations only following a motion to resolve against the ratification of the UK accession protocol first. I just think it would be unwise for us to pass an amendment to resolve against the ratification of UK accession in advance.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and we have debated important issues. I particularly want to minute my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who has rightly raised important questions about our trade with China, and to other right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the process of the UK acceding to CPTPP.
I do not want to tempt fate, but this might be my last chance to speak on our accession in this House before the UK formally ratifies joining CPTPP. I and, I believe, the whole Government passionately believe that CPTPP offers a great future for the UK, and I have seen our accession through from being a novel idea in 2017 to ratification, and hopefully accession, in 2024. Not many of us in this place have been able to do that over a seven-year period, and I am grateful to all my ministerial colleagues, successive Prime Ministers who have supported CPTPP and my excellent Department for International Trade and Department for Business and Trade officials for being with me on this very exciting journey.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP
“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.
(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”—(Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to thank Members across the House and noble Lords in the other place for the interest they have shown in this legislation throughout its passage. The Bill may be narrow in scope, but the underlying agreement it relates to and the benefits it could bring for British business, the economy and the British people are wide-ranging. By acceding to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, we will strengthen our ties with some of the world’s most dynamic economies and gain greater access to the Indo-Pacific region, which will account for the majority of global growth and around half of the world’s middle-class consumers in the decades to come.
Crucially, acceding to the CPTPP will mean improved market access for UK exporters in existing CPTPP parties, including Malaysia and Brunei—our very first free trade deal with these fast-growing economies. In turn, the partnership will simplify supply chains and cut costs for innovative firms based here in the UK, such as Wrightbus, a long-established family-owned Northern Ireland bus manufacturer, which will benefit from opportunities to import parts at lower tariffs from Malaysia. We have also agreed more liberal rules of origin with Malaysia, making it simpler for British brands such as Jaguar Land Rover to export British-designed, British-made vehicles to that market at lower tariffs.
However, our future accession will be good not just for British businesses selling their goods abroad but for consumers here at home. It could provide consumers with wider choice and cheaper prices at the supermarket checkout, on everything from Chilean and Peruvian fruit juices to honey and chocolate from Mexico. Inward investment in the UK by CPTPP parties will be encouraged when we accede, building on some £182 billion-worth of investment in job-creating projects in 2021 alone.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill affects the whole of the UK. Clause 3 and the parts of the schedule relating to Government procurement engage the Sewel convention, so we have sought legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Let me reassure hon. Members that there has been regular engagement with the devolved Administrations before the Bill was introduced and throughout its passage at both Ministerial and official level. I thank the devolved Administrations’ Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us. It is in part thanks to their efforts that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion in February. The Welsh Government published a legislative consent motion on 5 March and recommended that consent be granted to clause 3 and relevant parts of the schedule. Due to a mis-step during the moving and consideration of the motion, that legislative consent was not granted. I understand there are plans for a further Senedd vote on legislative consent for clause 3 and relevant parts of the schedule. However, in the event that a further vote is not scheduled in the Senedd before Royal Assent, the UK Government will proceed with the Bill without consent from Wales.
Members will know that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended when the Bill was introduced last November, which prevented us from seeking legislative consent at that time. However, my Department has engaged with Northern Ireland officials throughout this period, providing them with updates as the Bill has progressed through Parliament.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her positive remarks about all the regions of the United Kingdom, which is good to hear. In her discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, has there been an opportunity to engage with the businesses in Northern Ireland that have been holding things together, and the Ulster Farmers’ Union? The Secretary of State is always energetic when it comes to pursuing those matters, but it is important to have that reassurance.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and he is quite right. My right hon. Friend Minister for Trade Policy has engaged with them. In fact, upon the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he wrote to the Minister for Finance at the earliest opportunity to request legislative consent. I am grateful that the Minister agreed with the Bill’s devolution analysis and, in principle, to begin the legislative consent process. Nevertheless, we still face a challenging timeline and a pressing need for the Bill to complete its passage. That is vital to allow for secondary legislation to be made and for ratification of the UK’s accession protocol. As such, we cannot delay passage of the Bill to allow the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly greater time to consider legislative consent. That would jeopardise all the current ratification timelines. I recognise that the legislative consent process is normally concluded before the last amending stage in the second House. Given the timing of the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, that has been extremely challenging, but I believe it is still right that we allow the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly as much time as we can to consider our request. In the event that legislative consent is not granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly before the deadline for Royal Assent, we will still have to proceed. Failing to do so would compromise the commitments we have made in our accession protocol.
On Second Reading, I outlined the wealth of benefits that will come with the UK’s accession to the CPTPP: the growth-spurring and business-boosting effect it will have on our economy. Since that time, we have had some spirited and worthwhile debates. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for the constructive manner in which they scrutinised the legislation. I commend those Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Rupa Huq), who showed their great expertise as Chairs. I also thank the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for expertly shepherding this legislation through the House with his consummate skill and good humour, and for delivering what appears to be a clean Bill. I will let Members review Hansard to see how many times my right hon. Friend reminded the hon. Member for Harrow West that he voted for CRaG. I think I heard that quite a lot throughout the debate.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a number of other Members by name for their valued input throughout the Bill’s passage, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), whose Second Reading speech and interventions made an excellent case not just for UK accession to CPTPP, but for the benefits of free trade more generally. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the scrutiny provided by the recent Trade and Agriculture Commission report on the UK’s agreement to accede to the CPTPP—a report that stated that the CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life, health, animal welfare or environmental protection.
On Second Reading, we also heard useful insights from several of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), as well as from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, brought a critical eye to bear on aspects of the underlying agreement, on which I hope he has now been reassured. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) rightly championed the UK’s high food and animal welfare standards that the Government will continue to protect, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) demonstrated his well-honed ability to probe legislation with regards to the future potential accessions of economies to the CPTPP. The Business and Trade Committee more broadly has my thanks for its engagement with, and scrutiny of, this important Bill.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK meets its international obligations upon accession to the CPTPP. When the Bill achieves Royal Assent, it will mean that we have put the UK at the heart of a dynamic group of countries in the Indo-Pacific, providing new opportunities for British companies to sell more of their high-quality goods and services to a market of over 500 million people and a combined GDP of £9 trillion. With that in mind, and in the hope that it will therefore garner support from all hon. and right hon. Members, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
Gareth Thomas
We support the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Despite the concerns we raised during the Bill’s stages, we have not stood in the way of its passage through this House thus far and we do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. We recognise the geopolitical benefits and the economic benefits, limited none the less as they are likely to be in the near future.
In Committee, we outlined a series of concerns about the inclusion of provisions on the investor-state dispute settlement, and its implications for the NHS, the environment and workers’ rights. We raised concerns about performer’s rights and why on earth the Government chose to launch a consultation on the provisions after the Bill had already begun making its way through Parliament—talk about putting the cart before the horse. We also raised environmental concerns, probing Ministers about deforestation, palm oil, increased carbon emissions, the use of pesticides, threats to indigenous wildlife, and the undermining of the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.
The Secretary of State promised a debate on CPTPP under the CRaG process to the Business and Trade Committee. In Committee, we were also promised a debate on CPTPP by the Minister under CRaG, which has not happened. I say it gently to them both: sadly, it is one more example of Ministers ducking scrutiny of the trade deals they sign. It is almost as if they have something to hide.
We have been grateful in particular to the TUC, Chester Zoo, the World Wildlife Fund, the Trade Justice Movement, Transform Trade, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Alliance for Intellectual Property for their help in ensuring that we fully understood the implications of the Bill. I am grateful for their generosity with their time and expertise.
One cannot help feeling that had the Government initiated a thorough consultation exercise much earlier in the proceedings, before the CPTPP was a done deal, we might have come out of the negotiations as less of a rule-taker and with a better deal for the UK. Better consultation with the nations and regions could have happened throughout the whole CPTPP process, but both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments lamented poor communication at key stages from Ministers. Hopefully lessons have been learnt, and we will all have to take the opportunity of the CPTPP review in 2026 to look at what more can be achieved.
I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee. I particularly thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for his invaluable contributions, help and support during the Bill’s passage, but I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for their time and commitment to that part of the scrutiny process. I thank Members on both sides of the House, and those in the Lords, who—on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—have joined in the hard yards, the necessary work, of scrutinising what is a key trade arrangement. I thank the Minister of State, too, for his particularly generous description of me in Committee as a “serial rebel”—which might surprise one or two—and I thank both him and the Secretary of State for their other contributions, some of which have been helpful. [Laughter.] I hope that the dialogue, especially that on the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and on performers’ rights, will continue, and I thank the Ministers for their letters to me on those issues.
The UK’s joining the CPTPP will not make up for the Government’s failure to deliver a good trade deal with Europe, or the Conservatives’ broken manifesto commitment that 80% of the world would be covered by new trade agreements—including a trade deal with India, which the Secretary of State herself said this month was highly unlikely to happen any time soon. We remain in the dark as to whether we will ever be tasked with scrutinising a UK-Canada trade deal, or whether negotiations are indeed ongoing, as the Minister says, or they are not, as the Canadians say. What we do know is that, while the Government have made some outlandish claims about the benefits of the UK’s joining the CPTPP, it is likely, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, to lead to just a slight increase in GDP “in the long run”. With exports having dropped last year and set to drop further this year, and given the three following years of anaemic growth in exports, even the smallest opportunity for growth is welcome.
The Bill is needed to incorporate the CPTPP agreement in domestic legislation, and that is something that we do not oppose. There are benefits to joining, and despite reservations, we certainly welcome the opportunities that will be opened up for some British businesses. For those reasons, as I have said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill’s completing its passage tonight.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I must admit that I had hoped we would be closer to the moment of interruption at this stage, because there is further business on the Order Paper relating to energy strategy, which I spoke about earlier in the Delegated Legislation Committee; but even I do not want to test the patience of the House by speaking for the best part of an hour.
This is a truly monumental moment for the United Kingdom. Having left the European Union, we are planting our flag around the world and making sure that we drive free trade. It is right to believe, on the basis of all the evidence, that free trade is good for this country, and good for prosperity throughout the world.
I feel an element of sadness about some of the trade agreements made when we were in the European Union, as it seemed that some of the poorest countries in the world were being deprived of a proper trading relationship. I refer to the trend whereby it is still only sub-Saharan African nations that truly are exceptionally poor; unfortunately, at times it felt as though those countries were being deprived of a lot of prosperity due to EU protectionism, but we now have the opportunity to branch out on our own in that regard. We should remember that a lot of African nations are our brothers and sisters in the Commonwealth. Of course I understand that World Trade Organisation regulations apply to everybody, but it is important that we try to factor in what we can do to get wealth to as many nations as possible, because that would be good for this country and for others around the world.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) said that there was no consultation. Actually, the consultation journey started in 2018. I think it was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) was the Trade Secretary. My right hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), and the person who really cemented the deal—the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch)—have really taken us on that journey.
We should give the Prime Minister credit for his proactive approach to trade, and the red lines that he was prepared to draw for our farmers, recognising that we have some of the best farming and food production in the world. Those red lines are not about trying to be protectionist, but reasonable standards, the prosperity of our nation and ensuring a two-way street.
In my time as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this work really mattered. I am conscious of the discussions that have taken place, and I appreciate that it can seem frustrating that we are only involved after the trade negotiations, in ratifying the agreement, but I can assure the House that it was imperative that we got the balance right when it came to values and red lines. I again pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for securing a really good deal.
It is important that we take advantage of this treaty. There are certainly far more agricultural attachés now. It is important that people do not just focus on what might be imported into this country and what that means for standards, because we have been very strong on the standards agreed in this treaty. In fact, we have more problem with the fact that there are not the same animal welfare standards across the European Union; we need to work on that as part of our ongoing relationship, and as part of our free trade agreement with the EU.
There are other factors of concern; for example, there is the fact that production costs are a lot lower in some of the 11 other member states of the treaty. We have the living wage, but we also have access to grants and things like robotic milking machines—something I never thought I would see, but which, as I saw at the Great Yorkshire Show last year, works exceptionally well. One of the key measures in the Agriculture Act 2020 was brought in to validate people’s concerns. That is why I want to pay tribute to the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which produced a pretty hefty report after establishing its initial terms of reference. The process started in July 2023 and the report was published in December 2023, and was designed to cover issues of environmental protection, animal and plant life or health, and animal welfare. It is worth reading.
The key question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the commission was:
“Does CPTPP require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”
in all those areas? The report basically said, “No, we don’t need to. In fact, WTO rules mean that we can keep our statutory protections in all these areas, and there is no impact on our ability to adopt statutory protections in the future and to maintain the ones we have.” That really matters, because at the time, other nations—and, dare I say it, environmental groups here—were trying to bring lots of different elements into the discussion. As I said, I will not keep the House as long as I had originally intended, but I should like to mention Malaysian palm oil, and hormone-treated beef and similar; absolutely no way will the United Kingdom allow that sort of product into this country. We certainly made sure that was a red line.
I am conscious that Third Reading will be agreed, but I want to say a few extra things on issues raised by the National Farmers Union. It is really important that we take them seriously. We said that we would look at all the standards when we went into new trade deals, and the Trade and Agriculture Commission did a very thorough job, for which I commend it. The NFU would like us to go even further on domestic production standards. Importantly, we are now part of this global treaty, and we did not seek to require others to re-ratify the laws in their countries by adding elements. All the member states are already party to various international conventions on the environment, and it is important to note that we have new allies. As we take this step forward and try to increase trade, we need to make sure that we can share our learning and understanding, and show how it adds value. I genuinely believe that when we start to increase significantly the number of agricultural products that we send to other parts of the world through this treaty, it will show that those foods can be sold at a premium.
I was fortunate enough in my time in government to visit some of the countries in the CPTPP. Most recently, I visited Vietnam. Such visits are important for making sure that good standards are in place, and that those countries are our friends in the future. Several of the countries are already in the G20 or the Commonwealth, and we also have some new friends. It is important that we continue to respect that, because at times it feels as though we diminish what other countries do to take trade forward.
I did say that I was not planning to speak for an hour, much to the joy of people in this Chamber, I am sure. I fully endorse this treaty. It is good for our farmers and our country, because it means that we can reduce tariffs on a number of products, including those that can be onshored and put into our freeports, so that we can increase the value of our manufacturing. I wish this treaty well and, as I say, look forward to all the trade and prosperity that will come for the United Kingdom, but also for people around the world.
Richard Thomson
May I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks for all the assistance that they have given throughout the scrutiny process, and to offer heartfelt thanks to the researchers who support my group for the help that they have given me throughout the passage of this Bill?
Those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt be delighted to hear that the SNP will not seek to divide the House on this Bill. We have never said that there could not be advantage from the CPTPP, but we could not be clearer that it offers a poor substitute for the trade deals that were left behind as a result of our leaving the European Union. Let us remind ourselves that, with the CPTPP, we have essentially swapped the four freedoms of the European single market—a market of half a billion consumers, right on our doorstep—for an agreement with a combined economy of almost half the size on the opposite side of the world, which takes only 8% of our exports. It seems to be a bit like putting an Elastoplast on an amputation.
The Government’s impact assessment, which I know is highly contested, even by the Government themselves, indicated that the long-term increase in trade will be worth £2 billion a year, or 0.06% of GDP. We are all aware of the parable of the hare and the tortoise, but I am not sure that many tortoises could live long enough to make up that ground. Whatever benefits do arise—at this point in time, they look distant and minimal at best—they will always and forever be less than we could have had in different circumstances.
Along with others, throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to warn the Government that they should find a way to quantify the impacts of CPTPP, and the risks right across a range of sectors that will be affected by it. We will remain vigilant, and will hold the Government to account, where the outcomes justify it. I suppose that I should not disturb the bonhomie that there has been, but one big question remains: will all those on the Front Bench be reunited to discuss any further trade deals before the Prime Minister has to call an election? I await the answer with bated breath.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. To the contrary, No. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has made her objection clear, but I will take it on the voices, so the Ayes have it.
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Agriculture
That the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 1 March, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Financial Assistance to Industry
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £75 million to BMW to support the production of electric Minis at Plant Oxford.—(Suzanne Webb)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise to deliver a petition on behalf of my constituents in Rother Valley, calling on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to work alongside the Sheffield Mayoral Combined Authority to implement measures to combat traffic congestion and speeding in the village of Aughton and at the Ulley-Treeton crossroads. The petition, online and on paper, signed by over 2,300 of my constituents, demands action to combat congestion and poor road safety around the crossroads and in the villages.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that measures are needed to combat traffic congestion and speeding in the villages of Aughton and Guilthwaite; further that the Treeton Lane/Main Street/Pleasley Road and Ulley Lane crossroads require a road safety and traffic management scheme; and further that road safety measures are needed at the Robin Hood pub junction in Aston as expanding housing estates nearby are putting increased pressure on this junction, making safe emergence difficult and time consuming.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to work alongside the Sheffield Mayoral Combined Authority and that they consider the use of funding from the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements scheme to devise a package of improvements to Pleasley Road and Ulley Crossroads that promotes road safety and active travel, and supports public transport expansion to ease congestion.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002924]
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present two petitions this evening from the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The first relates to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. Infected blood seems to me to be the biggest single scandal in our lifetime. There was no mention in the Budget of providing compensation; that, I fear, was a missed opportunity. Just how long will the victims and their families have to wait?
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002930]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Day, would you like to speak to the second petition and then bring them both together? It seems a waste of energy to present them individually.
Martyn Day
My partner says that I need to lose a bit of weight, so she might disagree with that, but I think that is a sensible decision.
The second petition that I am presenting from the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk relates to pensioners’ personal tax allowance. I have said before that the deal that pensioners in the UK get is among the worst in Europe, and unfortunately this year’s spring Budget has ignored the fiscal drag that pensioners are experiencing, by freezing the personal tax allowance until April 2028. This disproportionately affects many on lower incomes, including our pensioners.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Regrets that the Chancellor’s Spring Budget ignored the fiscal drag that pensioners are experiencing due to the policy on freezing Personal Tax allowance until April 2028; declares that this policy disproportionately affects pensioners who do not gain from cuts to National Insurance; notes this policy creates poorer pensioners who are already impacted by the cost-of-living crisis.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the soaring costs of food and energy bills for pensioners when setting the Personal Tax allowance.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002931]
Music Education
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I rise to speak about the changes to funding for music education hubs. This Government have made an important and worthwhile commitment to a vision of enabling all children and young people to learn how to sing, to learn how to play a musical instrument and to have the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents, including professionally, if that is what they want to do.
The 2022 national music plan published three key aims for music hubs: first, to support schools and other education settings to deliver high-quality music education; secondly, to support young people to further develop their musical interests and talent, including into employment in some cases; and thirdly, to support all children and young people to engage with a range of musical opportunities in and out of school.
By 2018, record numbers of children were learning instruments because of this Government’s actions. As my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister will know, music education hubs have been funded nationally to the level of around £75 million to £80 million a year since their inception under this Conservative Government in 2012, which is sometimes referred to as the national music grant.
However, the national music grant, which funds the functions of the music hub leads, has risen by only 1% since 2012. During this time, the Bank of England inflation calculator shows inflation running at 37%. As I am sure the House understands, it has therefore always been a challenge for music hubs to maintain their exceptional levels of service up and down the country.
My Northampton North constituency is home to a great many talented young musicians and performers. I spy many Northamptonshire Members in the House today, and they will know the value of music in their constituencies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. and learned Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right that music encourages us all, and not just in Northamptonshire. The Education Authority in Northern Ireland supports 689 primary and post-primary schools to provide musical learning to students. These are fantastic opportunities, but some courses cost £140, which is a disadvantage. In Northern Ireland we have a tradition of flute bands, pipe bands, accordion bands and brass bands, and they are associated with people who come from my tradition, as Members will know. Such bands also give opportunities for young people to learn an instrument. When it comes to music, we in Northern Ireland have the better part of the deal.
Sir Michael Ellis
I knew that the hon. Gentleman and I would be singing from the same hymn sheet. His melodious tones resonate daily in this House, and on this subject, as on so many others, we are in complete agreement. He will know, as will other Members, that I am a former Culture Minister, so that pleases me greatly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Music hubs have a vital role in providing high-quality music education to 87% of schools in England, as well as providing support outside schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says that music hubs have effectively been on standstill funding for a decade, during a time of increasing costs, staff pay, venue hire and utility bills. I am sure that he will be moving on to discuss that, but I wish to add to it by setting out that the threats to the financial security of music hubs are a real concern. These hubs are often the only providers of instrumental tuition—at no cost or in heavily subsidised form—in state schools.
We have what is starting to be considered a crisis in music education, given that the number of young musicians being taught at advanced level by music hubs has halved over the past decade, and sadly there are now 20,000 fewer state school bands, orchestras, ensembles and choirs than there were seven years ago, so this is a timely debate. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that by not addressing the funding issues, which I hope he is going to come on to, the Government risk losing music teachers, musicians and audience members, as well as failing to give children access to an activity that holds so many benefits for their academic, social and emotional development?
Sir Michael Ellis
I will be coming on to the funding aspect, but the hon. Lady speaks of the value of music and that is the point I am making.
Many schools serving my constituency and others in Northamptonshire offer tremendous music education. Northampton School for Boys, which borders my constituency and has a catchment area for Northampton North and Northampton South, regularly stages productions and concerts of the highest standard. Northampton School for Girls was the first specialist music college in the country. Malcom Arnold Academy has a strong music basis, as one can see from its name, with Ofsted having described the quality of music provision at that school as “exceptional”. Children at Headlands Primary School are exposed to music education from a very young age, with weekly singing classes from reception. So this is characteristic of not only my constituency, but all the constituencies in Northamptonshire and, doubtless, elsewhere.
That strong sense of the importance of introducing children to music in Northampton North is rooted in the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust—NMPAT. It was established as an independent charitable company in 2012, after functioning for 40 years as the local authority music service. In May 2012 it was designated as the Government’s music and education hub lead for Northamptonshire, and later it became the hub lead for the county of Rutland as well.
The Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation has described the importance of music education in the following instructive terms:
“engagement in the arts and heritage enriches lives, unlocks creative potential, improves skills, changes behaviour, increases confidence, and should be available to all. In order to maintain vibrancy in the arts, it is critical that the next generation of diverse artists is nurtured and encouraged.”
We have already heard from a representative of the Province of Northern Ireland, and I am so pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is on the Front Bench. He is unable to speak from the Front Bench this evening, as is the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, who is also present. I am sure that, as fellow Northamptonshire MPs, they will agree on the importance of music education.
NMPAT embodies that ethos wholly and fully, and, as a former Culture Minister, I strongly agree with it and understand it. The range of opportunities provided by that organisation is enriching and they are plentiful around Northamptonshire and Rutland:
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that NMPAT’s reach across all of our constituencies in Northamptonshire is truly impressive? Last year it educated in music more than 53,000 children and young people, with its dedicated staff of 200 employees. Is that not an example that other music hubs should follow?
Sir Michael Ellis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is absolutely right. There are 1,000 children involved in NMPAT’s award-winning music and drama groups alone, and NMPAT is the biggest provider of music lessons in Northamptonshire, which includes his constituency. NMPAT currently teaches 15,000 children on a range of musical instruments and in a variety of musical styles in schools, through whole-class and individual lessons. It has 11 Saturday music and performing arts centres and three contemporary centres at venues across the county. The centres are open to everybody and they exist to provide an educational and fun environment for any person interested in the arts.
NMPAT has also had overwhelming success in the Music for Youth national festival, by regularly having groups featured in the top Royal Albert Hall Music for Youth Proms, and we are very proud of them. Annual orchestra tours to Europe are also organised. Later this year, the County Youth Orchestra in Northamptonshire and the County Youth Choir will be travelling to Zaragoza in Spain for a series of concerts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has pointed out, NMPAT interacts with 52,000 children every year, and that is just Northamptonshire and Rutland.
It is important to emphasise the reach and impact that NMPAT has in order to display just how important its services are. One of my own staff members here in Parliament, Callum Dineen, was a student in NMPAT for five years and has told me of the overwhelmingly positive effect that the organisation has had on his life. Through the opportunities it provides, NMPAT helps children to find the match that lights a creative fuse, and that cannot be underestimated. This fuse often burns throughout adolescence and into adulthood, igniting a love for the arts, which not only enriches those in our country now, but is passed on to future generations.
Hard work, an eye for detail and a drive to succeed are values taught at NMPAT, which translate into all other areas of life. Social skills and opportunities to make new friends through music are provided to children who might otherwise feel left out in school settings. It is for all of those reasons that I was so concerned when the chief executive of NMPAT, Peter Smalley, contacted me with his grave concerns about the future of his organisation, and he is watching this debate today.
NMPAT, as the music hub lead, has a turnover of £4.5 million. That includes £1.13 million of core hub grant from Government. Payments for services from parents and schools make up the majority of the remaining turnover. But, in the two years since the pandemic, NMPAT has used substantial amounts of its reserves to rebuild, regrow, and restimulate activity across the two counties, to achieve levels of engagement and activity close to pre-pandemic levels. This was clearly only ever going to be a short-term option, and I am sorry to say that these reserves have now been exhausted.
In addition to the current funding challenge posed by the pandemic and the frozen national music grant, the organisation is now gravely concerned about the effect of losing a grant that covers increased employer contributions for the teachers’ pension scheme, and that is the thrust of what I wish to raise today. That scheme was introduced in 2019, in common with other independent music services. This grant was worth £210,000 per annum to NMPAT, but it finishes in August of this year.
I am aware of a letter that my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister sent in response to correspondence sent jointly by the Independent Society of Musicians, the Musicians’ Union and Music Mark in December last year, which addressed their concerns about this issue. The Minister acknowledged that
“incumbent and potential new Hub Lead Organisations have had over 12 months’ notice of this intention so that this can be carefully planned for well in advance.”
I accept that, and although this notice period was welcome, it has now been made redundant, I am sorry to say, by an additional announcement of the 5 percentage point increase to employer contributions, which begins in April—imminently. Although some support towards these costs has been intimated until September, the ISM, the Musicians’ Union and Music Mark rightly say that hub lead organisations have had “no way of planning” for this additional change.
Interestingly, these further additional costs will be fully funded for mainstream schools and further education. Local authority music services that employ teachers will also receive support. However, NMPAT and other music hubs across the country are currently due to receive no assistance. This adds an additional annual cost of £240,000 to NMPAT’s budget. For NMPAT, the resultant total annual cost of employer contributions for the teachers’ pension scheme alone will be £1.15 million, which will be greater than its national music grant of £1.13 million. It is axiomatic that other aspects of NMPAT services will suffer severely if its national music grant is swallowed entirely by the new pension contributions, as is likely if nothing is done.
As a result, Peter Smalley and others have been forced to begin consultation with staff to take them out of the teachers’ pension scheme and offer an alternative workplace pension.
Andrew Lewer
My right hon. and learned Friend and I have both been strong supporters of NMPAT. I visited again recently and wrote about it in the local newspaper. The Department for Education has encouraged flexibility and autonomy in music partnerships. It is better for all schools to be covered and for teacher skills to be utilised. That works, but only if it is done fairly, and the challenge to that fairness has, as he eloquently describes, come through the teachers’ pension scheme. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong for music partnerships not to be able to offer their teachers—those in state schools right across Northamptonshire, for example—the same pensions as their less peripatetic fellow professionals?
Sir Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he rightly says, he has been a powerful advocate for NMPAT, and I am so pleased that he is here in support.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate.
It is not just Northamptonshire that is impacted by these financial pressures on our wonderful musical hubs; West Yorkshire is, too. I am very fortunate to have Musica Kirklees in my neck of the woods. Its music director Nick Dolling has been in touch with me about this issue. Previously, it was led by the inspirational Thom Meredith, who produced a stream of talented young musicians for local brass bands, choirs, Slaithwaite Philharmonic Orchestra and many more, to the extent that we have the world-champion Lindley School choir, led by Alison North, in my neck of the woods. We also have the Mrs Sunderland festival and the Haydn Wood musical festival in Linthwaite. There is so much musical heritage, but the people involved are now worried about exactly the financial pressures that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned. May I just say that we in West Yorkshire are with him in this campaign? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Sir Michael Ellis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that West Yorkshire and counties up and down the country are affected in that way. I am pleased that he is here and in agreement.
This further disruption is demoralising for the workforce. That is the effect of what Peter Smalley and the other heads of hubs have had to do, because it carries the inherent risk of a talent drain and recruitment crisis. NMPAT is also undertaking a full internal financial review to establish where cuts and savings can be made. It is inevitable that some services currently being delivered will be lost, and that costs for parents and schools will rise, perhaps by as much as 20%.
It has become clear that this is a worrying time not just for NMPAT, but for music education hubs up and down the country. I am concerned not just for the hubs that are having to make difficult decisions, but for organisations that perhaps might not be fully aware of the details of the changes that are about to occur. Music hubs making cuts to their budget, which reduces services and outreach, is a situation that we should not allow to occur because of the important impact that music education has.
The Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), said:
“I believe all children, regardless of their backgrounds, should have the same opportunities and that’s why it’s so good to see that our music hubs are reaching so many.”
However, these changes are placing the viability of music hubs under threat. As a hugely successful music hub lead, NMPAT should be looking to expand the number of children it interacts with every year, not facing the unpalatable decision to make cuts to its services. I am aware that the Department for Education has confirmed that there will be some funding to cover the employer pension contribution, and that a formula to agree allocations is being worked on. When the Minister replies in a moment, would he be able to provide more detail on that formula and on whether NMPAT can expect a grant to cover those costs?
It also strikes me that the savings made by this cost-cutting measure will be rather small. According to Music Mark, the cut to the teachers’ pension scheme allowance will save His Majesty’s Government only around £1.2 million, which the House may think is a modest sum in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, I am told it has been estimated that treating music teachers in independent music hub lead organisations equitably with schoolteachers by providing a grant for their pension schemes would cost only around £2 million annually. Is the cost of the effects of this policy change on NMPAT and other music education hubs around the country worth those relatively modest savings?
Mr Hollobone
My right hon. and learned Friend continues to make an excellent speech. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister his thinking about the principle that my right hon. and learned Friend is highlighting: why should the Government fully fund extra employer contributions for teachers in schools who are delivering the Government’s national curriculum, but not fully fund the extra contributions for teachers employed to deliver the Government’s national plan for music education? Why is that such an important point of principle when the costs involved are so small?
Sir Michael Ellis
I am sure our right hon. Friend the Minister has heard those points. I am coming to my conclusion now, so hopefully he will have the opportunity to address them.
We must not forget that music is not just important to the welfare and wellbeing of so many of our young people —and indeed people of all ages—but a great addition to the economy of this country. According to UK Music, the music industry’s contribution to the UK economy in 2022 was £6.7 billion, and our UK music exports generate £4 billion. Our country’s great cultural offering is clearly enjoyed by many people at home and abroad. British music is famous around the world, and we should be encouraging young people to contribute to the UK’s music economy.
As with any issue, I choose to look at this matter proportionally, and would argue that the benefits of scrapping this grant do not outweigh the impacts. I respectfully request that the Minister be willing to look again at this matter and provide assurances to Peter Smalley, NMPAT and other music education hubs up and down the country that His Majesty’s Government will do all they can to support their important work, and that their outreach will not be adversely affected.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing a debate on this important subject, and on what is an unusually well-attended Adjournment debate. I thank all his colleagues—all our colleagues—from Northamptonshire for being here. My right hon. and learned Friend is a former arts Minister, and I commend him on the great work he did in that role, including his very important work on public libraries as well as on music. I know that music is a subject very close to his heart, as it is to the hearts of so many of us in this place, including my own.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). As our right hon. Friend has often said, studying and engaging with music is not a privilege, but a vital part of a broad and ambitious curriculum. All pupils should have access to an excellent music education and all the knowledge and joy it brings. This is why music is part of the national curriculum for all maintained schools from the age of five to 14, and why the Government expect that academies should teach music as part of their statutory requirement to promote pupils’ cultural development.
Music, like every subject, is generally funded by schools through their core budget. In the November 2022 autumn statement, we announced an additional £2 billion in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25, over and above the totals that had been announced at the 2021 spending review. In July 2023, we announced an additional £525 million this year to support schools with the teachers’ pay award, and £900 million in 2024-25. The Government have continued to provide additional funding, over and above school budgets, to enable children and young people to access high-quality music and arts education. From 2016 to 2022 we invested £714 million, and we are investing £115 million per year up to 2025. Altogether, since 2016, this sums to close to £1 billion for a diverse portfolio of organisations over those years.
That sum includes £79 million a year for music hubs, as was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North and by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is no longer in her place. Hubs provide specialist music education services to around 87% of state-funded schools, and over £30 million a year goes to the music and dance scheme, which provides means-tested bursaries to over 2,000 young people showing the greatest potential in those art forms. It also includes a growing cohort of national youth music organisations, with new additions such as the National Open Youth Orchestra, which works with young disabled people, and UD, which runs programmes including Flames Collective, its flagship pre-vocational creative development programme. It was great to see Flames Collective perform with Raye at this year’s Brits. As part of the refreshed plan, the Government continue to invest £79 million a year in music hubs, as well as providing an additional £25 million of funding for musical instruments.
On the teachers’ pension scheme—the TPS, as it is commonly known—the Department for Education has secured £1.25 billion to support eligible settings with the increased employer contribution rate in financial year 2024-25. That will mean additional funding of £9.3 million for local authorities for centrally employed teachers, including those employed in local authority-based music hubs. The Department has published the details of the additional funding for mainstream schools, high needs and local authorities with centrally employed teachers. I can also confirm that the Department is committed to providing funding to cover the increase in employer contribution rates for existing non-local authority hubs for the current academic year—that is, until August 2024—and officials are working to agree the precise amount. Further details, including funding rates and allocations, will be provided soon.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North will know there is a music hubs competition in progress. Following its conclusion, which is due to be announced next month, the Department will work with Arts Council England to set final grant allocations for the newly competed hub lead organisations that will take over from September. As part of that work, due consideration will be given to additional pension pressures due to the increase in employer contributions through the TPS.
We know that, while potential is equally spread throughout the country, opportunity is not. As part of levelling up, our plan is to provide an additional £2 million of funding to support the delivery of a music progression programme. This programme will support up to 1,000 disadvantaged pupils to learn how to play an instrument or sing to a high standard over a sustained period. Further details about the programme will be announced in the coming weeks, once a national delivery partner has been appointed.
We know that many schools across the country deliver first-rate music lessons to pupils and offer high-quality extracurricular activities as well. However, we are also aware that there are some areas where music provision may be more limited, and to address this a refreshed national plan for music education was published in June 2022. That plan clearly sets out the ambition of the Government up to 2030 that every child, regardless of circumstance, needs or geography, should have access to a high-quality music education—to learn to sing, play an instrument and create music together and have the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents.
Mr Hollobone
I thank the Minister for his response so far. Encouragingly, he is moving in the right direction. Does he recognise that Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust has warmly embraced the publication of the Government national plan for music education, the title of which is “The power of music to change lives”? Is the Minister impressed by the reach of NMPAT to over 53,000 children across Northamptonshire and Rutland? Not many music hubs have that scale of reach.
Damian Hinds
I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the power of music, and I join him in paying tribute to the great work of NMPAT. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips to assess where in the table, as it were, those thousands place it relative to others, but it certainly is a very impressive reach.
The expectations set out in the plan, starting from early years, are unashamedly ambitious, and informed by the excellent practice demonstrated by so many schools, music hubs and music charities around the country. As highlighted in the Ofsted “music subject” report published late last year, we know some schools do not allocate sufficient curriculum time to music. Starting this school year, schools are now expected to teach music lessons for at least one hour each week of the school year for key stages 1 to 3 alongside providing extracurricular opportunities to learn an instrument and sing, and opportunities to play and sing together in ensembles and choirs. We are monitoring lesson times to ensure that that improves.
Another weakness in some schools that was highlighted in the Ofsted report was the quality of the curriculum, in which there was insufficient focus on musical understanding and sequencing and progression. To support schools to develop a high-quality curriculum we published a model music curriculum in 2021, and, based on a survey of schools from last March, we understand that around 59% of primary schools and 43% of secondary schools are now implementing that non-statutory guidance. We want to go further in supporting schools with the music curriculum, which is why we published a series of case studies alongside the plan to highlight a variety of approaches to delivering music education as part of the curriculum. We are also working with Oak National Academy, which published its key stage 3 and 4 music curriculum sequence and exemplar lesson materials late last year, with the full suite of resources to follow in the summer.
While the refreshed plan rightly focuses on the place of music education in schools, it also recognises that music hubs have a vital role in supporting schools and ensuring that young people can access opportunities that schools on their own might not be able to offer. I join colleagues in paying tribute to the work of our music hubs across the country, including the organisations who lead them and their partners, who for the past 12 years have worked tirelessly to support music education.
One such organisation is of course the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust, which I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North speak of in such glowing terms. I join him in thanking its chief executive, Peter Smalley, who I gather might be with us today. Just last week I had the privilege of seeing the work of another music hub in Surrey. I was very impressed by all that its partnership is doing to support schools to provide high-quality music and offer amazing opportunities to young people also beyond the classroom.
This year, hubs have continued their excellent work against the backdrop of a re-competition of the lead organisations led by Arts Council England. I recognise that that will not have been easy. As no announcement of which organisations will be leading the new hubs has yet been made, Members will understand that I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of any organisation currently in receipt of hub funding.
From September a new network of 43 hubs made up of hundreds of organisations working in close partnership will continue to build on the outstanding legacy of the hubs to date, and I offer my wholehearted thanks to everyone who has played a part in the music hub story so far. It will be exciting to see how the new hub partnerships develop and flourish with the support of the announced centres of excellence, once they are in place.
One area where hubs provide support to schools is in helping them to develop strong music development plans. This year we have invited every school to have a plan that considers how they and their hub will work together to improve the quality of music education. Our sample survey of school leaders last March showed that slightly under half of schools already had a music development plan in place. Of those, the vast majority—nine in 10—of school leaders intended to review it for this school year. Of those without a plan, nearly half reported intending to put one in place this school year. I hope it will not be long before every school has a strong music development plan that sets out how the vision of the national plan is being realised for their pupils.
The quality of teaching remains the single most important factor in improving outcomes for children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We plan to update our teacher recruitment and retention strategy and build on our reforms to ensure that every child has an excellent teacher, and that includes those teaching music. Our strategy update will reflect on our progress on delivering our reforms, as well as setting out priorities for the years ahead. For those starting initial teacher training in music in academic year 2024-25, we are offering tax-free bursaries of £10,000. That should help attract more music teachers into the profession and support schools in delivering at least one hour of music lessons a week. The Government will also be placing a stronger emphasis on teacher development as part of the music hub programme in the future, including peer-to-peer support through new lead schools in every hub.
There is fantastic music education taking place across the country. Indeed, the opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North did a better job at bringing that to life than I ever could. For my part, I offer and add my thanks to every music teacher in every setting for all that they do, but there is still a lot to do to make our vision for music education become a reality for every child in every school. I am confident, however, that our reforms are having an impact and will lead to concrete action that every school and trust can take to improve their music education provision. Through partnership and collaboration with hub partners, we will ensure that all young people and children can have access to a high-quality music education.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Following this excellent debate, I am going to go to a reception sponsored by Mr Speaker with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It struck me that we have all the orchestras, sinfoniettas, musical theatre and musicians generally—all these incredible talents—and I wonder how many of them started their lifelong love affair with music by picking up a musical instrument in school. We are so fortunate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I begin by saying how proud I am to support the UK’s dairy sector, from the hardworking farmers to the innovative processors and manufacturers which produce the multitude of world-renowned products so dearly loved by consumers. The regulations safeguard the future of the UK’s dairy sector by ensuring that those involved in it are treated fairly. Although there are some fantastic examples of working relationships in the sector, we know that wherever there are commercial imbalances in supply chains, unfair practices sometimes emerge. Farmers are often the victims of such unfairness.
The Government introduced new powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 that allow us to address unfairness with new rules to govern the relationships between buyers and sellers. This statutory instrument, concentrating on the dairy sector, represents the first exercise of those powers. To inform our approach, we conducted a public consultation and have subsequently maintained a close working relationship with industry stakeholders to ensure that the rules are workable and proportionate. I am happy to report that since we introduced the regulations, the broad industry sentiment is that we have achieved that goal.
The regulations establish a framework for fair and balanced contracts; within those broad parameters, we have maintained flexibility for contractual arrangements that reflect different business practices, as long as all expressed terms are clear and transparent. The rules therefore support freedom to contract, introducing additional parameters only where necessary.
The regulations begin by establishing a legal requirement for written contracts. Although these are already commonplace, they are often the starting point for enshrining the rights and responsibilities of farmers and processors in a clear, unambiguous fashion. Importantly, the regulations prohibit unilateral changes to the contracts; once signed, the terms and conditions cannot be changed without consent. Clearly, businesses must adapt and occasionally changes may be needed, but when they are, they should be discussed and agreed, never imposed.
The regulations also introduce a new approach to pricing, requiring processors to be more open about how price is determined and promoting transparency. There are many good examples of where processors openly communicate to suppliers how market conditions and other factors influence the milk price, and we want that kind of openness to become the norm, so that farmers are assured that their price is calculated fairly.
Where appropriate, we have accounted for the fact that where farmers are genuinely represented, either by representative groups or via structures in the company, those relationships can be regulated more lightly. As such, exemptions from the regulations are available: from the pricing provision where balanced negotiations take place, and from the rules on contract variations where amendments are agreed on farmers’ behalf by their elected representatives.
The regulations also introduce new rules addressing other problems farmers have experienced, including in the process of contract termination. The details of any process will still be a matter of negotiation, but will now be subject to some broad restrictions to avoid unfair practices. We want to encourage stable, constructive relationships and avoid short-termism; as such, all contracts must include clear notice terms, with farmers receiving a minimum of one year’s notice of termination by a processor. To ensure that a farmer never feels unfairly trapped in contract, it must also be clear how farmers themselves can request cancellation.
The regulations establish new rules on contractual exclusivity. Although we are not preventing this where it works well, it has occasionally been used in a way that disadvantages the farmer. Some of the practices used alongside exclusive arrangements, such as volume caps and A and B pricing, are no longer permitted in such circumstances. All processors must write into their contracts a clear dispute resolution procedure, setting out how a farmer can raise an issue and how it will be dealt with. That will mean better communication between the parties, which has sometimes been lacking, and could prevent many of the issues we have seen emerging.
We know that ensuring compliance will be critical to the success of the regulations. We are in the process of recruiting the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, who will be in post before the regulations come into force. The individual will be responsible for investigating any complaints related to the regulations and has the power to issue substantial fines to anyone found to be in breach.
I hope I have provided the Committee with the reassurance that this instrument is necessary, effective and welcome. The regulations do not interrupt what is already working well, but instead will ensure that the whole industry operates at the same standard, benefiting the entire supply chain.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Gray.
I am grateful to the Minister for his good explanation and introduction. I echo his points about the excellence of the UK dairy sector. The regulations have been a long time coming: people in the industry have been pressing for change for a decade or more. It is almost four years to the day that we sat here discussing the Agriculture Act 2020 which paved the way for the regulations today. I am aware there has been full consultation and, I suspect, a fair amount of negotiation behind the scenes, and I share the Minister’s view that producers and processors are largely happy. If it is good enough for them, it is clearly good enough for me, so we will not oppose the regulations today.
I welcome the new regulations. But the delays have meant that too many dairy farmers have suffered while waiting for them. It is right that contracts be in writing and as transparent as possible, with clear pricing terms through either a fixed or variable price and a proper explanation of how the price to be paid is generated. Farmers do need to be empowered to challenge prices if they feel the correct process has not been followed, and they should be able to terminate contracts within a longer cooling-off period or if a buyer misses payments. It is right that any alterations to a contract will have to be agreed by both parties rather than buyers just changing their minds unilaterally.
As ever, enforcement is critical. The Government have chosen to create another adjudicator, in addition to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As the Minister said, the post is currently being advertised through headhunters on a significant salary. It is not clear why a separate system and a new enforcement agency should be set up when we already have the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We touched on this during the passage of the Agriculture Act, four years ago, when we argued that the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator could be extended and possibly facilitated by the additional funds allocated to the new agency.
Can the Minister explain why he has chosen not to consolidate and streamline those tasks within one body, particularly as the activities concerned are similar, well-aligned and actually overlap? Why will the adjudicator sit within DEFRA rather than enjoy the independence that the GCA has? As we anticipate further fair dealing regulations in other sectors, we could end up with a plethora of such adjudicators—I am not sure what the collective noun would be. I cannot help feeling that this is something that could end up being revisited in the future, so it might be sensible to try to work out why it is being done now.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“There is a small anticipated negative financial impact on the public sector”—
beautifully worded—
“for the set up and maintenance of the new enforcement agency.”
In other words, it will cost money—obviously. Can the Minister tell us how much this process will cost?
In the Minister’s introduction, he said that the adjudicator will be in place by the time the regulations come into effect. I have heard comments from the industry, which welcomes the regulations, that they will be implemented in 12 weeks. That is quick, which is good because we want them to take effect, but can the Minister assure us that the adjudicator will be in place by that time? Will he ensure that full guidance will be available? That is important because although the legislation is quite detailed, I suspect that people will look for even more detail, and what we do not want to see is a situation in which rules are enforced but the industry does not quite know how to do that.
I will also just pick up on the points made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised the vexed issue of Northern Ireland, where some farmers, of course, are selling directly into the Republic of Ireland, where this legislation would not apply. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little bit more about that.
There is just one other issue that I will raise. We know that there is a lot of waste in the food system, particularly when buyers have a habit of rejecting produce that seems to everybody else in the system to be perfectly acceptable. I wonder whether we have missed an opportunity here to consider waste in the food supply chain. That point was made by an academic, Carrie Bradshaw of the University of Leeds. She has pointed out that none of the Government’s consultations on using the fair dealing powers have made reference to waste. Could the Minister say whether that issue was given any consideration?
Although I appreciate that there are differences in how the dairy sector operates compared with the egg, pork or poultry sectors, which require individual consideration, there is a system-wide problem that needs to be addressed. Again, that came up in the discussions about the Agriculture Act 2020. Have the Government conducted a thorough assessment of the fairness, or lack of it, in the food supply chain as a whole, and where does the Minister think the weaknesses now exist? How much progress has been made in mitigating them?
We need to take complaints from suppliers in the supply chain very seriously; that issue is raised consistently in the food industry. As I say, we do not oppose this measure, but we do not think that the Government have really approached this issue with the pace and urgency that are required. A much more strategic approach is called for. We need to be more confident that the food supply chain works efficiently, effectively and equitably —a market in which risks and rewards are shared more proportionately and fairly. The danger is that if nothing is done to improve the supply chain, more suppliers will be driven to the brink and pull out of producing food all together. Sadly, we are already losing too many British growers and food companies. That is bad for them, bad for the UK in general and bad for UK food security.
Mark Spencer
I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions. What I will say to him for a start is that we talked to the Groceries Code Adjudicator quite a lot and sought its advice. The GCA has a very good working relationship with retailers, including the major retailers. We did not want to break that system up. We want to allow it to continue, because, as I say, the GCA has the sort of working relationship whereby it is able to snuff out challenges and problems quite quickly, because of that close working relationship. I think that to expand that office would have diluted its effectiveness.
Of course, we want to keep the adjudicator within DEFRA. I know that the shadow Minister has been critical in the past that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was the Department overseeing the GCA; it now sits within the Department for Business and Trade, of course, but the DBT consults with those of us in DEFRA. I also know that he has been critical of the fact that BEIS conducted a review of the GCA at one time. Of course, we want to try to retain control of the adjudicator and ensure that it sits neatly within DEFRA, so that we can continue to watch it very closely.
The shadow Minister also talked about timescales, asking when the new adjudicator will be in place. I cannot stand here today and guarantee when they will be in place, because, of course, we are going through a recruitment process. We need to make sure we get the right person; I would rather have the right person than just get anybody quickly. But I am confident that we have a broad pool of quality people to choose from and hopefully the right person will come through that process, although I do not want to prejudge that process until it is complete.
Finally, the shadow Minister talked about food waste. That is something that we have looked at, of course, and we are very keen to reduce food waste wherever we can. Actually, the dairy sector is very good at not wasting food; it is very good at putting milk into cheese and yoghurt if there is an over-supply of liquid milk, rather than just producing more liquid milk. I think that the greatest amount of milk that is wasted is wasted from domestic fridges, rather than within the sector itself. I am sure there is more that we can do on food waste, but that will require another vehicle or another method.
Daniel Zeichner
Obviously, this is a cyclical industry and it is particularly distressing when we hear stories of milk being poured into ditches, which of course it should not be, or being disposed of in other inappropriate ways, because of some of the imbalances in the supply chain. Is the Minister confident that the new system will lead to less milk being wasted in that way?
Mark Spencer
I actually am. I think this measure will help, because it will mean that there is much more fairness in those supply chains and that those contracts are much more robust in how they are formed. So, I think we will be able to avoid such wastage of milk in the future.
The shadow Minister mentioned devolved Administrations. Of course, we have consulted very closely with the devolved Administrations and they are very supportive of the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain.
The past few years have brought unprecedented changes and uncertainty to Great Britain’s energy system, but we have remained resilient. Last year, we laid the foundations for an energy system fit for the future with the landmark Energy Act 2023, the largest piece of energy legislation in the United Kingdom in a generation, which is world-leading in legally mandating net zero. The changes in that Act, including the powers to establish a National Energy System Operator—NESO—and new duties for Ofgem, mean that now is the right time to reaffirm the Government’s strategic priorities and policy outcomes in this strategy and policy statement.
The Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain is developed according to part of the Energy Act 2013. The SPS sets out in clear terms the Government’s strategic priorities and other main considerations for energy policy, the policy outcomes to be achieved, and the roles and responsibilities of persons involved in implementing that policy. The Secretary of State, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator —a new independent public corporation responsible for planning Britain’s electricity and gas networks and operating the electricity system—will be required to have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the SPS.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Can the Minister give us a timescale for when NESO will be operational as an independent body, in the way envisaged by the Government?
Amanda Solloway
I will come on to that in a moment.
The Secretary of State and Ofgem must also have regard for the policy outcomes contained within the SPS, and both parties must carry out their respective regulatory functions in the manner which they consider best calculated to further the delivery of the policy outcomes.
NESO is expected to be established this year. The SPS serves an additional purpose of setting out and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of NESO alongside Ofgem and the Government. The SPS is intended to provide guidance to the energy sector on the actions and decisions that are needed to deliver the Government’s policy goals, and places emphasis on where the Government expect a shift in the energy industry’s strategic direction.
As the independent energy regulator for Great Britain, Ofgem cannot be directed by the Government on how it should make decisions. Similarly, NESO is being set out to be operationally independent and free from day-to-day Government control. However, the SPS will provide guiding principles for Ofgem and NESO when it is established. The strategic priorities and policy outcomes within the SPS do not include the creation of any new policies or duties.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I would be very interested to hear how the SPS will focus on the switch to renewables. That seems to have been one of the big successes under the current Government, with the proportion of our electricity generated from renewables somewhere near 40%. Obviously, we want that progress to continue.
Amanda Solloway
Absolutely. That is the very reason we are doing this—to make sure that we achieve our net zero targets.
The statement will support strategic alignment between the Government, Ofgem, NESO and the industry, by making clear what the Government want to achieve in the energy sector. The legal framework of the Energy Act 2013 requires that Ofgem, NESO and the Secretary of State all have a duty to have regard to the strategic priorities within the SPS.
Ofgem must publish a strategy showing how it will further deliver the policy outcomes and its annual report must assess its contribution to deliver those outcomes. The SPS also acts as a tool to promote alignment between Government, Ofgem, NESO and industry. As per the Energy Act 2013, the SPS has completed two consultations. The first was undertaken with Ofgem and the Welsh and Scottish Governments, and the Government worked with all parties to make sure views were correctly captured before moving on to the second public consultation, which was held last summer.
Alan Brown
I refer the Minister to the 16th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which was published earlier this month on 7 March. It details the fact that there was consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as the Minister said. However, additional information provided by her Department makes it clear that the Welsh Government asked for the Welsh net zero targets to be included in the SPS, and that the Scottish Government asked for the same for the Scottish net zero targets and also for the networks section to be strengthened. According to her Department, information was added to the introduction for the Welsh and Scottish net zero targets, but I cannot find it in the introduction. I wonder if the Minister could provide clarity on where that was included in the documents.
Amanda Solloway
I will have a look at that information and see if we can get that to the hon. Member if it is not included.
The feedback throughout both consultations was generally positive, and stakeholders were keen to see the SPS implemented to give guidance to the sector on the roles of Ofgem, NESO and the Secretary of State in delivering the Government’s priorities for the energy sector. Since the consultation was concluded, officials have worked through feedback and, where appropriate, used that to inform the current iteration of the SPS before us. The Government are confident that this SPS reflects the right strategic priorities and policy outcomes for energy policy for the whole of Great Britain. The SPS reaffirms the Government’s commitments and priorities for the energy sector and, in doing so, acts as a tool to support strategic alignment between Government, Ofgem, NESO and industry. I commend this draft statutory statement to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The power to designate a strategy and policy statement, as the Minister has set out, has been in place since the passing of the Energy Act 2013. That Act envisaged, among other things, that a strategy and policy statement would be an essential tool in aligning the actions of Government and of Government agencies and bodies, such as Ofgem, and ensuring that they were marching in lockstep as far as the development of strategic priorities was concerned. Indeed, this strategy and policy statement is very important in making sure that, with the designation of a net zero mandate for Ofgem, which took place in the recent Energy Act 2023, the alignment is complete with the issue of the strategy and policy statement. However, I point out that these strategy and policy statements are supposed to last for five years and to be reviewed at the end of a five-year period—or, significantly, should an election take place in the meantime.
The strategy and policy statement power, therefore, has not been used since the introduction of the 2013 Act. We should have had one almost immediately after the Act, and we should be revising the second one now. The fact that one is not in place is a theme of this Government because we other publications have been long delayed, including a new national policy statement for energy and a national policy statement for nuclear.
The document necessarily acts at a very high level, and there is a lot that we agree with, particularly the strategic overview and priority that has been put forward with this policy statement. As I have mentioned, having an SPS is a great improvement on not having one in this area. However, it is clear that the document will not stand for five years, which is the time at which the legislation says it should be reviewed. For one, there is an election coming this year. While there are several points of substance on which Labour plans would differ from the Government’s, the most important is our commitment to clean power by 2030, which is a clear differentiation from the strategic view set out in the document. Certainly, should there be an election shortly and should Labour be fortunate enough to win, we will revise the policy statement at a very early stage in the next Labour Government.
Alan Brown
If Labour gets in and if the policy document is revised, how will it be funded to get to zero carbon by 2030? Surely, that was a key component of the £28 billion a year pledge, which has now been scrapped. The two are surely incompatible now.
Dr Whitehead
I am tempted by the hon. Member to go down the lengthy path of discussing how the move to clean power by 2030 will be financed. I can assure him that that is fully set out and sorted out as far as Labour policy statements are concerned. However, he makes the important point that a number of things that Government have done recently run against not only the idea of clean power by 2030 but their own strategy and policy statement as it is now being put forward —for example, putting back the mandate for the end of the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles to 2035 when it was originally 2030.
Regardless of the results of an election, I do not think the document can stand for five years because it leaves so much undefined. The Minister has mentioned the issue of the National Energy System Operator and its relationship to Ofgem, but that is completely undefined in the document because that has not yet been worked out. NESO itself is not yet established and, indeed, the strategy and policy statement makes frequent reference to unpublished interim steps, such as an interim strategic spatial energy plan, which we think is a good thing and long overdue. As NESO is established in the various plans that the SPS hints are in place, we need a much more substantive update to the policy statement, including what is to happen on the question of regional energy system planners, which the document mentions but does not discuss further, as far as their operation and organisation are concerned.
Can the Minister tell us when she hopes to issue an update to the strategy and policy statement? Perhaps, when we are clearer about what the National Energy System Operator will actually do and how its relation to Ofgem will pan out, she will be able to say to the House that a revision of the strategy statement will be forthcoming and will put things into place in a much clearer way regarding the new arrangement for energy systems.
There are also one or two drafting errors in the statement that I will point out. Twice, the document refers to plans that are due for completion in 2023. We are now in 2024, and it is not that the plans have not been completed or addressed; it is just that the document is referring to, I assume, something that has not been updated in terms of where we are now. It would be a shame if the document went out with factually inaccurate material on dates.
There are other commitments for 2024, on which we are not convinced the Government are making sufficient progress and which are mentioned in the document as if they were. One example is developing a plan for long-duration energy storage. Indeed, other areas bear little relationship to reality; for example, the Government reaffirm their commitment to the 2030 fuel poverty target, but National Energy Action says that they will miss it by over 90%. The SPS also talks about the roll-out of smart meters, but as we all know, that too is well off-track. I would question the value of a strategic overview that does not take proper account of the real state of the policy landscape it is summarising.
This strategy and policy statement is clearly going to need to be revised in the near future. However, as I said, it is better than having no statement at all, and it provides for some useful new processes such as Ofgem reporting annually on how it is meeting the requirement to have regard to the Government’s strategic objectives. For that reason, and because of the fact that we finally have a strategic policy statement, we will not be voting against the measure this morning.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The hon. Member for Bolsover has encouraged me to be brief, and I will see what I can do. There is such a good turnout on the Government Benches that I think they would want a proper debate on this. I apologise for how I will go through this; there are no paragraph numbers in the draft strategy and policy statement, which I find quite frustrating, as it means I am trying to make cross-references. Can I request that in the future there are paragraph numbers and references?
Starting with the fourth paragraph on page 7, the statement says that the Government
“expects private sector investment of around £100 billion in the energy sector in the period to 2030”.
It would be good to know what level of Government expenditure is expected. Do they intend to lever in that £100 billion? Also on page 7—the hon. Member for Southampton, Test mentioned this—the statement says that the Government
“plan to reflect how best to cover NESO in its substantive role once it is established.”
That basically confirms that this document does not set out proper duties for NESO because NESO still has to be up and running. In many ways, that suggests that this policy statement was too early. It would make sense to introduce it once NESO is established, so that its substantive role could be echoed throughout the document.
That brings us to the question of how this is going to work. NESO is going to be critical for helping to deliver energy strategy, but a paragraph on page 8 details the fact that the independent system operator and planner, meaning NESO, has a duty to notify the Secretary of State if, at any time,
“it thinks that a policy outcome in the SPS is not…achievable.”
What are the interim arrangements for the period until NESO is up and running if it is deemed that there are policies that are not achievable? As you know, Ms Rees, I am a glass-half-full type of guy, but there are policies in this document that I do not think are achievable.
The nuclear plan is never going to achieve a 24 GW deployment by 2050, and it is really unlikely that the planned deployment of 50 GW of offshore wind will happen. The emission reduction targets for 2030 are unlikely to be achieved, the sixth carbon budget is behind schedule, and the plan for 600,000 heat pump installations by 2038 ain’t gonna happen on the current trajectory. The planned energy efficiency upgrade of ensuring that all properties achieve a rating of band C by 2030 is not practical, and that is not going to happen, either. What interim arrangements can be flagged up to the Government, and will the Government then review those, respond and take action?
Page 11 says that
“Ofgem is…accountable to Parliament”.
That is true, but would the Minister explain how Ofgem is accountable to Parliament and whether that is set out anywhere? I was previously a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. It conducted an inquiry, and Ofgem gave evidence. It was kind of set that Ofgem was effectively accountable to the BEIS Committee, and that that was a parliamentary scrutiny process. That came as news to everyone on the Committee, and I am sure it would come as news to a lot of Members in Parliament. Having a clear process that sets out how Ofgem is accountable to Parliament would be useful to all Members across the House. Should there be something in the document about that, or should it be set out clearly somewhere else?
Page 11 confirms that it is now a duty for Ofgem
“to consider consumers’ interests in the Secretary of State’s compliance with the net zero targets”.
Going forward, it also confirms that Ofgem should
“have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when carrying out its core regulatory functions.”
It is quite possible that to balance consumer needs and economic growth means different decisions or recommendations. What should take precedence for Ofgem, and how will that work? What does that mean going forward? I have long said about the contracts for difference process that the Government have not put enough emphasis on local supply content and building up a UK-based supply chain. That would actually deliver economic growth, instead of CFD being based solely on the lowest price, which has offshored a lot of the manufacturing. Contracts for difference has been a missed opportunity. Going forward, it can still deliver economic growth, but is it going to be left for Ofgem to decide the options, or for the Government to decide the parameters?
Page 17 confirms the target of 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028. Can the Minister explain what level of deployment we are getting at the moment, and what plans the Government have to get it up to 600,000 per year? Pages 23 to 25 detail nuclear policy, which is one of my favourite Government policies that exists. On page 24, we are told that nuclear is “providing reliable, safe electricity”. However, the reality is that each nuclear reactor is down on average for a quarter of the year. That has been every year for the past 10 years; I established that through parliamentary questions.
What does happen when nuclear is down for a quarter of the year and the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing? That is the scenario that we are always told that nuclear is needed for. I wonder what back-up plans the Government have to deal with that.
I am going to be slightly facetious. There is a paragraph that talks about the
“approach to the delivery of new nuclear projects beyond Sizewell C, giving industry and investors the confidence necessary to deliver projects at pace”.
What is it that is happening now that will allow projects to be delivered at pace? We know that Hinkley Point C is years behind schedule. Sizewell C has taken years to even get to the final investment decision. Even if Sizewell C continues “at pace” during construction, it is going to be a further 10 to 15 years. Can we have a definition of what “at pace” means?
On the technology selection process for small modular reactors, can the Minister confirm that there is not a single approved design at the moment? They are only now approving the design. Therefore, even if the Government select a winner in the technology selection process, that winner still has to go through the approval process with the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which takes years. That will take us beyond the 2029 point.
There is a section on low-income, vulnerable and fuel-poor households. That talks about upgrading all homes in England to band C by 2030, “as reasonably practicable”. Can the Minster define what “as reasonably practicable” means, in terms of what is a reasonable cost or a reasonable level of disruption? That has got to be understood, because it will be a clear exemption that the Government will rely on, going forward. Given that after 14 years of Tory Government the number of properties in band C is sitting at 50%, that means the other 50% of properties have got to upgrade in the next six years. What are the Government doing to make it possible to do that?
If we are looking at low-income, vulnerable and fuel-poor households, a social energy tariff is not mentioned here. A consultation on a social energy tariff was supposed to be one of the Government’s pledges before, so what has actually happened? What is the thought process about a social energy tariff?
I welcome the fact that on page 32 it lists among the Government’s policy outcomes:
“By 2024, an appropriate policy to enable investment in large-scale long-duration electricity storage consistent with cost-effective decarbonisation.”
But clearly we are in 2024. I know that a consultation is ongoing about a framework carbon floor mechanism, but when will that be concluded and implemented? I have raised this several times, but we really need to get pumped storage hydro schemes on the go. I am thinking particularly of Coire Glas and the Cruachan Dam extension.
Finally—people will be glad to hear—the document finishes with the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. Energy UK has confirmed that as part of the current trade and co-operation agreement we are spending £1 billion extra a year on trading arrangements; that is added directly to our energy bills. When will the Government change or renegotiate that and save us £1 billion on our energy bills during this cost of living crisis?
I look forward to hearing the ministerial response.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Members of the Committee will know that I am not a member, so I will not have any view on the consideration at the end. However, I will say that today, unusually for Government procedures, this statement is on the Order Paper for it to go through tonight without any further debate after this Committee has debated it. That is why this is one of the most important debates in which I will participate in this entire Parliament, and why I am here today.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. She will be well aware of many of the local issues. Very kindly, she met me before an Adjournment debate that I was due to have until I got laryngitis and could not do the debate. She will be conscious, in relation to east Suffolk Coastal, that stretch of the coast, that it is quite possible that within about 15 years that small, 5-square-mile area will be responsible for the generation and transmission, via interconnectors, into this country, for the UK electricity network, of 30% to 33% of the UK’s entire use of electricity. As a consequence, local people are understandably concerned about the scale of the development that is happening in an area that already has significant environmental protections. That is why in many ways I welcome parts of this policy statement. Some bits are missing from it, and I would like the Minister to reflect on that. I will say this now, so that the Whips can message the powers that be. I do want the Government to consider not moving the motion tonight and to take the opportunity to reflect on what has been said not only in this Committee but elsewhere, in debates, and indeed in the other House.
Thanks to the Act under which we are discussing this statement, an affirmative resolution is required in both Houses. That is welcome. Unfortunately, the national policy statements that happened recently were not debated in this House and also have significant consequences. That is in contrast to the previous national policy statements that were made and debated in 2011. The particular policies to which I am referring rely on the Government to timetable that debate, and that is under the auspices of the Planning Act 2008, so I am pleased that under the more recent Act, under which we are debating this statement, we certainly get the opportunity to debate.
I know that this document replaces the social and environmental guidance of 2011, but I have a few questions of procedure that I would just like to understand. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that I left Government in November 2023. I have been part of collective responsibility, collective agreement. That does not mean to say that in all my time in office I have not been pursuing some of the wider principles that concern me about the development of infrastructure in that regard. Indeed, in relation to the industrial strategy, talking about offshore wind, I made sure that it was included that both onshore and offshore impacts of transmission were to be considered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in considering the environmental impact that was happening. I am pleased to see that this document does, vaguely, refer to the environment, but I would like to understand from the Minister—in terms of the rules that were passed thanks to the Environment Act 2021 and, due to my time in office, the environmental principles policy statement—what assessment has been made by Ministers specifically in regard to this development of this policy.
I would also be grateful to understand which Cabinet Committee cleared the final document that we are debating today. Was it Domestic and Economic Affairs, or was it Home Affairs? I am conscious that in my time in Government I had back-and-forth with the then Energy Secretary about the national policy statements, which I accept that we are not debating today. Hon. Members may know that I do not have perfect memory any more, after an illness—I had a brain abscess six years ago—but I do not recall specifically going through that, so I would be grateful to understand which Cabinet Committee cleared the legislation to come forward.
One of the aspects of why the environmental principles policy statement matters is that it is designed to ensure that we protect and enhance our environment and protect England’s unique natural assets. The part of the country that I represent is generally as flat as a pancake, yet it is about to have multiple energy converter sheds that are about four times the size of the outer edges of Parliament Square and the Treasury. There is not just one shed; there are multiple. I cannot see in any part of this statement, apart from at a generic top level, that in some way the new ESO will be required to even consider that in any level of detail.
I should be grateful if the Minister would publish any assessment made with regard to the environmental principles policy statement for transparency, so that it can be open to consideration by my constituents and others. Indeed, I am conscious that other Members of the House, from Lincolnshire and Scotland, including one of the Energy Ministers, are concerned about the development of such infrastructure. Certainly, the precautionary principle in the environmental principles policy statement is designed so that when evidence or consideration are given, aspects can be postponed, and I believe that that requires some substance to be added.
One of the historical elements of Ofgem is that it has always been driven simply by price or value, which is a challenge at times. I appreciate that that has an impact potentially on energy bills in the future. However, there is a risk at times that people know the price of something and the value of nothing. That is what we need to be concerned about as we take forward this holistic, whole-system approach, and that is why I generally support the statement before us. For the first time, it is taking us into a situation in which we will have that sort of spatial energy plan, However, at the moment it does not feel like the ESO is taking that into account in any way, nor has it taken it into account in some of its decision making so far. It is not covered in the policy statement in terms of sections 164(1)(c) and 164(1)(d) of part 5 of the Energy Act 2023. It does not seem to consider
“the whole-system impact of a relevant activity”
nor
“the desirability of facilitating innovation in relation to the carrying out of relevant activities.”
I know that my constituents, and constituents elsewhere across the country, have been promoting for a long time the idea of an offshore grid. I have also pushed that in the past to what was Suffolk Coastal Council—it is now East Suffolk Council—and worked with right hon. and hon. Members from East Anglia in particular on that. I am also concerned that despite all that and the past work that we have done, the Government and the ESO, as it will be constituted—it is the independent element of the National Grid today—will simply plough on. I am conscious that the substation being placed in a village called Friston at the moment offers connections to Sea Link, LionLink, Nautilus and various offshore wind farms. I cannot quite remember how many; I think there are about four or five. It has just announced— except that it does not announce; it has quietly put it on its spreadsheet, but at least there is some transparency —a further two solar farms of 249.9 MW each. Once again, there is a brand-new addition, and the place has not yet even been built. That is the frustration.
Members of the Committee may just think that I am being a nimby; I am not. This has nothing to do with pylons in my constituency, but I appreciate that it does in the constituencies of other hon. Members. We already have pylons. Under the proposals so far, there is no plan to have any more pylons, although I appreciate that there may a risk of them in the future. My constituency is the home of Sizewell C, which is referred to in the policy statement regarding nuclear. That is about how important it is, and the investment that the Government are putting into it. They recognise the need for energy security and generation so that we are not reliant on the likes of Putin, so that we try to become more resistant to the energy shocks that we have experienced in the last year or two, and so that we recognise the impact that it has on consumers and the security of what we are trying to do.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned Sizewell C. A huge environmental impact study was believed to have put back the planning process. Does she have any insight into what that may do to the ability to bring nuclear reactors online in the planned timeframe?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious that the planning timeframe is one of the reasons for creating the process that we are going through. I can honestly say that EDF spent a lot of time going through it and planning ahead, and I give credit for that. I have constituents who always have and always will oppose nuclear, and more have done so recognising the impact it will have. However, I was assured by our regulators, the Environment Agency and Natural England that the mitigations put in place and the modifications along the way would be sufficient to recognise the area of outstanding natural beauty and all the designations that we have, while accepting that there might be some disruption. I am conscious that the issue is of concern. Candidly, I think there is more concern about the Sea Link project, not only in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), which, as it stands, would struggle to get any environmental clearance at all.
We have a combination of factors. I agree that we need a whole energy plan in the future, and the Government are, rightly, in order to achieve net zero, trying to accelerate this strategy. However, what worries me is that they are accelerating it without necessarily having done the work. I give credit to the Government for making this strategic change, which was absolutely necessary as we move away from gas and coal. Inland, we had a hub and spokes approach. We are now bringing in most of our energy from the coast and abroad, so we do need to work through the impacts of that. What I am concerned about is the acceleration that is being proposed in a different way. Communities want certainty. What they do not want is a botched job along the way, which is the risk of aspects of what we are being asked to endorse today.
I will turn to the policy summary of responses. I will not be brief; I apologise to hon. Members, but I have told them that this one of the most important debates I will speak in. In question 1, 60% of the people who expressed an interest said that they felt the strategy and policy statement identified the most strategic policies and outcomes for Government in formulating policy. However, in question 2 on the role of Ofgem in achieving that, only 40% agreed, and on the role of the future system operator, which is being rebranded as the National Energy System Operator, only 46% agreed.
I want to ask the Minister how the responses to the consultation have been taken into account, and what changes have been made as a result of the feedback. I am conscious that people think that consultation is just a rubber stamp, and to some extent it is. However, the Government are supposed to show that they have considered the views that people have put forward and justify why they have rejected them, which is why responding to consultations takes so long. I want to get an understanding of that.
In the summary of responses, the Government talk about the establishment of the national ESO. My understanding is that it is supposed to be established by the summer of 2024. I have been in Government long enough to know that summer can actually mean up until December. However, if it really is being established within the next three months—by the summer recess —why do we need to decide this matter now? I appreciate that it has already taken a considerable amount of time, but we should ensure that we get it right, so that we do not have to go through another consultation within the next 12 months. I think that would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test has already mentioned the timing. I think I understand; I think it is fair to say that, since the Energy Act that created this new body was only created by the Government in 2023, it is sensible that this has been done now, but it is still somewhat incomplete.
One aspect I would like to understand further is the automatic element of offering connections. In December 2023, the Government responded to the transmission acceleration action plan, which they had rightly been considering. It has been the practice that someone can just say, “I want to connect,” and National Grid or the new NESO has basically had to say yes, and has had to cobble together where that can go. That leads to a really inefficient situation. Once a connection is done, we can pretty much guarantee that almost any big shed can be built in that area without anticipating any normal planning process. I appreciate that the policy of nationally significant infrastructure projects —the NSIPs—is a democratic way of operating, but it does not feel like that when the connection is already offered several years in advance; it comes across as a fait accompli. That is really frustrating for local communities. That is true in my own constituency and right along the east coast, and I expect more Members in Lincolnshire will start to feel the same.
NESO is intended to be independent. One of the key elements here is energy security—it is a key policy that NESO, with Ofgem, has to effectively deliver. There is no indication in the policy statement of how that energy security is translated, if those bodies are supposed to be independent. I hope the Minister can reassure me that NESO and Ofgem will have sufficient knowledge of pretty secret stuff that the Government discuss in the National Security Council on the security of energy.
One of the things I know we have to be mindful of are foreign actors who regularly try to intervene in the cabling between the UK and the continent. How will NESO and Ofgem have access to that sort of knowledge?
I understand that one of the developers, LionLink, is deliberately trying to bring its cables in at Southwold or Walberswick in my constituency, because it would need to cross 13 or 14 other cables to connect further south. I am concerned that we already have on our seabeds what feels like a version of the M25 on steroids. We need to be mindful of that when we consider any further connections.
There is another aspect where this needs some revision or improvement. The Government should ultimately be in charge of the strategic spatial energy plan—the SSEP —and it should not be delegated to the NESO. It is ultimately for Ministers to make decisions. We should be mindful of trying to hold to account those officials who do things on our behalf, but I do not think it works for communities for the answer to be, “It is not my decision.” It is only not their decision because they have decided to give it away. There are challenges there. In its evidence to the Select Committee, National Grid suggested that the SSEP should ultimately be owned by the Government. It went further, in saying that it should be absorbed into national and local planning guidance in order to accelerate decisions for the transmission needed. The policy statement needs to make it very clear that, ultimately, the Secretary of State should sign off the SSEP in the future.
I am conscious that an interim SSEP is supposed to be being prepared. Could the Minister tell us where we are in that process?
This statement is, I believe, intended to help facilitate efficiency in the queue-based system. But what happens when the developer changes its mind? In the south North sea, ScottishPower Renewables set about creating part of the East Anglia array. We worked with the company locally to plan for the future, so that we did not have multiple or mass disruptions. The intention was for direct current to be transmitted and pulled in from the wind farm and to go straight through cabling to the principal energy converter at Bramford. A substantial amount of design and work was done, and there was engagement with communities, because again it involved significant disruption; to give the Committee a sense, when they lay a cable, they dig out a patch with a width about the length of this Committee room. The intention was to bring in more cables, so it would be a much bigger size and then they could pull through the cables as and when they were needed. Instead of having three different routes, we would end up with just one route, but it would be bigger. We could think of it as the M25 compared with the A12—or perhaps the A1 is a better analogy for the hon. Members here.
In the contracts for difference auction, ScottishPower did not get the price it was looking for, so it decided to say, “Oh, we’ll rip that up”—bearing in mind that it had already been through the NSIP—“and go to AC, because that is less money for us.” It still causes the big disruption, because the construction had already started; but as a consequence, the company needed to create new connections for the rest of the windfarm. That has led to us ending up with the converter station in Friston.
That is the problem. I do not understand what direction is being given to the ESO, or indeed to Ofgem, in this policy statement about what happens when, after a community has gone through all that, a change is made to the NSIP. Basically the developers can change their mind and hold the Government to ransom, because otherwise they would not have proceeded with the project at all, and we know we need to get to net zero. That is an example where co-ordinating and planning was done—years ahead of where we are today—and yet we were screwed over by ScottishPower Renewables. That is why there is a lack of trust in what is happening in the acceleration of this plan.
Turning to the document itself, I want to raise a few issues. I am conscious that Ofgem says what developers can and cannot do—there is a famous story about Chris Huhne creating a “pretty pylon” competition about a decade ago. EDF put forward the cost of using the pretty pylons rather than the ugly pylons, and I do not know exactly what happened, but Ofgem would not allow EDF to raise bills to pay for the pretty pylons, so that felt like a waste of time.
On page 11, the statement talks about the need to
“secure that all reasonable demands for electricity and gas are met;”
and I think that is the sensible part. The National Energy System Operator, as set out in the Energy Act, will be required to
“carry out its functions in the way that it considers is best calculated to promote the objective of ensuring security of gas and electricity supply”—
which is absolutely right—
“meeting our statutory decarbonisation targets and promoting coordinated, efficient and economical systems”.
That is where it starts to get tricky. There is no mention of the environment in there, or of how, if at all, NESO may be instructed to do the environmental principles policy statements.
The statement goes on to say:
“NESO will be a public corporation…independent from other commercial energy interests”—
again, that was one of the key points in the Energy Act. My constituents seem to think that BlackRock is making a lot of these decisions, solely on the basis that BlackRock is one of the key owners of National Grid, but that has always been separate. However, it also says:
“The government will be sole shareholder of NESO, and thus retain ultimate responsibility, however it will not exercise control over NESO’s operations. NESO will be licensed and regulated by Ofgem”.
That is where I have more difficulty. We do a lot of planning permission, setting out a variety of elements and other rules on how independent organisations are supposed to operate. I do not expect the Secretary of State to have to sign off the location of every single pylon, but it concerns me that at the moment I cannot see a specific role in this statement for how the Secretary of State will be involved in the strategic spatial plan. Ultimately, we need to be able to hold the policy to account in Parliament, and I am worried that that is simply not happening and that it is being pushed away.
Page 13 of the statement mentions
“a Centralised Strategic Network Plan…for electricity transmission onshore and offshore, building on ESO’s current role in delivering the Holistic Network Design”.
In the 2022 leadership contest, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) basically said that we should move to undergrounding everything—no pylons—and that is certainly one approach. The present Prime Minister, however, suggested that he would re-consult on innovative and alternative solutions to the scheme that National Grid had put forward. I am not aware that that has happened. He also committed to various groups that he would do all he could to reduce the amount of infrastructure required onshore. That has certainly not happened, nor has it taken into account section 164(1)(c) of the Act on innovation.
This is not trying to construct something from scratch; the offshore grid connection is already happening in other countries in the European Union. The statement does not take account of our wider approach to development of trying to promote brownfield development over greenfield. At the moment, the approach of the NESO is whatever is cheapest for the developer, not thinking about wider energy transmission loss that happens once DC is converted to AC.
Instead, the NESO should be thinking about taking electricity into Tilbury, Isle of Grain and even Bradwell, where existing transmission network needs to be upgraded. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to see small modular reactors there in future, but the point here is the existing brownfield sites. In my constituency, this is all greenfield development and all about taking out farming land. Some farmers have been prepared to sell, and I understand that, but others will be blocked from doing what they love and cherish on that family farm that has been passed on from generation to generation. Compulsory purchase plan orders are already being submitted and that is soul-destroying for farmers in Suffolk Coastal.
Consideration of where the connections should go seems, as I say, to be in the interests of developers, rather than those of the country as a whole, but another aspect—back on page 13—makes me wonder what consideration has been given to food security in the development of this policy. Have the whole-system impacts been thought through? Nothing has been developed so far about the offshore grid, and that is really missing. We should not be thinking just about the next five years.
I know that the acceleration is all about trying to get to 2030, and I appreciate—I say this frankly to the Opposition—that since the Conservatives came into Government in 2010, we have generated 99% of the amount of renewable energy that has been created, as opposed to what had happened previously. However, I am also conscious that as we hurtle towards that date, we are not taking into account the whole-system impact or the lifetime understanding of the value for the future.
On page 14, under the heading “Cross-cutting”, the document states:
“The purpose of this is to enable government and Ofgem to draw on the specific expertise of NESO and allow policy decisions to be based on robust evidence, with NESO’s independent consideration of whole system network impacts”.
In response to what the Minister or one of her colleagues asked for, a comparison grid was mentioned. It has been well documented that undersea cabling from wind farms in Scotland down to Lincolnshire, to Humberside, is happening. We were trying to understand collectively, as a group of MPs in East Anglia, why no consideration seems to have been given to what is happening in East Anglia. That has happened but it is odd that as part of that approach, NESO is basically saying, “Yeah, we are doing this, but it won’t make any difference.” Again, that frustrates the local community, and is more evidence to suggest that we were right all along.
I am conscious that there will not be one solution that pleases everybody. I get that, and we must have those wider considerations, but it does feel that my constituents are being shafted in this proposal. As I said, I am not being a nimby; we have Sizewell C. I am concerned that some of the short-term elements do not include a longer term cost or environmental impact, and that needs to change in this policy statement.
On page 16 and the appropriate use of competition, I would love to hear from the Minister what happens to those developers who simply pull out when it does not suit them. What are we doing to ensure that they do not pull out and ruin people’s lives? Going on to page 18, I agree with the strategic approach, for creating a more efficient system. Surely, it would be more efficient to have the energy brought into London and parts of the south-east much closer, because the energy drop-off in transmission is not efficient. We should get that connection much closer.
I have already asked a question about when the interim SSEP will be published. On page 24, I support the elements on supporting nuclear. As I said, the environmental regulators were content for that to go ahead. I am very supportive of the hydrogen strategy on page 21. I was surprised recently, however, by a change of view from National Grid and NESO about whether hydrogen can play any meaningful role, which concerns me. I am conscious of developments that need to happen as part of Freeport East, but I think that change has sent the industry rather cold. I am worried that we are cutting off hydrogen too early. I appreciate that the road map that the Minister has in her policy overall is important to try to deliver a low-carbon, hydrogen-heating neighbourhood trial by 2024 but, more broadly, I hope the Government will continue to press, to ensure that hydrogen is a part of our future.
In Section Two on page 26, I am conscious of some of the energy tariffs. Do not get me wrong: I am not seeking to inflate energy prices massively, simply because of constituents concerned about developments in Friston, Saxmundham, Southwold, Walberswick and Aldeburgh. People who visit those places know how flat and beautiful the area is, and how important to nature. I am doing this because I want a whole-system approach that would take that longer-term assessment.
I am sure the Committee will be thrilled to know that I intend to wind up. I want to ask the Minister please not to move the motion on today’s paper. Even if colleagues are just reflecting on some of the comments made today, and perhaps the incomplete response to the consultation, this matter should not be rushed. Once we have laid this, this will not happen for some time. I am conscious that there is a lot of work going on. In the short term, I would like the Minister to direct National Grid and NESO not to offer any more connections until the interim spatial strategy energy plan is granted.
That is really critical. It is important that we do not just keep ploughing on making the same mistakes that so many elements of the policy statement are due to correct. Why keep adding things, which I already think are in error, that could quickly undermine the success of the spatial strategy?
I am grateful for the patience of the Committee. This might not be a No. 1 topic in Members’ constituencies, but it is a most important one in Suffolk Coastal. I am grateful to be able to speak today and set out clearly why I believe that more needs to be done to the policy statement and with the attitude of the ESO and Ofgem so that we can go forward together and have a brilliant energy system for the future. The Department and every hon. Member here wants to see that, but we need to make sure it is done right.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Ms Rees, it is a delight to see you in the Chair and a huge pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has brought to this debate not only her extensive Government experience, but her intense knowledge of her beautiful constituency and how it will be affected by UK energy policy. While listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech, I reflected on how much better it would have been had she been appointed to the Committee instead of me; her knowledge of these things is far superior to mine.
I wonder why I am here at all—why any of us is here. It seems that what we are being asked to do today in approving the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain is a classic Whitehall example of legislating for legislation’s sake. I have a huge amount of time for my hon. Friend the Minister, who works assiduously in her Department, and for the Whip who looks after these affairs here in Parliament. But if a strategy and policy statement is such a good idea—no doubt there was an extensive debate in 2013 when the Energy Act 2013 was passed—how on earth have we managed in the last 11 years without one at all? If it was so important, why was it not introduced in 2014 or 2013? We have had to wait 11 years for this thing to come along.
Frankly, it does not matter whether we pass the statement today or not because the statement, not in my words but the Government’s own words, comprises only existing Government policy commitments and targets. What we pass today will make no difference whatever to Government energy policy.
The Energy Act 2013 said that the statement we are discussing today, 11 years later, should set out the strategic priorities of the Government in formulating energy policy, the particular outcomes to be achieved and the roles and responsibilities of persons who are involved in implementing that policy. Those are no doubt laudable aims—I get that. But in the document itself the Government say that they have already set out their strategic priorities for the energy sector in several papers over the years.
We have had the Energy White Paper 2020, “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution” 2020, the “Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener” 2021, the “British energy security strategy” 2022, the energy security plan 2023, the net zero growth plan 2023 and the transmission acceleration action plan 2023. My gosh, we have gone over this stuff again and again! We do not need another statement just to repeat it. The Government say in their own statement:
“This statement does not introduce new roles or duties for bodies in the sector, it is comprised of only existing government policy, commitments and targets. It does not replace or override Ofgem’s principal objective or other duties…Nor does it replace the National Energy System Operator’s…objectives and duties set out in the Energy Act 2023.”
It is always a joy to be appointed to a Delegated Legislation Committee, but even more so if we believe our time is being spent in a worthwhile way. Frankly, it makes no difference whether this is passed or not. The Government’s energy policy is already set in stone and we do not need another legislative document to repeat what has already come before.
Amanda Solloway
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for what have been, in all cases, heartfelt contributions. I also thank them for their scrutiny of the draft of the document. Some of the issues in hand fall outside my portfolio but within the Department. If there is anything I am unable to answer in this speech, I will respond in more detail to right hon. and hon. Members in writing.
I am confident that the strategic prices and policy outcomes in the SPS clearly establish what the Government are trying to achieve in the sector and why that is important. It demonstrates how smaller policy outcomes contribute to broader priorities, so stakeholders can be reassured about how their role fits into the bigger picture. I also hope the SPS sets out a clear description of the roles, responsibilities and remit of Government, Ofgem and particularly NESO in delivering the objectives. We have tried to provide enough information on NESO’s remit to give confidence in its role when established, while also recognising that its responsibilities will evolve over time.
As well as reaffirming our ambitions, the SPS will give encouragement to Ofgem to utilise the full range of its powers to ensure that those ambitions are realised, and that stability and confidence are restored across the sector. I am pleased that most right hon. and hon. Members welcome the SPS. I want to go into further detail in response to some of the questions posed today.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked when NESO would be operational. Our aim is for it to be operational later this year, depending on a few factors, including agreeing timelines with key parties. We continue to work closely with National Grid plc, National Gas and other stakeholders to enable efficient transition while maintaining the safety and ability of the operation of the energy systems.
In response to the hon. Member’s question on Scotland’s net zero targets, I should say that the SPS notes that Scotland and Wales have established their own net zero targets. Then, on a further point, Ofgem is established as a non-ministerial Government Department so, like other Government Departments, it is accountable to Parliament. I will write to the hon. Member if I have failed to address any other queries.
Alan Brown
I would just like a wee bit more detail on what “accountable to Parliament” really means and what that looks like overall, in terms of Ofgem and its responsibilities.
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Member will understand the parliamentary protocol around how regulatory bodies operate. Ofgem is set up as a Government body. On the scrutiny, he will know that a Select Committee, for example, would be able to talk to Ofgem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked how the SPS will focus on the switch to renewables. The SPS is clear that driving a net zero transition by achieving Government targets for renewable and low-carbon deployment is a strategic priority for Government.
I turn to the questions from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. NESO will take time to reach full maturity as a new organisation, so we have kept references to NESO at a high level in the SPS. NESO is being brought into existence and its roles are still in development, including spatial energy and regional system planning. We instead plan to reflect how best to cover NESO in its substantive role once it is established. The Government have the power to review and revise the SPS in preparation for or in connection with NESO’s designation and will therefore consider the future when it is appropriate to do so.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for our previous conversations on what I know is an important issue. The SPS does not create new policy, but reaffirms Government’s existing priorities and sets out the roles of Government, Ofgem and NESO in delivering them. It is Ofgem’s role as the independent regulator, and NESO’s role as an independent system operator and planner, to decide how to go about achieving strategic priorities contained within the SPS. Their approach should be balanced in line with their duties.
In total, we received 140 unique responses to the SPS public consultation. The document summarising the responses, which was laid in the House alongside the SPS, details how we responded to that feedback. The SPS was cleared by the Home Affairs Committee and the parliamentary business committee before it was laid in Parliament on 21 February, and it is not a national policy statement for energy. The national policy statement for energy was published on 22 November 2023 and came into force on 17 January 2024.
With regard to the strategic spatial energy plan, we believe NESO has a key role to play in strategic planning for the energy system. The expertise of an independent NESO will be invaluable in creating the SSEP, but it is important that the plan is underpinned by proper democratic accountability. It will be produced through close working between the UK Government, the ESO, NESO—once established—and Ofgem. We will set out the full and clear expectations on governance and arrangements for each stage of the process in our commission to NESO.
Ultimately, we anticipate that the SSEP will cover the whole energy system, land and sea, across Great Britain. However, producing a comprehensive, multi-vector plan that effectively meets our future energy needs will naturally take time to get right. We are therefore commissioning the ESO, ahead of becoming NESO, to produce the first iteration of the SSEP, covering infrastructure for electricity generation and storage, including relevant hydrogen assets. That will foster a more efficient electric system design, promoting anticipatory network investments to enable the reduction of the waiting times for generation and storage projects to connect to the grid.
We also recognise the importance of protecting our environment and will ensure that any decisions on scale and location of infrastructure consider possible effects on the environment. The SSEP will go through an onshore and offshore strategic environmental assessment or an equivalent assessment under the environment outcomes report system, once it is in force. We also intend the SSEP to carry out a plan-level habitats regulations assessment. Planning policy will continue to take full account of legislation to protect the environment and habitats. As I said earlier, I will write to my right hon. Friend on other points she has raised.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, given Ofgem’s new roles, legislated for in the Energy Act 2023, and the establishment of NESO, now is the right time to publish the SPS. The SPS will give further guidance to the energy sector and support strategic alignment between Government, Ofgem, NESO and industry by reaffirming our priorities and commitments. Ofgem and NESO have a statutory duty to have regard for strategic priorities set out in the SPS, which makes it different from previous Government strategies.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain.
Petition
Labour’s Clean Air Act
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2024 - (19 Mar 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before I call Gavin Newlands, who was in the middle of moving amendment 9 when the Committee adjourned this morning, I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Scottish Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Welsh Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,
(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.
Amendment 8, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Scottish Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.
(5) The Welsh Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru or any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.”
This amendment would extend the Clause 50 power to ministers of the devolved administrations.
Clause stand part.
Gavin Newlands
Thank you, Sir George. You say “in the middle”—I had barely started my remarks. [Laughter.] Thankfully, despite the rude interruption of Question Time and lunch, I have been able to add to them, including some quotes from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. I thank my Transport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Easington, for his help with that.
I was talking about working across borders, which undoubtedly makes good sense on issues like this, but as it stands clause 50 is not working across borders. It will mean government by diktat and by statutory instrument, rather than the democratic procedures that have been in place for nearly a quarter of a century.
I mentioned earlier that the UK Government have moved the goalposts on this issue. The policy scoping notes clearly state:
“Any future proposals to amend existing primary legislation will be subject to consultation with representative organisations before being laid before both Houses of Parliament (and/or the Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament, insofar as the regulations amend any act of the Senedd Cymru or the Scottish Parliament respectively).”
But the UK Government’s delegated powers memorandum states:
“The affirmative procedure will ensure that Parliament (as well as the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, where Scottish or Welsh legislation is amended) can closely scrutinise any regulations changing or clarifying how existing primary legislation applies to the user-in-charge.”
Obviously, there is no provision for scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament in the final Bill, but, as I said, the prior commitment means that it is not the SNP or rogue Scottish Government officials pushing the envelope and insisting on consultation and consent; rather, it is the UK Government reneging on their commitment to do so.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport made it clear at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee just this morning, as I have alluded to a number of times, that there are
“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future… we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”
I would welcome the Minister addressing those concerns and committing to meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at Holyrood to ensure that the broad co-operation on the rest of the Bill is continued in the wording of clause 50. When he responds, perhaps he could list the Acts that relate to transport in Scotland that might be impacted.
Amendment 9 would ensure that the term “relevant enactment” cannot apply to
“an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament”,
“an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”
or
“an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru”.
In doing so, it removes the Secretary of State’s power to unilaterally amend Scottish primary legislation in respect of automated vehicles. Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved Governments before exercising the clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation. Amendment 8 would extend the clause 50 power to Ministers of the devolved Administrations.
I will not bore the Committee by reading them out, but our amendments seek to remove this Henry VIII power entirely as it relates to Scottish or Welsh legislation, to add a requirement to seek a legislative consent motion from Holyrood or the Senedd, or to extend the same powers to the appropriate Scottish and Welsh Ministers. If this Government truly were looking to work in co-operation, they surely should not have a problem agreeing to look at this issue, but thus far they have shown no real inclination or desire to compromise on this fundamental point. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments in my name—or one of them, at least —and respect devolution and the elected Governments of Scotland and Wales and our judgment in making laws that best suit our countries.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a real delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the important role of the devolved Administrations. He referenced the role of the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed the Law Commissions from all the nations of the United Kingdom —and its important work in producing this framework for the introduction of automated vehicles. He is quite right that the principle of consent on devolved competencies applies in this legislation, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington read out the relevant reference in the explanatory notes. The Government would not normally legislate on matters of devolved competence without that consent, and for that reason I think that the three amendments tabled by hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North deserve support. We will vote with him if he chooses to go for a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
Before I come to the amendments, I want to set out some of the background of clause 50 and why we think it is significant. This is all about the user in charge, which is a new legal concept that did not exist when existing traffic laws were drafted. Those laws come in a wide variety of formats and language, from traffic regulation orders to motorway regulations. The power in clause 50 can be used to clarify what is and is not the responsibility of the user in charge in particular enactments—what the user in charge, when a vehicle is in self-driving mode, is responsible for. That is vital to support clear public understanding of the division of responsibility and to make adjustments based on experiences from real-world deployments.
Clause 50 will also allow us to respond to technological changes; as self-driving technology improves, it may become appropriate to shift greater responsibility away from the user in charge. For example, in future, vehicles may be better placed to assess their own roadworthiness than the human in the driving seat. Crucially, the clause does not provide carte blanche for the Government to alter traffic legislation generally. It can only affect the scope of the responsibility of the user in charge, and it is limited to them.
That brings me to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I want to say at the outset that I completely respect devolution and the role of the devolved Administrations, and there is nothing in this legislation that is meant to change that balance at all. As he knows, there have been quite a lot of talks at the official level. I have had an exchange of letters with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am very happy to meet and discuss a way forward—hopefully there will be one.
The Government consider the user-in-charge immunity to be a reserved matter. That is because the Bill gets it authority from the Road Traffic Act 1988, and that is expressly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. Clause 50 will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area, and the immunity will have only minor incidental impact on that legislation—it is very incidental.
More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used and what individual responsibilities there are. I am interested to know the position of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Scottish Government on that. We think that the first recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, and of the Law Commission for England and Wales, was that as the public would not be able to understand different and partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws in different parts of the country, there should be the same rules for user-in-charge immunity when crossing the border from Scotland to England, so that drivers do not unintentionally break a law as they do so.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister is making a point that is central to the Government’s argument, but we have devolution. We already have different rules in Scotland, such as on blood alcohol levels in drink-driving. The clause could perhaps lead to different tiers of parking fines or bus lane infringements between automated and regular cars, because the Scottish Government saw fit to have a different level of fine for a regularly driven car, as opposed to a user in charge. That is a fairly minor example, but there are a number where there could be differences across the UK without co-operation. It already happens.
Anthony Browne
Absolutely, and that is why there is some devolved legislation in this area, but we think it is important that, when someone is using a self-driving car in user-in-charge mode, they do not unintentionally break the law by crossing from one side of the border to the other because there are different applications of the law just within the user-in-charge mode.
Gavin Newlands
To go back to my example of the different drink-driving rules, there could be somebody in a pub just south of the border whose route home takes him across the border into Scotland. He could be within the law with 70 mg of blood in his alcohol—no, the other way around; that is another board game entirely! He could be within the law with 70 mg of alcohol in his blood south of the border but, by driving over the border, he would be driving illegally in Scotland. That inconsistency already exists, so I do not understand why the Minister wants to fix the problem in this legislation and on this specific issue. Devolution is there for a reason.
Anthony Browne
As I said, this was discussed at considerable length by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales. They thought that understanding of user-in-charge mode and immunity would be very difficult to get across to the public if the rules varied as they drove around Great Britain. The Government agree that it is good to have consistency on these rules. The interaction on devolved matters is incidental and very limited. It is only about immunity for the user-in-charge mode; it does not apply to anything else, such as the volume of alcohol in someone’s blood as they drive across the border. We think it would create confusion and that would be detrimental to all.
Ultimately, we absolutely respect devolution. We do not support the amendments, because we think they would cause confusion and detriment, but I am very happy to meet both the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—I said that on Second Reading; unfortunately, we did not manage to arrange a meeting before Committee stage—and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport so that we can work out a way forward.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I wonder if the Minister can clarify something, because it is not just on the Opposition side of the Committee that there are concerns about the use of delegated powers by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report that identified clause 50 as an example of a Henry VIII power, so is it unreasonable to seek an assurance from the Minister? I served on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee with Mr Vickers, who chaired this morning’s sitting, and we regularly sought assurances or undertakings. There is a difference. A statutory undertaking would probably be in the Bill about a particular action, but the Minister gave an assurance to my colleague the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North earlier that there would be the necessary consultations with the devolved Administrations. In what circumstances would these powers be used in the event that there was no agreement about a particular measure in relation to the user in charge?
Anthony Browne
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the reason for these powers is that there are thousands of different traffic offences, and they are all designed for cars with a human driver who is responsible. In moving to user-in-charge mode, we are making sure that the user in charge has immunity of some form, because it is the software that is in control of the car, not them. If we did not do it this way, we would have to change thousands of pieces of legislation. That simply would not be possible, and it would not be possible to go ahead with user-in-charge-mode immunity.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; it is important to clarify this. That seems absolutely reasonable, but why can he and his Department not have these discussions with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive in advance? Why does the measure have to be imposed as a Henry VIII power and then subsequently consulted on? That is not consultation, is it? I do not know what to call it. It is an—
Anthony Browne
As I said at the beginning, we think the question of the user-in-charge immunity—and this is all it is about—is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. That is our position and our legal advice— I have been through this with lawyers a few times. We respect devolution and do not want to create any changes to the balance there. The hon. Member for Easington asked why we had not talked to the Scottish Government, but we have. Officials have had lots of talks, I have had exchanges of letters, and I have already given a commitment that I am very happy to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to go through this in more detail.
Gavin Newlands
Essentially, the Minister is asking the Scottish Government and the Welsh Senedd to trust the Government. Over the last few years, the trust between this Government and the Scottish Parliament has been eroded, with multiple challenges by the UK Government to devolved legislation. I have all the respect in the world for the Minister, but is it not unfortunate that, given we are talking about respect for devolution, we could not get a meeting on the clause 50 issue before we got to Committee stage? It was supposed to be set for Thursday, but here we are on Tuesday afternoon disposing of the clause anyway. It is unfortunate that we could not get that meeting, which does not bode well for respect for devolution.
Anthony Browne
I am sorry we have not managed to get that meeting in. We will get it in the diary.
Anthony Browne
It is definitely an undertaking. I will not bore the Committee with my diary details, but take it as read that we will get that in.
I am absolutely not asking the Committee to just trust me and the Government, or whoever is in my or the Secretary of State’s position in the future, but it is clear from the clause that the power is reserved purely to the user-in-charge immunity, which is part of this Bill and, as a result, we think is a reserved matter.
As I said—I am just repeating myself—I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to look for a way forward, but we do not support the amendments as they stand.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not overly surprised by much he has said. I look forward to that meeting. I am grateful for Labour’s support on this issue. I will not press amendments 7 and 8 to a vote, but I will seek one on amendment 9.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 61, page 44, line 2, leave out from the third “of” to the end of line 4 and insert “—
(a) identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles on roads in Great Britain; and
(b) assessing the accessibility of automated vehicles authorised under section 3.”
This amendment would extend the purpose of automated vehicle inspectors to include assessment of automated vehicle accessibility.
Clauses 61 and 72 stand part.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. Amendment 15, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, seeks to make a specific obligation on inspectors to ensure that they assess the accessibility of automated vehicles when investigating incidents. Part 3, chapter 2 sets out the role of inspectors to identify, improve the understanding of and reduce the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles. Currently, clause 62 states that the incident can be
“not of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”,
suggesting that inspectors have discretion to investigate a wide range of incidents. The amendment would ensure consistency of inspectors in assessing the accessibility of a vehicle.
Gaining information on the accessibility of AVs is intrinsic to improving the understanding of and reducing the risks of harm involving AVs for disabled users and other disabled road users. We believe AVs present a fantastic opportunity for disabled people, so we must ensure that it is fully realised and grasped. Disabled people currently take 38% fewer journeys than non-disabled people.
Anthony Browne
I will mention the role of the investigators before commenting on the amendment. Clause 60 introduces the concept of investigation of incidents by statutory inspectors, which will allow for the creation of independent capability to investigate incidents involving authorised automated vehicles. The clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint at least one person to be an inspector of automated vehicle incidents. Clause 61 then states that the role of those inspectors is
“identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of”
self-driving vehicles in Great Britain.
Like the existing UK transport investigation branches for air and maritime, the inspectors will conduct safety investigations into incidents involving at least one authorised self-driving vehicle. It will not be their role to apportion blame or liability; instead, they will draw on all the available evidence to publish reports and recommendations that ultimately improve the safety of self-driving vehicles, in line with recommendation 32 of the Law Commission’s report. I stress that their role is analogous to those in other sectors such as air and maritime.
That brings me to amendment 15. I should say at the outset that we are very committed to ensuring maximum accessibility for different user groups—that is part of the reason for introducing this legislation to start with. Many of the points that need to be made are in clause 82, to which the Opposition have tabled an amendment. I will address those questions in more detail when we come on to that clause.
I recognise the importance of accessibility, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, or that this is the right place to ensure greater accessibility. While inspectors will identify the causes of incidents, which could include issues around the accessibility of the vehicle, it is not their purpose to replace vehicle safety inspections or to ensure that vehicle safety is in line with accessibility requirements. Safety investigation is a long-standing practice, both in the UK and internationally, and under no circumstances would we wish to break precedent by adding to an inspector’s role in such a way.
Grahame Morris
I seek clarification on a couple of issues in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I am not sure whether the Minister gave us this assurance in his remarks, so can he confirm whether the inspectorate will in due course become part of the road safety investigation branch that the Government committed to setting up in June 2022, when the Law Commission first looked into this, to prevent future incidents and make our roads safer?
Clearly, this is an evolving technology; this morning, the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned advanced driver assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control, lane-changing features and parking assist, which assist the driver but do not enable the vehicle to drive itself. Those features are in effect earlier versions of this evolving technology, which we believe will lead to autonomous self-driving vehicles. While those ADAS features are not automated, it is essential, in any investigation following an accident, that potential pitfalls—I can think of a number, particularly in parking—are identified at an early stage, in case it is a software or system failure that could be corrected. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the inspectorate will look at accidents involving advanced driver assistance systems, as well as self-driving vehicles, at this stage?
The Chair
Before I bring in the mover of the amendment, does the Minister wish to respond?
Anthony Browne
I will respond very quickly to a number of points. The difference between a self-driving car or automated vehicle and a vehicle that is not is specified right at the beginning of clause 1. This legislation is all about self-driving cars: it is not about all the other variants on driverless systems. As I stated, the independent inspection regime that we are setting up—we call it a capability—is just for where one self-driving, automated vehicle is involved, not for other forms. This is not the right place to legislate for a road safety inspection branch, whatever the arguments for and against that are. We say in the legislation that we call it a capability because the organisational structure is not set out in the legislation and needs to be decided in the future.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his dexterity in doing so. In terms of how the legislation will work, with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other pan-UK inspection regimes, any offences are reported to the relevant police force. If inspectors found any evidence of issues that needed reporting, would it be reported to the Procurator Fiscal if it was in Scotland? How will that operate on the ground in terms of enforcement?
Anthony Browne
As I said at the beginning, the role of the inspectors is not to assign liability, blame or whatever else; it is to find out what actually happened in detail to ensure that it does not happen again. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I do not think that that has been decided, but I will write to him.
Simon Lightwood
It is important that disability is considered at every possible opportunity. This technology has the capacity to increase the number of journeys for disabled individuals, but getting it wrong could force that to go in the opposite direction. However, I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 61 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 82
Power to grant permits
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 82, page 58, line 11, at end insert—
“(5A) A permit may only be granted if the service meets all relevant standards issued by the appropriate national authority relating to the provision of information to users in an accessible format through regulations.”
This amendment would require automated vehicles to meet relevant accessibility standards before being granted a permit to provide automated passenger services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 83 and 84 stand part.
Schedule 6.
Simon Lightwood
The amendment would require automated vehicles to meet certain standards of accessibility, specifically in respect of the provision of information to users in vehicles, before being granted a permit to provide automated passenger services. The amendment sets out that this will take place by way of regulations to require a threshold of standards for the purposes of accessibility.
How the technology covered by the Bill will develop and be used over time is a great unknown, and it is vital that accessibility exists for disabled people so that they can benefit from it too. Disabled people are mentioned only in clause 87, which lacks detail. We need clear and consistent accessibility standards for the technology so that, for instance, those with sight loss can still utilise it.
As I mentioned, we currently have a substantial gap in our transport network, with 38% fewer trips taken by disabled people compared with those without disabilities. We are clear that disability and advocacy groups must be consulted from the very beginning, and that makes an advisory council even more vital. Guide Dogs is clear that AVs can unlock independence for those with sight loss, but vehicles must be safe when it comes to interacting with pedestrians and passengers.
Grahame Morris
I want to reinforce those points to the Minister. He is a reasonable person and I am sure he gets this, given that we have raised the issues of access and the rights of people with disabilities on several occasions now.
I remind the Minister—I am sure he remembers—that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association ran a successful campaign to contact many MPs about the value of talking buses. I did an exercise in which I wore a blindfold. It is incredible—I thought I knew the route, but I struggled without that aid. There are other examples. We should not overlook the need to ensure that people with sight loss are catered for in the provisions on this new and exciting technology.
Anthony Browne
Before I address the amendment, I will set out a bit of background. The existing law on taxi, private hire and public service vehicle licensing is predicated on having a professional driver in the vehicle, which makes the application of the current licensing laws to automated passenger services complex and uncertain. Recognising this uncertainty, the Law Commissions recommended the creation of an alternative, bespoke permitting system for passenger services.
Holders of valid automated passenger service permits will, then, not be subject to existing taxi, private hire and public service vehicle law when operating within the terms of their permit. Permits will be issued by the appropriate national authorities: the Secretary of State in England and relevant Ministers in devolved Administrations. The Bill therefore provides broad flexibility over the terms of passenger permits to ensure that we can respond appropriately.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Wakefield’s amendment. The permit system already allows us to mandate that such information be provided to users in accessible formats. That power is already there and we have already committed—I know the hon. Gentleman will come to this in a moment—to having an advisory council of accessibility and disabled groups for public service vehicles and taxis. Crucially, as permit conditions can be specific to the service in question, the existing system operates in a way that is more flexible than the approach proposed in the amendment. For example, the provision for bus-like services could be very different from that for taxi-like services. We want to retain that flexibility.
The amendment is not necessary because the power is already there. We already have a consultation on an advisory board for disabled and accessibility groups. Part of the reason for the legislation is that it improves accessibility for a whole range of different user groups, and we are committed to doing that.
Simon Lightwood
It is disappointing that the Government are once again not grasping this. There are real opportunities here for disabled people, but also real risks that the technology could pose for disabled people in their interactions with the environment. To be clear, the amendment does not advocate that AVs become public service vehicles. Our aim is that they vehicles should be accessible to use if they have that use case. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 83 and 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 85
Consent requirement for services resembling taxis or private hire vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 86 and 87 stand part.
New clause 2—Accessibility information for passengers in automated vehicles—
“After section 181D of the Equality Act 2010, insert—
‘Chapter 2B
AUTOMATED VEHICLES PROVIDING AUTOMATED PASSENGER SERVICES
181E Information for passengers in automated passenger services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring providers or operators of automated passenger services to make available information about a service to persons travelling on the service.
(2) The regulations may make provision about—
(a) the descriptions of information that are to be made available;
(b) how information is to be made available.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, require a provider or operator of an automated passenger service to make available information of a prescribed description about—
(a) the name or other designation of the service;
(b) the direction of travel;
(c) stopping places;
(d) diversions;
(e) connecting local services.
(4) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) specify when information of a prescribed description is to be made available;
(b) specify how information of a prescribed description is to be made available, including requiring information to be both announced and displayed;
(c) specify standards for the provision of information, including standards based on an announcement being audible or a display being visible to a person of a prescribed description in a prescribed location;
(d) specify forms of communication that are not to be regarded as satisfying a requirement to make information available.
(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—
(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;
(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.
(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers;
(b) the Scottish Ministers.’”
This new clause mirrors existing provisions in the Equality Act 2010 relating to the provision of information in accessible formats to bus passengers, and applies them to automated passenger services.
Simon Lightwood
New clause 2, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, sets out that the accessible format of AVs being used as public transport will be set out in regulations. That would bring AVs in line with section 17 of the Bus Services Act 2017. It is similar to amendment 10 but has a wider scope. The requirement to consult with Welsh and Scottish Ministers would increase the transparency of the regulations to allow for proper scrutiny.
As I mentioned in the previous debate, we do not know what this technology is going to be used for or exactly how it is going to develop. We need to ensure that it will be accessible to disabled people no matter what the use case. Again, as I mentioned when speaking to amendment 10, disabled people are mentioned only in clause 87. That makes the Bill nowhere near clear or detailed enough.
For people with sight loss who use passenger services, both identifying and reaching a vehicle at the start of a journey and leaving it and making their way to a destination at the end of a journey can be difficult, even with a human driver to assist. It is important to reiterate that, as with amendment 10, there needs to be a clear and consistent standard for AVs when they are used as public transport, to make their location clear to passengers with sight loss when they make a pick-up—for example, with an audible signal. They should also be equipped to provide clear directions to get a passenger from a vehicle to their destination. During the journey there may be instances when a passenger needs to give further input to the automated driving system or remote operator. For instance, if a vehicle is delayed or diverted, a passenger may be asked whether they wish to continue their journey or stop at an alternative destination. The information must be presented in an accessible format that does not require the visual cues of a map or sight of the situation outside a vehicle to respond to.
As I mentioned when speaking to amendment 10, the UK currently has a 38% accessibility transport gap, which means that disabled people as defined under the Equality Act 2010 take 38% fewer trips than those without disabilities. That is linked to the point about disability groups being embedded in the process and consulted from the start, not only in respect of the statement of safety principles but throughout the Bill’s implementation and the establishment of an advisory council.
Grahame Morris
I rise to speak to clause 85 and new clause 2. My understanding of the explanatory notes in respect of clause 85 is that automated passenger services that resemble a taxi would have to obtain a relevant local taxi licence. I hope that that is correct.
Grahame Morris
I agree with that; I do not have a problem with it. However, one of the issues raised this morning, which the Minister indicated was outside the scope of the Bill but in hand, related to licensing schemes for non-road vehicles such as delivery robots. I believe they operate in the Minister’s local area, and they certainly operate in Milton Keynes. They are very popular, but we are talking about people with disabilities. As the robots are more widely deployed, there is a risk of them causing obstruction or injury if the Government do not address the issue. I know that is outside the scope of the Bill, but I want to flag it, because it is one of the issues that disability groups including the Royal National Institute of Blind People have raised with us.
There are several different scenarios in relation to new clause 2 in which autonomous vehicles can be used—from operating similarly to a taxi, which is what clause 85 is about, to operating a shared service such as a bus. In both cases, information concerning delays or diversions, when the passengers may wish to continue journeys or stop at alternative destinations, must be presented in an accessible format. On that, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who made precisely the same points.
Normally there are a number of assessments with the explanatory notes. Has there been a disability impact assessment of the Bill’s implications? Have I missed that? Is this another occasion on which the Minister might indulge the Committee with an undertaking or an assurance that the issues relating to providing information to passengers, particularly those with disabilities and sight impairment, have not been forgotten by Government? Does he agree that people with disabilities should not be disadvantaged or excluded from this exciting new technology?
Anthony Browne
I reiterate what I said earlier: accessibility is incredibly important. That is the whole point of this legislation and why it contains clause 87. We already have the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which we consult on these matters. We have agreed to set up an accessibility panel of groups for automated passenger services. We have already met some disability groups—Guide Dogs UK was consulted by the Law Commission during the development of the legislation—so groups representing disabled people have been and will continue to be heavily involved.
Our concern is to ensure that we do not create a system that is too rigid, with inappropriate requirements that do not actually work in the best interests of people with accessibility needs. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, we do not know quite how the commercial offerings will evolve, which is why we need to ensure that we are flexible. That is why the Law Commission stated explicitly that our focus at this stage should be on gathering evidence and facilitating learning.
Clause 87 requires that the accessibility needs of older and disabled passengers must be considered before a permit is issued by the permitting authorities. It also requires that specific consideration be given to whether the service is likely to improve the understanding of how to meet the needs of older and disabled users. Permit holders are then required to publish reports on the steps taken to provide accessible services. All this information will feed back into permit conditions, allowing us to set the right accessibility requirements in the right context for the benefit of learning from real-world use cases.
Gavin Newlands
I do not know the answer to this, so it is not some attempt at a “gotcha” question. In addition to any regular service running in the UK that the regulations would seek to cover, there is the CAVForth bus over the Forth road bridge between Fife and Edinburgh. Does the Minister know whether the service and the information available on board would meet the criteria under subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause? I do not expect the Minister to know the full answer at this time, but I would be interested to know what level of information we are currently giving on that pilot service. If he does not have the answer, will he write to us?
Anthony Browne
I understand that there is actually a bus captain on CAVForth—a person who can deal directly with passengers and help them. That is part of the point I was making about being flexible, as we do not know how self-driving buses or taxis will operate. Self-driving taxis would not have a human being in them, so their disability requirements would clearly be different from those for taxis with people in them. We are on a learning curve about the best way to make all automated services accessible for people, which is why we have focused on gathering evidence and requiring accessibility to be included in permitting systems, but are not trying to set in stone, in primary legislation, exactly what those accessibility requirements should be. I do not know the specific requirements of CAVForth off the top of my head, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
New clause 2 is unnecessary: pretty much all the provisions are in there and it is too rigid. We need to have a more flexible approach to ensure that the provision is optimal for disabled passengers and right for their needs in the different use cases.
Simon Lightwood
It is a great shame that the Government have, on three occasions now, failed to grasp the opportunities presented by our amendments to fully realise the potential of AV vehicles and to mitigate the risks presented to disabled people. At the appropriate time, we will wish to push new clause 2 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 86 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Provision of information about traffic regulation measures
Anthony Browne
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 93, page 67, line 17, at end insert
“for an area in England”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Anthony Browne
One of the Bill’s provisions is about the digitisation of traffic regulation orders. I will not speak to that power, other than to say that the Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to do that in England. Consultation with Ministers in the Welsh Government has confirmed that they would like similar powers. These minor amendments grant Welsh Ministers those powers. The amendments are entirely uncontroversial.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 93, page 67, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision requiring a traffic regulation authority to provide prescribed information about a relevant traffic regulation measure for an area in Wales.”.
This amendment extends the power in clause 93 to the Welsh Ministers in relation to traffic regulation measures in Wales.
Amendment 4, in clause 93, page 67, line 20, leave out
“for an area in England”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 93, page 67, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “person making them”.—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Grahame Morris
My understanding is that the clause empowers the Secretary of State to require traffic regulation authorities to digitise traffic regulation orders and notices. The Minister explained this morning why that was so important, and it is set out in the supporting documentation. It is obviously vital for automated vehicles to be able to follow traffic rules, but this measure will have much wider benefits—for sat navs, for example, and for the ability of highway authorities to manage the signage and markings essential for communicating the regulations, such as temporary lane closures, road markings and changes to existing regulations.
Could the Minister explain one aspect? We discussed it just after lunch. The provision will not extend to Scotland and Wales, so how will it work when automated vehicles drive across the border? Can he guarantee that drivers will be informed, by some method, of the most up-to-date traffic regulations, so that they do not inadvertently break the law?
Anthony Browne
The legislation gives power to the Secretary of State to require the digitisation; the exact method of digitisation will be through a digital platform that the Department for Transport is currently building. I think we would all agree with the hon. Member that it should be as widely available as possible, to bring maximum benefits to all types of road users, not just self-driving cars. I believe the Government have spoken about that before. The amendments we just agreed extend the powers to Wales. I can write to the hon. Member about the situation in Scotland.
Gavin Newlands
You have pre-empted my effort to get to my feet, Sir George. Essentially, the power is devolved to local authorities in Scotland. I have no doubt that, unlike with clause 50, there will be co-operation across and between the Governments on this issue. Hopefully, driving across the border will be seamless when it comes to data—in fact, information will probably be better when the border is crossed. Perhaps the issue is not covered because a devolved function is involved, although that does not usually stop the Government from trying. I am sure it will all work out in the end.
Anthony Browne
I have nothing to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 94 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Short title
Amendment made: 6, in clause 100, page 71, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment made in the Lords.
Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Advisory Council
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.
(2) The Advisory Council must consist of members appearing to the Secretary of State to represent—
(a) the interests of road users, including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists;
(b) the cause of road safety;
(c) the study of road safety;
(d) the cause of accessibility, and the impact of the introduction of automated vehicles on disabled people;
(e) trade unions, including Scottish and Welsh trade union representatives;
(f) the interests of relevant employees including delivery providers, those involved or likely to be involved in the manufacture of automated vehicles, emergency service workers, and public transport workers;
(g) businesses involved, or likely to be involved in, the manufacture, operation and insurance of automated vehicles;
(h) the emergency services, including Scottish and Welsh emergency services;
(i) highway authorities, including Scottish and Welsh highway authorities; and
(j) any other issues, causes or organisations as the Secretary of State sees fit.
(3) The Advisory Council must include nominated representatives of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(4) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the introduction of automated vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.
(5) The Advisory Council must report regularly to—
(a) Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament,
(c) Senedd Cymru
on the advice it has provided to the Secretary of State, and on any other related matters relevant to the roll out of automated vehicles and associated public policy.”—(Gavin Newlands.)
This new clause would require the Government to establish an advisory council, made up of specified representatives, on the implementation of this Act and on the introduction of automated vehicles.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 3—Establishment of an Advisory Council—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act, with a focus on learning lessons from any accidents involving automated vehicles.
(2) The Advisory Council must include representatives from—
(a) consumer groups;
(b) organisations representing drivers;
(c) road safety experts;
(d) relevant businesses such as automobile manufacturers, vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services;
(e) trade unions;
(f) the police and other emergency services;
(g) highway authorities;
(h) groups representing people with disabilities; and
(i) groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
(3) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the roll out of self driving vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.
(4) The Advisory Council must report regularly to Parliament on the advice it has provided, and any related matters relevant to the roll out of self driving vehicles and associated public policy.”
Gavin Newlands
Thank goodness I am prepared, because never in my wildest dreams did I think that we would get on to new clauses today. I rise to speak to new clause 1. I should say that it is my daughter’s birthday today. She said, “Daddy, all I want for my birthday is for you to get the Government to accept your new clause in Committee.” How could they refuse? This is the Minister’s last chance to do that for me. To be honest, she is 14 and has not called me daddy for about a decade; she will kill me for saying that just now. But this is the last chance. I never understand it when Ministers agree wholeheartedly with an amendment then refuse to accept it. I mean no offence to the current Minister—I have sat on God knows how many Bill Committees over the years, and I do not understand why that happens in every Bill Committee I have ever sat on.
I return to new clause 1 before you call me to order, Sir George. I pay tribute to Lord Liddle for moving a version of the new clause in the House of Lords on Report. I equally support new clause 3, which is obviously very similar and which the Labour Front Bencher will speak to in a moment. The only real difference between the two new clauses is that there is no real reference to the devolved institutions in the Labour version, but there is in ours. However, I will certainly support new clause 3 if it goes to a vote.
Our new clause seeks to maintain a broad principle, enshrining an advisory council in statute while expanding the range of organisations to be included in the council to the devolved Administrations and ensuring that Scottish and Welsh trade unions and emergency services are part of it as well.
As has been mentioned a number of times, and as I said on Second Reading, the changes that could be unleashed by the large-scale deployment of automated vehicles are immense. Entire industries and sectors stand to be completely transformed, perhaps not in the short term but certainly in the medium and long term. Logistics and haulage, personal transport, public transport, personal delivery services—the list is almost endless. Automated vehicles may well be a massively positive force for good in society, improving safety and quality of life for us all.
However, there will be a potentially difficult transition period for many in our society, and we need to take a much more proactive approach to that. Those employed in those industries are undoubtedly best placed to analyse and comment on how new technologies will impact on their jobs and their sector. They need to be involved in the process from the start, because they are involved in the sectors now. Too often in the past, innovation and scientific progress have been shorthand for workers being dumped on the scrapheap by the million, with no collective working to shape the future of their industries. That cannot be allowed to happen with automated vehicles and the changes that they will bring to our society.
If we are serious about ensuring that the benefits of automation are spread across society, that means giving workers’ representatives a real voice in the future of the technology and how best and most appropriately to deploy it over the coming years. It also means ensuring that every stakeholder is round the table, not at the whim of whichever Minister occupies the hot seat. A right should be outlined in legislation, and new clause 3 and my new clause 1 would do that.
We do not want a situation where developing technology and its regulation are subject to capture by the industry’s vested interests alone. These technologies, if fully rolled out, could completely transform the society we live in today into something virtually unrecognisable, at least in the longer term. We need voices from across the spectrum challenging the Government and policy makers —and also the industry, on the real-world implications of its innovations, not just the wonder of the technology itself.
Bill Esterson
I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North—or maybe it was his daughter who I was agreeing with; I was not entirely clear. I wish her a happy 14th birthday.
New clause 3, which I am speaking to, calls for the establishment of an advisory council. A Division on a very similar amendment in the Lords was narrowly lost. I accept the point made by the hon. Member about the benefits of the additional reference to the devolved Administrations in his new clause.
New clause 3 is largely about why this legislation matters so much and why it is so important that through it we are as successful as possible in predicting the impact of the new technology’s evolution. In doing that, it is essential that the benefits are enjoyed by all in society, not just by a few; the hon. Member made that point in passing. When I say all, I mean workers, those with disabilities and older people. We must minimise the risk of liability in the event of incidents that necessitate insurance claims, and we must ensure that safety is delivered as widely as possible. That is why an advisory council would be such a valuable addition to the legislation.
We saw for generations what happened with deindustrialisation in this country. That came at different times across the country, but very many people were affected and continue to be affected—their areas, their communities and their life chances were badly impacted. Prizes to be won through this legislation include avoiding the damage done by deindustrialisation while ensuring that all groups impacted by this exciting new technology benefit from it and that we gain the maximum and widest-possible economic benefits from it. Having an advisory council that has the breadth of experience to give the Government support on all those areas is highly desirable.
In the Lords, the Government said that such a council was not necessary. The Minister has reiterated today that consultation will be important to him, and I do not doubt that, but there are advantages to formalising the set-up of an advisory council so that particular interests do not come to the fore. We want innovation and enterprise; we want to attract the investment that ensures, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates, the creation of 342,000 jobs—I think I quoted a slightly lower figure earlier—12,250 of which will be in automotive manufacturing. We need to ensure that those jobs are delivered, that we have an upskilled workforce and that new jobs are created, not lost, through this change in industry, to replace the jobs that will go.
We need to ensure that disability groups are embedded from the start. This is an issue across the wider Transport brief. We said on Second Reading that it was regrettable that we had not seen a transport Bill to address some of these wider points. With this new clause, we have an opportunity to address some of the challenges in what is an exciting and potentially significant development over the coming years.
The stakeholders all make the point that wider statutory engagement is desirable. The TUC states that job transition is its primary concern, and that embedding the principle of creating good new jobs is really important at this stage, before we know exactly how the technology will develop. Having that principle in the Bill is very important.
Much of the detail will come out in secondary legislation, so ensuring that the trade unions have a seat at the table and a voice from the start is really important. The point about disability and accessibility is made by Guide Dogs. The point about transport more widely is made by Transport for All.
I hope that the Minister will give this point the attention it deserves in his response. He and his colleagues have noted how the technology is developing and will continue to change. I put it to him that there is no reason to limit the consultation with the trade unions or the other groups that are set out in our new clause 3, and indeed in SNP new clause 1. The Minister says he is keen to engage with the trade unions and is looking forward to an early meeting. A very good way of showing his intent would be to agree to new clause 3 this afternoon.
Nine sub-groups are listed in subsection (2) of new clause 3—consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses; vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services; trade unions; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Which of those nine sub-groups would the Minister want to leave out of consultation? If he agrees that all of them should be included, why not put it in the Bill? Why not set up an advisory council as part of primary legislation?
Anthony Browne
I am really glad that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was joking about his daughter’s birthday, because I would hate to be a source of big disappointment on her birthday. I know how important 14th birthdays are. He made an interesting point. How come, in all the Bill Committees that he has been to, people agree about what they want but disagree on the actual amendments? We want as much accessibility as possible for self-driving cars as well—we share that ambition—and we want as much safety as well, but we have our own ways that we have worked out are the best ways to get that. That is what we stick to. We make amendments when we think there is something that is genuinely better.
As a newish Member to this House, I make another observation. I have only been here while my party has been in government. It has struck me how many Opposition amendments basically tell the Government what to do. I understand that that comes from a frustration that they are not in government. That can change at elections—hopefully it will not, but that does happen. If you want to tell the Government what to do, you need to win an election.
Grahame Morris
I am trying to be helpful and would just remind the Minister that this is not a unique problem. In 2012, the then Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, paused the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill and rejected all the Labour and Opposition amendments in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, and then brought back 1,000 amendments to his own Bill, many of which were Opposition amendments recycled. I am not suggesting that we should pause this Bill, but there is always the opportunity on Report to incorporate some of the suggestions that have been made.
Anthony Browne
There is always an opportunity. Andrew Lansley is a good friend of mine, and my predecessor as MP for South Cambridgeshire.
I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North in the ambition as regards consultation. It is unbelievably important that we consult with all affected stakeholders. We talked earlier about the importance of bringing the public with us. Naturally, there are concerns and scepticism about this, and lots of people are wondering how this new, unknown and evolving technology will affect them, their safety and so on. It is therefore important that we consult as much as possible. That is why we have been consulting endlessly. The Law Commission, in three years’ work, consulted an incredibly wide group of people, including many of those from unions and disabled groups that have already been mentioned. I and the Secretary of State have also had quite a few roundtables and engagement with a wide group of people, including some disability groups and road user groups already.
I was just counting the number of different routes we have for engagement. I have a list and I am afraid I will go through it. First, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is the Government entity that is driving this agenda and the Bill, has an expert advisory panel with a wide range of experts that have been feeding into it. In the legislation, we have committed on the statement of safety principles to consult road users, road safety groups and industry. We have also agreed to have an advisory panel on accessibility as we develop the standards on accessibility for passenger services and taxi services.
We already have a statutory consultation body, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which will be involved with consultation on the matter, with a particular view to accessibility and disabled groups. In the legislation, we have the general monitoring duty, so once a year the Secretary of State will now have a legal requirement to publish a report on how the statement of safety principles has been rolled out, its impact and how it is all going. Also, just to make sure we are learning lessons, we are setting up the incident investigation capacity to learn the lessons from every incident.
I have counted at least six different ways in which we are engaging and learning lessons from this as we go forward. That is on top of all the informal consultation, and a lot of the statutory instruments that come out of this will involve consultations over the next two years. There will be many different public consultations and opportunities to put into this. Indeed, my fear is that there will be death by consultation, in that people will get fed up with the number of consultations that are part of this.
I completely understand the desire of the Opposition parties to set up, on top of that, another statutory advisory council, but given all the consultation that we have done, are doing and will do as we go through this, we do not think it adds much to the sum of knowledge that we have on the subject. Coming back to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, it is important that we share the ambition of engagement, but we think we have a lot already and the amendments do not add anything.
Gavin Newlands
Given that it is half-past 3 on the first day of the Committee, to take up some more time I will press new clause 1 to a vote. In all seriousness, we should press new clause 1 to a vote. Whether colleagues want to press new clause 3 is entirely up to them, but the issue will certainly come through on Report.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the previous debate, the Minister was saying that the Opposition should just accept that they are not here to make legislation.
Bill Esterson
I paraphrase—that was a potential interpretation of it. I would love him to clarify that this is not what he said.
Anthony Browne
To clarify, in case there was any misunderstanding of what I was saying, it is clearly the role of the Opposition to try to influence and make legislation, just as it is the Government’s. My observation was merely that a lot of Opposition amendments, and this stretches across all different debates, are basically instructions to Government of what they think Government should do, as opposed to legislation for people to control behaviours outside of Government. That is born out of frustration by the fact that they are not in government, and it is completely understandable, but there is another solution to that.
Bill Esterson
Funny he should mention that! Call the date and we will be ready, if he can persuade the Prime Minister—2 May is still available. I was quite grateful for the answer because it showed a desire to have an early general election.
Bill Esterson
Anyway, I will turn to new clause 5. In the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, there was a commitment on liability to the protection of victims and their ability to make a claim, if they are the victim of an incident with a self-driving vehicle. New clause 5 addresses the problem in the Act that, before they know whether they can prove liability, the question arises of whether they will have to prove it. If there is an incident in which somebody is hurt or killed, the question arises of whether it will automatically be accepted that an automated vehicle is designated as having been in self-driving mode. That is a potential problem if insurers insist that such proof be presented.
That point was made in 2017 by the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), on Second Reading of the 2018 Act. He referred to the potential for claims, where there is a lack of clarity on whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode, to be
“time-consuming and expensive, undermining the quick and easy access to compensation that is a cornerstone of our insurance system. Not tackling this problem risks jeopardising consumer protection and undermining the automotive industry’s competitiveness.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 73.]
I think the right hon. Gentleman made a very good point, and we share his concern that I have just reiterated, which has yet to be addressed. I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond on how potential victims will be able to make claims in a timely fashion, and overcome the risk that they will have to prove that the vehicle was in self-driving mode.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has raised a number of circumstances where that problem could arise, and I am sure that it has raised them with the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could address the issue of a pedestrian, who would normally be insured, being unaware of their legal situation, perhaps because they are too young or too badly injured. In section 2 of the 2018 Act, people injured by an AV when it is driving are allowed to make a claim against the driver’s insurance, but to benefit from that provision, injured people will need to know and prove that an automated feature was engaged when the incident occurred. That is the nub of the problem that the APIL has identified: it could be very difficult or downright impossible for someone to do that. That could lead to additional investigations, requiring complex legal claims and delaying the paying out of compensation, which undermines the whole point of section 2 of the 2018 Act.
Lord Liddle pointed out in the Lords that the Department does not appear to have made its mind up about how long it takes a driver to take back control in a UIC vehicle. There is also the whole issue around transition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington touched on in relation to one of the earlier amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and set out exactly how he sees the Government ensuring that there is certainty for potential victims, given the uncertainty that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, identified seven years ago and that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has drawn to our attention.
Anthony Browne
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, because it is obviously important to make sure that there is clear liability in this area, and it is set out in the Bill.
I will just come back to the point about the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which has been mentioned and which is the source of some of the questioning. There is a distinction between causation and fault, and in the UK people tend to claim insurance on the basis of fault, like somebody has done something wrong, and not on the basis of causation, or what actually happened.
The reason for the 2018 Act is that it was thought, quite rightly, that if somebody is in an accident with an automated vehicle, it is very difficult for them to prove whether the software and all the stuff that goes on was at fault, or that something was going wrong. Therefore, the 2018 Act created a strict liability when a vehicle is in self-driving mode. When a vehicle is not in self-driving mode and there is a human driving it, there is exactly the same liability as we have at the moment. There is no intention in any of the legislation to change that. Regarding the point that the shadow Minister makes, which was a valid one, we clearly do not want individual victims to have to try to work out whether a vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. They will claim in the normal way against the insurer of the vehicle.
If the vehicle was in self-driving mode and that was at fault, the insurer of the vehicle can claim the insurance from the authorised self-driving entity. That will be a settlement between the insurance companies; it will not affect the victim’s ability to claim. The system is designed in such a way as to make sure that the victim gets any payment due to them as quickly as possible.
That is also why we have the sharing of information, which we discussed earlier, because it is really important for the various insurance companies to know whether, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not, in order to ascertain whether the liability should be with the ASDE or with the driver. If they do not know what mode the vehicle was in, they cannot do that.
If this new clause were added to the Bill, we would have the unusual situation whereby a car with a self-driving function that might never be used is subject to strict liability insurance claims and a car that does not have a self-driving function is subject to the normal liabilities that we have at the moment. We would have the bizarre situation that a pedestrian could be better off if they were in an accident with a car with a self-driving function that is never used than if they were in an accident with a conventionally driven car. It would be very difficult to explain that sort of discrepancy and give any rational justification for it. Again, this is one of those things where we agree with the ambition, but we think that it is already covered.
Bill Esterson
Two questions follow from what the Minister says. First, how does somebody prove that a vehicle was in self-driving mode where it has the option to switch between self-driving and user in charge? Secondly, what is its definition during transition? I accept that those are difficult questions, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers. There is a related point about data access. What are his proposals to ensure that data is available from the operator and from the vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that they are not collecting personal information and that this process is purely about data that is relevant to an incident?
Anthony Browne
The point I was trying to make is that the victim—the pedestrian, or whoever it is—does not have to prove whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode or not. It will be for the insurer of the car and the insurer of the ASDE to work that out. If the car was in self-driving mode, then the ASDE would be liable, and it would claim against its insurance. If the car was not in self-driving mode, it would be the normal driver’s insurance, because there is still the legal requirement for the car to be insured like it is at the moment. The victim would not need to show what mode it was in.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the vehicle does not have to be in self-driving mode, and that a potential victim does not have to prove whether it was. I am concerned about why we have people related to the insurance industry advising that this is yet to be cleared up. A similar point came up in the House of Lords. This remains a bit of a concern.
Anthony Browne
This is a complex and technical issue. As part of my extended engagement, I mentioned earlier that I have a roundtable coming up with the insurance industry about AVs and electric vehicles. I will happily write to the shadow Minister afterwards to clarify these points in black and white, and whether there are any issues resulting from that.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention. Bill Esterson is speaking.
Bill Esterson
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Easington wishes to intervene.
Grahame Morris
I was wondering about scenarios that the Minister could seek some clarification on in his roundtable meeting next week. It is my understanding that if an uninsured driver driving a conventional vehicle was in a collision with another conventional vehicle, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would be tasked by the Government to make the payout in respect of the uninsured driver. What would happen if an uninsured driver—I am directing this question to my hon. Friend, of course—was in a collision with an automated vehicle? Is that something the Minister might be able to answer?
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because the Motor Insurers’ Bureau raised exactly that concern with me. I would love the Minister to answer it.
Anthony Browne
I am very happy to answer. This issue has indeed been raised with me and the Department, and I can confirm that the Department is in negotiations with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about exactly this point. We have a difference of opinion with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau because it thinks this requires an amendment, and that is why it has been lobbying about this legislation. We think there are ways that we can cover this point without primary legislation, so it does not actually need an amendment. It is one of those examples, as raised by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, where we agree on the outcome—we agree that we need to close this loophole—but we think we can do it in a different way, without primary legislation.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for those answers. I suggest that this might be something we can debate a little further on Report. The Minister will perhaps be in a slightly different position then, with some of the information he has had from the industry, as will I. That might be a good place to take this next. As he rightly says, we are setting the framework with this legislation. There are elements of it that are very difficult to pin down now, and we have to do the best we can. Report stage is a further opportunity.
With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Anthony Browne
On a point of order, Sir George. I thank everyone involved in the preparations for the Committee—the Clerks; the officials, who have been working incredibly hard; and you, Sir George—and I thank all the members of the Committee for spending their time here going through the Bill. It is delightful to have something on which there is consensus across the House on the broad direction of travel, if not on every single item.
Bill Esterson
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I thank you and Mr Vickers for chairing our sessions. I think this Committee is possibly unique in the history of Parliament in that the Chairs, between them, have possibly spoken for longer than Members in moving through the agenda—in a thoroughly appropriate way, I hasten to add. It is a pleasure to have my predecessor in the Chair for a Committee such as this; I took about half of my constituency from you in 2010, Sir George.
I add my thanks to the Clerks, the officials and the Law Commission for their work and for getting us to this stage. We have set the framework for an important future piece of legislation. Birthday wishes to the 14-year-old daughter of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, too. I thank all Members for their contributions today and on Second Reading, and I look forward to Report.
Gavin Newlands
Further to that point of order, Sir George. On behalf of my daughter and me, I thank all members of the Committee and the Minister. I look forward to engaging with him further on clause 50 as we move through this process—that is my hope, anyway. I thank all hon. Members; Mr Vickers and you, Sir George, for your chairship; the Clerks for their assistance in drafting amendments; Hansard, and the Doorkeepers. I also thank the hon. Member for Easington for allowing me to move a section of my speech on clause 50 beyond the 11.25 am barrier this morning. With that consensus and positivity, which is unusual in these quarters of the House, I will conclude.
The Chair
I conclude by thanking the Clerks, Hansard and everybody concerned. I thank members of the Committee, who, in my brief time in the Chair, have been good-humoured and orderly.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Automated Vehicles Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2024 - (19 Mar 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. I remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 19 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 April;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 April;
2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 37; Schedule 1; Clauses 38 to 45; Schedule 2; Clauses 46 to 54; Schedule 3; Clauses 55 to 66; Schedule 4; Clauses 67 to 81; Schedule 5; Clauses 82 to 84; Schedule 6; Clauses 85 to 100; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 18 April. —(Anthony Browne.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Anthony Browne.)
The Chair
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that the decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Basic concepts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “an acceptably safe standard” and insert—
“a high standard of safety”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “an acceptably” and insert “a very”.
This amendment is intended to probe the meaning of “acceptably” with regards to the risk of automated vehicles committing traffic infractions.
Clause stand part.
Bill Esterson
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, for our consideration of this Bill, which I think it is fair to say has broad, cross-party parliamentary support. It will be encouraging over the next however many hours we are in Committee to look at the potential to strengthen it.
There is huge potential for the economy in the safe transition to automated vehicles, but it is important that we recognise that this remains a largely undeveloped technology and we are trying to predict what will happen in the future. In our deliberations, it will be important that we try to set the strongest possible framework for what is likely to be needed. The detailed work of the Law Commission gives us a good start, and what we have been presented with from the Lords improves on that work.
Amendments 19 and 20 in my name relate to the critical area of safety: they seek to set in primary legislation the strongest possible safety standards. They would amend the standard of safety from “acceptably safe” to “high”, and amend the definition of “legally” to refer to “very low risk” rather than “acceptably low risk”. That is important because we are trying to anticipate what might happen and to minimise the risks and potential problems.
When similar amendments were debated in the Lords, the Government’s response was that such
“phrases…are open to…interpretation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 63.]
It occurs to me to ask: if things are open to interpretation, who is going to decide? Invariably, that will mean going to the courts. We are trying to minimise the potential for that to happen.
The Government were quite happy to accept the amendment to the phrase “careful and competent driver” —we very much welcome that, which will reduce the number of things that are open to interpretation—so I wonder why they were not prepared in the Lords to accept amendments similar to these. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his response.
“Careful and competent” itself was only established in case law; it is not in statute. That is being left to the courts as well, and is open to further interpretation. We will return to that point with later amendments, because we are trying to minimise the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. This is a good example of where an advisory council, which was the subject of much debate in the Lords, could make recommendations to address the uncertainties that exist in legislating for the unknown, in the way that we are invariably having to do with primary legislation for technology that is yet to be developed.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on these points. The amendments attempt to reduce the risks of leaving things open to interpretation. We want the highest possible standards set out as early as possible to enable this technology to be developed as safely as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to start with some good news. The SNP and Scottish Government are generally supportive of the Bill and I will not seek to detain the Committee over the course of however many days we debate it with superfluous speeches, reading out explanatory notes and so on, until we get to clause 50, which I will get my teeth into—I am sure the Minister will be aware of that. However, I reserve the right to intervene in support of any of Labour’s amendments, which I am doing now, or indeed when I think the Minister is talking cobblers, which hopefully he will not be doing.
That is the good news. With that, I very much look forward to the Minister’s answer about what actually is acceptably safe.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I rise to ask a short question to the Minister and to support my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central.
I have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made, there is broad, cross-party support for the concept, but the widely held assumption that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers is not a given.
Having looked at the whole issue in some detail, the Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I recommend to members of this Committee. It was published on 15 September last year, and one of its conclusions is:
“Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self-driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks”—
for example, changing weather conditions. It continued:
“Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity. Given this, we question the Government’s proposed ambition that self-driving vehicles must be as safe as a competent and careful human driver.”
The Committee felt that that was
“too weak and too vague”
and called on the Government to
“set a clearer, more stretching threshold.”
I will come back to this in my contribution on clause stand part, but I just wanted to put that to the Minister and to reinforce the points made by the Opposition Front Benchers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, for his comments at the beginning. I agree that there has been a large amount of cross-party support for the Bill, as was shown on Second Reading, and I appreciate the work done in the House of Lords to strengthen it. When we come to the clauses on which there is agreement, I will try to move as rapidly as possible so that we can spend more time on the clauses to which amendments are proposed.
The shadow Minister set out that the Bill is quite unusual because we are legislating for an industry that does not exist. Things are moving rapidly, but fully self-driving cars may be decades away, as the hon. Member for Easington said. However, we need to prepare for that now and try to think of all the different future scenarios.
Before coming to the amendments, I want to put something on the record about clause 1, because it is fundamental in setting out the concepts underpinning the Bill. It defines what it means for a vehicle to travel autonomously—in other words, without human-controlled monitoring with a view to safety-critical interventions. It establishes that that can be achieved through a vehicle having one or more self-driving features, and that those features can be specific to locations and circumstances. For example, it may have a motorway chauffeur feature that can drive the vehicle only on dual carriageways, or an urban delivery feature that operates in a specific geographic area.
More significantly, the clause introduces the self-driving test—the principle that there is a threshold of safe and legal operation above which the vehicle can be considered legally self-driving. That will be set out in more detail in the statement of safety principles introduced by clause 2, which we will come to shortly. We all share the ambition that automated vehicles should be as safe as possible; that is why in the Lords we inserted the statement that they should be as safe as a “careful and competent” human driver.
Before I deal with the amendments, I want to refer to the points that the hon. Member for Easington made. As I am sure he knows, I have read the Select Committee’s report, which is very good and insightful. Eighty-eight per cent of collisions—we are not meant to say “accidents” —involve some form of human error, whether people are speeding, not paying attention, distracted by the kids in the back, looking at their phone, angry or drunk. Self-driving vehicles do not do that. A careful and competent driver will have a far lower rate of accidents than an average human driver.
Grahame Morris
I am familiar with the statistics, and the Minister is absolutely correct, but I think we have to stretch our minds and think of scenarios that a competent human driver can reasonably anticipate. An example would be anticipating the movements of a blind or partially sighted person. We know that a blind person, because it is part of their training, tends to stick to the kerbs and corners. I am not convinced as yet that autonomous vehicles have the algorithms or knowledge to differentiate, so we have to set the bar—the standard—as high as possible.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. I think he is right to say that autonomous vehicles at the moment probably cannot distinguish between blind or partially sighted pedestrians and ones who are not, but what we are setting out in the Bill is the statement of safety principles in the abstract, with the ambition that automated vehicles are as safe as a careful and competent driver. What that means will be set out as a result of detailed consultation with—as we now set out in the Bill—road users, road safety groups and the industry. Concerns about whether a self-driving vehicle can interpret whether a pedestrian is blind or not would come in at that level of detail, rather than in the ambition that we have here.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Bill is not trying to solve all the challenges or deal with all the problems that we know come with autonomous vehicles or artificial intelligence, but is trying to create a framework within which those problems can be tackled effectively and safely?
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend is spot on; that is the entire point. We are creating a framework with a lot of flexibility in it because, as various Members have noted, this is moving technology. If we look back in 20 years’ time to where we are now, we will say, “Oh, that was very basic.” Things will change: technology will change; our understanding of the technology will change; and our understanding of how humans interact with the technology will change. That is why it is really important, as my hon. Friend said, that we keep the legislation flexible so that we can advance it.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether it would be better to start with a stricter level of safety and then, as we get used to the technology and understand its limitations, perhaps look to reduce it to the levels that are proposed.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The Law Commission, whose work feeds into all this, recommended three standards of safety, and we have chosen the highest. There is a risk that, if we set the bar far too high, it will be impossible for the industry to develop in the first place. There is a balance that needs to be struck.
Robin Millar
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being generous with his time. Does he agree that it is easy to ban stuff, and that an over-regulatory approach is anathema to the development of the kinds of solutions that we are hoping will address these issues in due course?
Anthony Browne
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very easy for Governments to ban things, but we need to nurture the industry so that it grows, because there are huge opportunities to reduce road fatalities and injuries overall, and to improve road safety overall, if we get this right. Indeed, that is the overriding reason why we are interested in this area: it is not about making it more convenient for different groups of people, or whatever; it is about improving road safety. There are arguments about accessibility and about economic growth, but it is road safety that is really important. If we get it wrong by banning the technology or making it too difficult, we will miss opportunities to improve road safety.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister also agree that, if we were to ban the technology, with the direction that it is going globally, other countries would lead the way? We would miss out on the opportunity to have more jobs, more innovation and more finance coming to this country because we would have allowed other countries to progress with the technology while we were stifling it.
Anthony Browne
Absolutely. Clearly, this is an industry that is developing globally, and we want to be part of that. I think that we all recognise that there are huge economic opportunities here, as well as opportunities for improving road safety. There is a risk that, if we set the standard far too high right at the beginning, the industry will not be able to develop and we will lose out to countries that are more flexible in their approach.
Anthony Browne
I will, although I am conscious that I need to make headway at some point.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful. That is quite an important point about regulation and not banning things, but can we just be cognisant of what has happened recently where we have taken a more laissez-faire attitude, such as in relation to pedicabs or the electric cycles that are littering the pavements?
Grahame Morris
Nobody wants to ban them completely, but if we had taken a harder line at the outset on the framework in which they operate, many of those problems could have been avoided. That is all that we on the Opposition Benches are saying.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I appreciate the support that there is in the Committee for the regulation of pedicabs. The problem with pedicabs was that there was no regulation; it was a free-for-all, basically. That is indeed why we are legislating here to create a regulatory framework. It is really quite detailed legislation that builds on at least three years’ work by the Law Commission of England and Wales and by the Scottish Law Commission. I absolutely agree that we need regulation, but it is a question of getting the balance exactly right.
Bill Esterson
We have had an unexpectedly wide debate on the first group of amendments. I welcome the contributions by hon. Members. I am sure that all our debates will be similarly robust.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for explaining what we are trying to do. Red herrings were being put forward: no one is trying to ban automated vehicles by saying that we should have the highest possible safety standards. I hope that Government Members might reconsider the way in which they framed their interventions.
Bill Esterson
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberconwy will agree with me that we want the highest possible safety standards.
Robin Millar
I am happy to clarify my remarks. The reference to banning stuff is actually a euphemism for an over-regulatory approach.
Bill Esterson
I am going to look up the word “ban” a bit later and see whether “euphemism” appears next to it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government rightly accepted the phrase “careful and competent” in the Bill in the Lords. It is about putting a clear statement of intent in the regulations on the importance of safety in a so-far undeveloped technology. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the current concerns about where technology has reached were well made. What we want to do is remove the fear, risk and elements of concern.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, absolutely, we want to make the most of this technology for economic purposes. The figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders demonstrate that there will be something like 300,000 jobs between now and 2040, and £66 billion added to GDP. We very much want to make the most of those opportunities.
I suggest that having strong safety principles and the safest industry in the world is one of the ways in which we achieve exactly that goal. Having credibility, and the reputation for developing technology that is usable anywhere and is very safe, will be part of delivering the economic benefits. The expression, “careful and competent”, is not defined in statute; it is subject only to case law. The phrases “very low risk” and “a high standard of safety” are not defined. I completely accept those points. What is important is that we set out the intention in this legislation for the courts, which may well have to adjudicate at some point. That is why these amendments were important. I have listened to what the Minister said, and at this stage I do not feel that there is merit in pushing the amendments to a vote. However, I hope that he and other Members will take on board the fact that we are trying to set out our intention with as strong an opposition as possible in this framework legislation—yes, for secondary legislation, whenever that comes, but also for the courts, if they have to adjudicate. I will happily not press the two amendments in this group.
Grahame Morris
Forgive me, Mr Vickers—are we having the clause stand part debate now? May I contribute to that?
Grahame Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I had the great pleasure of your company on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee.
There are a couple of key issues in the Bill, and safety is one of them. Of course, the other major element is insurance liability. I think it is reasonable to discuss that and consider the implications. I do not want to regurgitate the explanatory notes, but clause 1 would establish a self-driving test and make provision for the Government to classify a vehicle with features that meet the test as an autonomous vehicle. The clause states that a vehicle would satisfy the self-driving test if it has at least one feature that would
“allow it to travel autonomously”.
The Minister described some of those features: motorway driving and parking features, and others.
Importantly, to travel autonomously, a vehicle would be required to do so “safely”—
“to an acceptably safe standard”—
and “legally”—
“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”
The Minister referred to the Law Commissions for England and for Scotland, explained how the definition was arrived at, and cited the 75 recommendations and so on. However, the Opposition and many organisations believe that we must hold autonomous vehicles to the highest level of safety standards because it is important to gain the confidence of the public so that they can feel comfortable interacting with them.
I thank the Transport Committee Clerks and organisers who arranged for a number of Committee members to have a ride in an autonomous vehicle with Wayve yesterday. I have been fortunate to do that on a couple of occasions with the Transport Committee, and there are obvious signs of improvement. However, it is a confidence issue—for safety reasons, there was a driver there who could intervene, and we only did a little circuit from Whitehall over Westminster bridge past St Thomas’s and Lambeth Palace, and back past Parliament Square. Even though there was no intervention from the safety driver, there is the issue of how someone would feel if there was no driver present. It is psychological— one must have the confidence to do that.
I was in an autonomous bus quite recently with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is a confidence issue. One cannot underestimate the public’s willingness to engage with this technology if that confidence is not there. Part of the argument we are making with amendments 19 and 20 is to try to ensure that we have the highest possible level of public confidence and trust.
As I mentioned earlier, the Transport Committee’s findings were published in its report on self-driving vehicles on 15 September. The Committee expressed concern about the assumption that self-driving vehicles will automatically be safer than human drivers. We said that that is not a given. Rigorous safety measures must be an overriding priority for self-driving vehicles as they are faced with the complexities and unpredictable nature of real-world driving.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the definitions of “safety” and “legally” in clause 1(7)(a) and (b), which I have just mentioned. They define “safety” as only
“to an acceptably safe standard”,
while “legally” means
“with an acceptably low risk of committing a traffic infraction.”
The Opposition and many organisations do not believe that those provide adequate protections for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and they are unlikely to achieve the improvement in road safety that the introduction of AV technology could deliver. I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central and Labour spokespeople, which propose to
“leave out ‘an acceptably safe standard’ and insert ‘a high standard of safety’”,
as well as
“leave out ‘an acceptably’ and insert ‘a very’”,
when referring to the low level of a traffic infraction. I would like to add that that is a position supported by Cycling UK, as stated in the written evidence submitted to the Committee.
While we accept that self-driving vehicles could potentially reduce casualties—we learned yesterday and in previous examples that the traffic management systems do not allow those vehicles to speed, so there would be less speeding than with human drivers—there are others factors to consider. During the Transport Committee inquiry which led to the “Self-driving vehicles” report, Becky Guy from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents told us that, while many collisions involve human error, there were often other contributory factors. That was a view shared by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which said that accidents attributable to humans are often caused by poor road and vehicle design and difficult driving conditions, such as rapidly changing weather conditions. Therefore, we cannot rely on the omittance of human error to improve the safety of our roads. We must hold AVs to a high standard of safety with a very low risk of committing a traffic infraction by supporting amendments 19 and 20. Without those amendments, there is a risk that the safety standards for AVs will not be strong enough.
Anthony Browne
As I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, when he was making the case for the amendments, there is not a sufficient appreciation of the word, “acceptable”. I know that in English it can sound a bit vague, but it means what is acceptable for the public and Parliament as expressed through the statement of safety principles. I completely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Easington that we need to bring the public with us and it is about confidence—absolutely.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Would it be helpful to set out how we have already embraced elements of self-driving in transport? For example, I doubt there will be a driver in this place who does not rely on anti-lock braking systems when using their car. Self-parking is now quite common and autopilot is used when we are flying across the skies. Driverless trains are in operation, as are Starship robots. There are already elements of self-driving provisions on our roads that we have come to accept. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps set out how the sensory equipment in those vehicles—the lidar, the radar and the sonar—is so much more powerful than the human eye and other aspects of human sensory facilities. In addition, perhaps he could set out that human error is often the cause of accidents in this country.
Anthony Browne
I agree that technologies are evolving all over the place in lots of different modes of transport, and we are at the beginning of a revolution. I think that self-driving cars are probably a different order of magnitude.
Anthony Browne
Yes, as the hon. Member for Easington said, that is slightly different, but the technologies are related. Self-driving cars are of a different order of consideration because there is literally no human there and the cars may travel at speed, so we absolutely have to ensure that they are as safe as possible.
Bill Esterson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Statement of safety principles
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert
“and, if so, the locations, types of location or circumstances in which those criteria are met.
(1A) The principles must set out how the Secretary of State will assess the potential safety impacts on different types of road user when assessing the locations, types of location or circumstances in which a vehicle is capable of travelling autonomously and safely, having particular regard to the safety of those road users who might be most at risk.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, after “safety” insert
“and the safety of pedestrians”.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “better” and insert
“significantly better for all road users”.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of “careful and competent human drivers”.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.
Bill Esterson
We now come to the statement of safety principles. We have tabled three amendments in this group to strengthen the support that we anticipate will be beneficial when secondary legislation is introduced, and to give confidence not just to the courts, but to consumers and investors so that they can make the most of the economic opportunity. This is a similar point to the one we made in the debate on clause 1.
The Government described similar amendments tabled in the Lords as “ambiguous”—they said that the amendments to clause 1 were open to interpretation. I simply make the point that they were content to accept the change to “careful and competent” despite the fact that that is not set out in statute, so why strengthen safety in that way but not in this one?
These amendments have the backing of Cycling UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and for similar reasons. Cycling UK says that we need
“a step-change in road safety”,
not just a marginal improvement. It continues:
“a slight improvement in overall road safety could actually mask a worsening in safety for pedestrians, cycle users and other non-motorised road users, providing this is offset…by an improvement in safety for motor vehicle occupants. We do not believe this is acceptable.”
I agree that there has to be an improvement for all road users. A similar point applies to all four amendments in this group.
We need the definition to avoid reliance on the ambiguity to which the Government themselves refer. We are trying to strengthen the definition with these amendments. Amendment 18, which requires the publication of a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” to address exactly that concern about the lack of precedent and the reliance on case law, has the support not just of the groups that I have mentioned but of the Road Safety Foundation and the SMMT, the industry body.
“Careful and competent” was first used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it was not defined. Currently, it can be judged only against case law, so at this stage we want to tighten up these areas, not because we want to make things more difficult, but because we are trying to anticipate as far as possible what is to come, and we want to create the strongest possible framework as we finalise the primary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters, and I commend the four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.
Grahame Morris
I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. As the Minister alluded to in a previous debate, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement of safety principles before Parliament, having consulted the relevant autonomous vehicle manufacturers, road users and safety groups first.
I recognise that the principles will be developed following the passage of the Bill, as the Minister said, but it is apparent that clear direction is needed for those principles in the primary legislation. It is also important that the safety principles are subject to frequent review—I think the Minister said that will happen—and consultation as the technology and roll-out of AVs is expanded over the coming years. The statement of safety principles must be clear, rigorous and informed by the needs of all road users and pedestrians, especially disabled people.
Gavin Newlands
I thank my friend from the Transport Committee for giving way. On that point, was he as concerned as I was in the debate on the previous clause when the Minister said that we do not want to make the safety regulations over-onerous at the outset of the industry in case we allow it to take off elsewhere rather than the UK? That is a bit of a warning sign for me.
Grahame Morris
I am inclined to agree, and I think it is a bit of a red herring as well. Language is important. I know the Minister said that “acceptable” has a legal meaning according to the Law Commission, but the point I was trying to make in the previous debate is that this is all about public confidence and perception, and what is acceptable to you, Mr Vickers, may not be acceptable to someone else.
We have to ensure that standards are as high as possible. It is certainly not anyone’s intention on the Opposition side to put off investment or scare it away; the potential is enormous. What we are trying to do is ensure that the legislative framework is not so prescriptive that it has a negative effect, but that it sets a standard that can be emulated by the rest of the world. I know we will come back to standards, European comparators and so on, so I will press on.
Clause (2)(2)(a) establishes a safety ambition that self-driving vehicles should be expected to
“achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers”.
We heard that in the debate on clause 1. In my view, that safety ambition lacks clarity, and I ask that we clarify the meaning of a careful and competent driver in the Bill. “Careful and competent” is difficult to adjudicate, and the comparison should be made with a driver who is supported by existing assisted systems, fitted as standard to new vehicles. The assessment of automated vehicle safety must take into consideration all road users and how they will interact when engaging with AVs, especially if they operate in ways that would be considered unconventional when compared with a human driver.
I do not know whether you have been following some of the international events, Mr Vickers, such as the AV trials in Australia. The computer programming and the autonomous control systems are programmed to anticipate various scenarios, including how a pedestrian or another road user, such as a cyclist, will react. What defeated the trial in Australia was the unpredictable nature of kangaroos crossing the highway, because they do not cross in a straight line, but zig-zag and bounce about, which caused all manner of problems with the response of the AVs. We have to anticipate scenarios such as that and set the standards and framework accordingly.
The safety ambition needs to take into consideration both incident frequency and incident severity when assessing safety performance. There needs to be a clearly defined capability and operational constraint for systems, to ensure that users understand their roles and responsibilities when using or owning an automated vehicle. That is especially important in evolving technologies where there are transitions between the automated driving systems and the user in charge—the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned driver assistance systems—but also as new technologies develop and users are increasingly removed from the driving task.
We must also consider disabled people. Autonomous vehicle systems must be developed with an understanding of pedestrians with sight loss and their needs, which may differ from those of sighted people. As I mentioned earlier, people with sight loss will move around the built environment differently and use building lines, kerbs and tactile pavements for navigation. The increasing number of non-standard road layouts could present challenges to automated vehicles in inaccessible environments such as shared spaces and roadway. Floating bus stops, for example, may cause all sorts of problems, being away from the pavement across a cycle lane.
The movement of pedestrians with sight loss may prove especially difficult for autonomous vehicles to predict. That is why I, like various groups representing people with disabilities, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, believe that the consultation process on the safety principles must be strengthened. As this is a recent technology that could develop in different ways, it is sensible to review the principles in the medium term to determine their effectiveness. I think the Minister has indicated that he is going to do that.
Amendment 21 stipulates that the principles must set out the assessment of the safety impact of AVs on different types of road users in different types of locations where the vehicle is travelling, which would be a reasoned improvement to the Bill. I am disappointed that Lords amendment 28, which was tabled by the noble Lord Liddle and would have created an advisory council, was defeated by the Government. It is disappointing that the Government did not accept that amendment as the Government proposals in amendment 5 really do not go far enough, even though they do ensure some level of consultation. I will leave it at that.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Members for Sefton Central and for Easington for their contributions.
Clause 2 does indeed relate to the statement of safety principles. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Easington was suggesting that we include in primary legislation a requirement for kangaroo-detection technologies in cars. I have not been to Easington recently, so I do not know how many kangaroos they have there. I jest; the hon. Gentleman made a lot of very sensible points, although they are not for this stage of the process but for the statement of safety principles. The level of detail he was talking about will come at that stage. As I have said before, and as is in the legislation, we will consult with road user groups and road safety groups. We have already done so, and we committed to them to carry on that process.
I want to make it clear that we think the amendments are unnecessary because they are, in effect, already in the legislation. We share the ambition completely: autonomous vehicles should obviously be safer for all road users, and particularly for vulnerable road users, including partially sighted pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and so on. However, that is actually already clear in the legislation. As with the highway code, references to road safety already legally apply to all road users, including the groups that I mentioned. The Government have already committed in the policy scoping notes that the statement of safety principles should be fair and equal and apply to all road users so that some are not advantaged at the expense of others. We have already committed to that.
Bill Esterson
I welcome the support for and analysis of the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I wondered whether we were missing something about kangaroos in Easington.
Bill Esterson
I am glad he has now clarified that. He is right that we have to anticipate perhaps not kangaroos but—
Bill Esterson
He is giving me other examples from a sedentary position. He is right to raise the concern.
The Minister said that the points are accepted by the Government, which I welcome, but if they are accepted, why are they not in the Bill? However, he has said that in Committee, so that will have to be sufficient for now.
I will come back to what he said about the definition of “careful and competent”. Given that we have case law and that the definition was first used in 1988 in the Road Traffic Act, as he says, I would think it possible to have a definition now against which future secondary legislation and decision making in the event of road traffic incidents could be judged. I do not understand why he has not made that clearer. As a result, I will not press amendments 21, 11 or 22 to a vote, but will test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The statement must include the Government’s intended definition of ‘careful and competent human drivers’.”—(Bill Esterson.)
This amendment would require the Government to publish a definition of “careful and competent human drivers” as part of the statement of safety principles.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must” insert “—
(a) hold a public consultation on a draft statement;
(b) ”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out from “consult” to end of line 22 and insert
“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”
This amendment is designed to probe the consultation provisions.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(9A) The statement must be reviewed and subject to the same consultation as outlined in subsection (3)—
(a) after being in force for five years;
(b) every five years thereafter.”
Clause stand part.
Bill Esterson
With this series of amendments we are keen to probe the consultation on the development of the statement of safety principles. It is a very important part of the legislation and I am pleased that the Government accepted the principle of publishing the statement of safety principles at the outset. However, the technology will continue to evolve, so it seems clear that the statement of safety principles should be subject to review and public consultation at a decent interval. Our amendments are designed to ensure that there is a sensible, five-year timeframe for each of the reviews by Parliament and that the work is carried on in the public domain. The Government have said that that will happen informally, but we believe it important to have it confirmed in the legislation so that there is a guarantee.
The Government say they anticipate consulting a wider group than those they have previously mentioned. They said publicly in the House of Lords that that group will include members of the public, academia, trade unions and other representative bodies. We would like commitments on all those points, to which we will return with some of our other amendments. The Minister in the Lords said that
“it remains the case that this is a particularly uncertain policy area with a rapidly developing industry”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 81.]
Does that not highlight the need for ongoing consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and an ongoing review of the statement of safety principles? Putting that on the face of the Bill is the way to guarantee that it happens.
Grahame Morris
I rise to speak in support of the amendment. May I ask questions of the Minister, and back up the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, my colleague on the Opposition Front Bench? We are talking about safety principles. In an earlier debate he mentioned the advisory committee. I know we are not debating them yet, but I have been looking at some of the new clauses. It has been suggested that on the advisory council there are: representatives from consumer groups; organisations representing drivers; road safety experts; relevant businesses, such as automobile manufacturers; vehicle insurance providers, because that is a key issue; providers of delivery and public transport services; the trade unions, because it is possible that many individuals will be displaced or that there are issues around deployment; the police and other emergency services; highway authorities, because there is the issue of the digitalisation of the data for autonomous vehicles; groups representing people with disabilities; and groups representing other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians.
If the safety principles are to operate, it is important that we get this right. The Minister has said that it is a moveable feast, and that the Government will set the ambition but the standards would be amended—presumably improved—as time goes on. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but when the Transport Committee was looking at that aspect of the proposals we received evidence from a number of witnesses, including the motor manufacturers.
David Wong from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had concerns, when looking at safety principles, about the definition of “competent and careful”. Many organisations are not confident that that is precise enough. David Wong stressed that his organisation agreed with the terms and the ambition. Professor Siddartha Khastgir from the University of Warwick said it would be difficult to translate the
“abstract concept into something that can be implemented by engineering”.
A number of the witnesses that the Committee heard thought that the Government’s ambition was too lax, and that a more stretching target should be set. That is quite interesting. We were talking about perception, and Ed Houghton from DG Cities told the Committee that when researching public attitudes to self-driving vehicles, he asked participants, “How much safer does it need to be for you to want to use autonomous vehicles over the long term?” People said that it needed to be twice as safe, or 10 times as safe, for them to use it. That is the level of expectation that consumers have, and we should recognise it. It has to be the best that it can be before they will be able to trust it and buy into it.
Safety has to be at the heart of the Bill if the public are to trust the technology and enable the UK to become a world leader in AV technology.
Anthony Browne
Clause 2 relates to the statement of safety principles, which we have previously discussed. I will not go over that again, other than to reiterate that a lot of the issues that are being discussed now and in the various roundtables that we have had with road safety groups and so on are valid issues, but they are issues that need to be addressed as we get into the detail of the statement of safety principles.
On amendments 12 and 13 about consultation, we have already committed to consulting with road users, road safety groups, and businesses in the industry. The statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation. We fully expect that the wide-ranging views of the public, businesses, academia and other representative bodies will be able to feed into that consultation.
Grahame Morris
Can the Minister give some clarification on the composition of the advisory committee, or is that still a matter that the Government are considering?
Anthony Browne
We have committed within the legislation to consult with road users, road safety groups and businesses in the industry—and others will be able to feed in. We did not want to be more specific about exactly which groups, because they change over time; they merge, they close down, and new ones open up. We did not want to bind our hands and say that it must be exactly those groups, but they are broad, representative groups.
We are in full agreement that we have to take the public with us. It would be wrong for the Government to proceed in a way that did not bring road safety groups with us. The ambition here is to make roads safer. It is in the Bill that AV should be safer than the average human driver and will improve road safety. That is the whole point of the legislation.
Robin Millar
The Minister makes a good point about the importance of talking to members of the public, but of course one of the main drivers—if the Committee will forgive the pun—for change and the introduction of autonomous vehicles is industry, and the use of vehicles in very specific spaces, such as quarries, farms and such. A lot of effort is going into developing the intelligence and the decision-making capability of machines in that space. Has the Minister also consulted with the bodies that might represent drivers affected by such vehicles, such as trade unions?
Anthony Browne
I am very happy to discuss this with trade unions; I have not done so yet. I agree that it is important for all those affected to input into the process. That is primarily road users, as they are the ones most directly affected.
Grahame Morris
Could the Minister give a little more clarification on the composition of the advisory committee? Will highways authorities be represented? I know the Minister said that over time more organisations would be involved, but given that the digitalisation of the information will be key and there are issues about that, it would seem sensible to have them represented on the committee.
Anthony Browne
I am happy to give a commitment that I will consult with highways authorities, but we are not going to move beyond road user groups, road safety groups and businesses in the industry as the statutory consultees, with the full expectation that the full range of groups that are interested in this issue will be able to have input. As I have said, the statement of safety principles will be subject to public consultation.
The hon. Gentleman mentions highways authorities. The Department for Transport talks at every level almost every single day with highways authorities about almost every single issue. They are well versed in all this. This will be subject to public consultation, so I am not sure what amendments 12 and 13 would add.
On amendment 14, I have said that I would be amazed if a future Government did not review this, because the technology is changing. It is highly unlikely that we will get this right first time and that it will never be changed, but I do not think it is right to bind the hands of a future Government on the timing of the review, and the need to conduct one every five years. We might find that there are lots of problems earlier on and want to review things beforehand, or that everything is going amazingly well in five or 10 years—if we complete the review every five years—and everyone is very happy with it, and then we would be doing a formal review of something that everyone was happy with. It is far better not to bind the hands of future Governments.
There is also a requirement within the legislation for a duty of monitoring by the Secretary of State on the application of the statement of safety principles. That will be published every year.
Robin Millar
Yesterday, I and several other hon. Members had the opportunity to go in autonomous vehicles around parts of Westminster. The point was made that the system the cars use is a learning system, in contrast to some systems that have been used in other countries, which are rules-based. The point of having a review at a fixed point in time is not to see whether the rules that are written today still work in five years, because we are talking about systems that have the ability to learn well in advance of any review.
Anthony Browne
I agree totally with my hon. Friend. As somebody who is very interested in artificial intelligence and who has also gone round in the Wayve car, but around Kings Cross, I was very impressed at the way that the vehicle is learning as it goes along. I asked whether it recognised speed bumps, and it learned that itself; drivers slow down for speed bumps and the AI learned that was something it needed to do.
This is clearly going to change a lot. I have been around Government long enough—not very long, but long enough—to know that it is not good governance to bind the hand of future Governments with precise requirements to do this at this time and that at that time. When the time comes, it could be completely inappropriate. It is far better to trust whoever the future Government are that if there is a need for a review, they will conduct a review. It is unimaginable that they would not.
A monitoring duty is imposed on the Secretary of State to follow how closely the statement of safety principles is working and whether any issues arise. I really do not think we need to set out a five-year review clause that may not be appropriate.
Bill Esterson
Holding a review is not binding the hands of any future Government. Setting a timeframe on it is definitely not binding their hands; it is actually just putting in a sensible provision for the future. My understanding of the way that the legislature operates is that one cannot bind the hands of a future Government anyway.
Anthony Browne
The Government would then have to pass primary legislation in order to not do a review. If we end up in a situation where everyone is happy with the statement of safety principles—I think this will be a very long way away, I have to say—we would have officials coming to the Minister at the time, whoever that was, saying, “We have to do a review of the statement of safety principles, even though everyone’s completely happy with it, because it is in primary legislation and we’re not allowed to break the law.” Yes, absolutely, we could pass a new piece of primary legislation at some point in the future saying, “We don’t need to do a review,” but why create that work? Why bind a future Government?
Bill Esterson
Well, I think that a review that says, “Everything is going very well, Minister,” is not something to be worried about, but there we are.
Anthony Browne
Reviews do take a lot of work. They are done properly; they are not done on the back of an envelope. A whole process has to be set up. It requires a lot of work from civil servants and a lot of input from wider stakeholders. It is unimaginable that there will not be various reviews in future, because the technology will be moving on, as we have discussed, but doing a review of something where there is wide acceptance that there is no need for a review—as has happened in other areas of my responsibility—creates a lot of work for no end benefit. It is not good legislating to set down in primary legislation that a future Government must do that.
Bill Esterson
Well, it is an interesting view. I think “every five years” is far from onerous.
Turning to some of the other points made in the debate, we have deliberately left a wide definition in amendment 13, where we use,
“representatives of road user groups and other groups whose safety or other interests may be affected by the application of the principles.”
That is not setting in stone exactly which organisations should be part of the consultation; it is important that we all recognise that. As time goes on, the nature— the exact identity—of those groups will change, and our amendment very much reflects the realities. I was concerned that the Minister had not discussed the legislation with the trade unions, which I think he said. I hope that he rectifies that very quickly. The TUC, I am sure, will be very happy to talk to him, and Unite the union is another one.
Anthony Browne
In this role I have talked to unions about many different things, although not about this legislation yet. However, the Law Commission, in its three-year review of the legislation, did consult directly with the unions, and they have had input into all of this legislation that we have taken forward.
Bill Esterson
Okay. I hope that the Minister will rectify that apparent omission promptly. As I say, amendment 14 is not binding the hands of Government at all. Holding a review is an important part of the future process, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that. The Minister said that the Government intend to hold reviews; I just do not understand why he is not prepared to put that into the legislation. However, on this occasion I will accept the Minister’s word on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Power to authorise
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) An automated vehicle may be authorised for use in non-road public locations under subsection (1) as long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that the authorisation will not impact the accessibility of the locations to existing users, including pedestrians.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to authorise vehicles such as for use in public places other than roads (such as automated mobility scooters and delivery robots on pavements, for example) as long as the impact on accessibility has been considered.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) An authorisation requirement may require purchasers of relevant vehicles to be provided with a demonstration of any authorised automated features under section 4 at the point of sale.”
This amendment would mean that sellers of automated vehicles may be required, under the terms of their authorisation requirement, to demonstrate automated features to potential purchasers.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 16, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) Authorisation requirements must include a requirement for authorised self-driving entities to publish an equality impact assessment.”
This amendment would require authorised self-driving entities to publish equality impact assessments, reporting on the potential impact of their vehicles on, for example, those with protected characteristics and other road users.
Clauses 6 to 9 stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 94, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“or a delivery robot vehicle.”
This amendment would add delivery robots to the definition of ”authorised automated vehicle”.
New clause 4—User-in-charge: reaction times—
“Within two years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission, and lay before Parliament a report of, a study into the reaction times of users-in-charge of automated vehicles when receiving an instruction to take full control of an automated vehicle and their ability to react safely to the relevant situation.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a study into the ability of users-in-charge of automated vehicles to retake control of a vehicle when necessary.
Simon Lightwood
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Amendment 25 seeks clarity on whether the authorisation of pavement robot vehicles can be within the scope of the Bill, and ensures that the safety of other road users is not negatively affected.
The amendment questions whether the Bill includes regulation for delivery robots. It is an opportunity for colleagues to consider whether we have thought about how the framework might be different from that for the automated vehicle framework and how it would be the same. This could well be a key missed opportunity in the Bill, and investment could be taken elsewhere if we lose out on economic gains because of the grey areas and lack of clarity. Pavement use is a grey area because the robots contain motors and a pavement is legally defined as part of the road. This question is within the Bill’s scope, yet clearly the regulation of vehicles that primarily use the pavement must be different from the regulation for those that use roads.
Pavement robots need clear regulation—for example, to ensure that they do not negatively affect disabled people, or that they are regulated only on pavements that are wide enough. Asda and Wayve have an ongoing trial of delivery services, and Starship already serves communities in Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and West Yorkshire—in fact, I have visited a site in the Wakefield constituency. The DFT plans to conduct research on pavement use, but if primary legislation is needed to enact what comes from the findings the issue may remain unresolved for years, meaning that the UK will continue to fall behind other nations and lose critical investment opportunities.
As I have seen in my Wakefield constituency, there is a lot of potential in the principle of delivery robots. They deal with the final mile from where the lorry drops off its load to when the parcel gets to the individual dwelling. I find them particularly good for people in my constituency who are socially isolated. Using electric robots for that last mile rather than diesel vans, as often happens currently, has the potential to make a big contribution to our net zero commitments.
Starship has called for the regulation of the sector, because the lack of regulation has the potential to impact on investment decisions. In fact, Leeds City Council and Cambridge City Council did a survey that showed between 75% and 93% approval of the service provided by Starship Technologies. Between the Lords Minister and the Commons Minister there seem to be some crossed wires as to whether robot delivery vehicles are within the Bill’s scope, so some clarity on that would be good.
Amendments 17 and 16 and new clause 4 aim to improve transparency on the impact of AVs, to ensure that the public are properly informed and to increase Parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 17 would mean that the sellers of automated vehicles might be required to demonstrate how each of the automated features were engaged and disengaged. That is critical in terms of transparency. Amendment 16 would require authorised self-driving entities to publish an equality impact assessment to assess the impact on other road users—including, crucially, disabled people.
New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission a study on the transition period in respect of users in charge, to be laid before Parliament. The insurance company AXA has said that there is still debate over how long it would take for a user in charge not only to take back control but to understand their surroundings, fully re-engage with the driving task and react safely to an obstacle that the self-driving vehicle was incapable of dealing with.
Overall, the amendments and new clause 4 would provide greater transparency and reassurance to consumers, which I am sure Members will agree is crucial, and nowhere more so than in respect of the safety of AVs for all road users. In chapter 5.7 of its report, the Law Commission states that equality impact assessments must be published, but there is no reference to such assessments anywhere in the Bill. There is, then, a need for clarity on transition demands. The policy scoping notes, and the Minister on the Floor of the House, committed to equity of impacts, so why is that not on the face of the Bill, given that the Minister knows how important it is? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Grahame Morris
I want to make a few points in support of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. As he rightly said, clause 3 would enable the Government to authorise a vehicle as an automated vehicle if it met the self-driving test and if other authorisation requirements were met. That is both a safety and an insurance issue, so it is fundamental to what the Bill is intended to achieve.
Anthony Browne
I am grateful for the contributions of Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, a couple of amendments are about delivery bots. I declare an interest: Starship operates in my constituency, in the town of Cambourne. It is incredibly popular, and I love seeing the robots tootling about the pavements; they are the subject of much local interest and fascination.
Anthony Browne
I do not know whether they have names. The hon. Gentleman has stumped me there, but it is a good idea.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield recognised in his comments, the legislation already covers pavements—the definition of roads or highways covers pavements, driveways and so on, including other accessible public areas. That could be used for the regulation of pavement bots, if desired.
I agree that there is a grey area, but the issue opens up many other issues outside the scope of the Bill: how we regulate the use of pavements, or what sort of vehicles we want or do not want on them. At the moment, mobility scooters or vehicles are allowed on the pavement, with a maximum speed of, I think, 4 mph. Such vehicles involve a whole range of issues to do with what pedestrians might expect or not on pavements, which should be subject to carefully thought-through legislation.
The issue with the delivery bots is that they are not regulated as road vehicles—they do not have licence plates and are not subject to any of the requirements made of road vehicles—so there is a risk that they would be caught by legislation that most people would think inappropriate. That raises so many issues, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We will have to address them in some other way. I agree that there is a grey area, but this is not the way to deal with it.
Bill Esterson
The Minister points out that the bots are unregulated. What are the Government’s plans, if any, to regulate to address the anomaly? It is pretty implicit in what he says that there is a need for regulation. When and where will it happen? If not here, where?
Anthony Browne
I will write to the shadow Minister.
On amendment 17, the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned the requirement for sellers of self-driving vehicles to demonstrate features to prospective buyers. The legislation includes requirements to communicate with end users. There is a requirement on ASDEs—I do not think that we have mentioned authorised self-driving entities yet. ASDEs are authorised to sell the technology for self-driving cars, and they will be required to communicate with end users.
There are multiple troubles with requiring someone selling a vehicle to demonstrate to the person buying it. One issue is that the person buying a vehicle will often not be the person using it, and what matters is the demonstration to the user. Imagine someone buying a vehicle on behalf of a car club, for example, or a private sale: someone selling their car might not be qualified to give demonstrations of the technology to someone else. It is far more appropriate for the ASDE, whose technology it is, to do that. As I said, the Bill already requires ASDEs to communicate with end users about how the technology works. That covers this issue. Amendment 17 would have too many unintended consequences.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. If the ASDE in North America, say, is doing the sale and the updates remotely, will the legislation still be binding and apply to it and its liabilities? I am thinking of the insurance risk.
Anthony Browne
It absolutely would. To be authorised, the ASDE is required to be competent and financially sound. Clearly, the legislation needs to be binding on the ASDE wherever it is, or we could not regulate or authorise it.
New clause 4 is about transition demands, as we call them, although I do not think the hon. Member for Wakefield used that term in the new clause. It is important to get the right timing for transition demands. The Bill already requires a robust approach to ensuring that the user in charge—the transition demand relates to the user-in-charge feature; it goes back to them taking control from the self-driving feature—can respond safely to a transition demand and that they are aware of their responsibilities. As the hon. Member mentioned, we are already doing research on this fast-moving area, but ultimately what transition demand is appropriate depends on the use case: it might be different for someone driving on the motorway compared with someone doing some urban driving or operating a taxi or delivery vehicle.
How the transition demand works should be set out in the authorisation of the ASDE. Again, we are getting more and more data on the matter, and research is being done. It needs to be flexible because it depends on the individual case, so I do not think there is a need to set out in law that there should be research on it. Essentially, the new clause is unnecessary.
Simon Lightwood
Clearly, the only way we can have absolute clarity on the robot issue is to put it in the Bill and reference the inclusion of delivery vehicles specifically. There is potentially a mistake in terms of getting in the way of future investment and economic gains because of the grey area that continues to exist. We have had no clarity from the Government on when they may look at the issue further.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for his comments regarding the insurance industry. Again, the amendments were there to give that transparency and clarity to that industry and to disabled groups. I will not be pushing any of the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Register of authorisations
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The register referred to in subsection (1) must be made available online.”
This amendment would mean that the register of automated vehicle registrations is available online.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
Bill Esterson
Amendment 23 requires that a register of automated vehicle registrations is available online. The Government have to maintain a public register, but there is no commitment to its being online. The reason for the amendment comes from the insurance industry. As AXA puts it, the insurance industry requires clarity on the information that will be published to ensure that it is fit for purpose for insurance underwriting purposes. That matters because delays in accessing data could lead to long and expensive cases and an increase in insurance premiums.
I am sure that we are only too aware of how much motor insurance premiums have gone up in this country in the past few years; anything we could do to minimise the risk of that happening with new technology must be a good idea. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the request, which comes directly from the insurance industry, to try to avoid such delays by having a register that gives them access to information as quickly as possible.
Anthony Browne
I confirm that we will not put the register just on bits of paper and lock them in a cupboard somewhere. It is a reasonable request that the register should be online. I confirm that, in line with the usual expectations around official Government documents, we will manage the register online, so the amendment is unnecessary.
Bill Esterson
I am pleased to hear that the register will be online. It is a shame; the Minister so nearly got there at the end by saying that he accepted the amendment—and then he did not. We will have to take his word for it, but it is a bit odd for him to say that it will be available online but that he is not prepared to put that in writing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anthony Browne
We are making such fantastic progress; I thought I ought to speak on some of the clauses, for the record.
Clause 24 is about the duty of candour requirement on regulated bodies, such as the ASDEs and the no-user-in-charge operators, to provide accurate information to Government. The issue is particularly important because it has been raised with me in many different environments and has been a concern in other jurisdictions. If we are to get the technology right, it is essential that we learn from the process. However, that can happen only if the companies in the industry are completely open with the Government and investigators with the information they have. If they see anything going wrong, they should be completely frank and open about it. That has not always happened in other countries and it has caused problems.
The duty of candour is not new—there are similar things in the pharmaceutical industry—but it is incredibly important that the companies developing the new technology know the expectations on them to be completely open and frank with the public. That is the only way we will have improvements and advance the technology.
Grahame Morris
This is an important part of the Bill. Is the Minister in a position to share with us the discussions with the insurance industry? It is a key issue that, if a vehicle is autonomous and is being driven in autonomous mode, the liability presumably rests not with the passenger or the driver but with the provider—the manufacturer and the software provider. The Transport Committee met a number of industry representatives, who flagged to us the difficulty of quantifying the risk, as well as the need for candour in identifying whether the issue is systems failure or driver error because the driver intervened with the system. Is the Minister in a position to enlighten us?
Anthony Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; indeed, I have met representatives of the insurance industry about it. There are two points about the Bill that are relevant. One is that it creates the powers to set up independent investigators. Whenever there is an incident or a collision, they will investigate what the cause was and what the lessons to be learned from it are. That is a really important process in terms of improving the technology and ensuring that things that go wrong do not happen again.
The hon. Gentleman made a valid point on insurance. If there is an accident, the insurance industry first needs to know if the vehicle was in self-driving mode and who is liable. Is it the ASDE or the driver? Secondly, it needs to know what actually went wrong. There are therefore provisions in the Bill to require the regulated entities—the ASDE or the no-user-in-charge operator—to provide data to third parties such as insurance companies. Obviously, we protect the data privacy of individuals, and nothing in this legislation changes the data protection rules. However, the point is absolutely valid: we need to ensure that the data is available to investigators and insurance companies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Warrants for entry, search and seizure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Anthony Browne
I will make a brief point about the clauses, because they will be a source of concern for many people. It is therefore good to put on the record that the clauses give the investigators and authorities powers not just to do thorough investigations of data, as we just talked about, but to enter and search premises to take away materials and so on. We must ensure that we have full powers to really understand what has gone wrong, if and when something goes wrong, so these clauses ensure that the investigators have all the powers they could possibly need to do that.
Grahame Morris
The vital point was made on Second Reading that there should be proper investigations —I am sure the insurance industry would be vociferous about this—where the owner or operator of a vehicle has carried out modifications or not maintained the vehicle adequately—it may be tyre wear or brake pad removal. Even though it is an autonomous vehicle and is not being driven by a human driver, the human owner has responsibility for maintaining it in a roadworthy condition. Presumably, if that was the cause of the accident, the investigators would be able to determine that and apportion blame and liability.
Anthony Browne
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a lot of very valid points based on his time on the Transport Committee. Cars that have the no-user-in-charge feature must have a licensed operator, and the form and details of the licence will depend on exactly how the vehicle operates and its use case. For a fleet of taxis of the type that Waymo has in America, the NUICO—the no-user-in-charge operator—will be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles, including the tyre wear and the brake pads, and for ensuring they have not been tampered with.
If it is an individual driver with their own car—this is a long, long way down the line, and I do not think anyone expects this to happen in the next few years—it might be reasonable to expect them to be responsible for the tyre wear and the maintenance. If they make any modifications that nullify the action of the self-driving feature, they would have liability for that. We would not expect the no-user-in-charge operator to be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the car, but they would be responsible if something goes wrong when the vehicle is in no-user-in-charge mode.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 38
General monitoring duty
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 38, page 25, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) A report published under subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 39 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 40 stand part.
Bill Esterson
This amendment requires that the reports containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance be laid before both Houses. It addresses the points about insurance and operator responsibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made in relation to an earlier clause. We need a guarantee that those running automated vehicles are continuing to keep the vehicles in the state that they were in and are maintaining and updating them appropriately.
We are pleased to say that, in the Lords, the Government changed the statement of safety principles from being subject to the affirmative procedure to being subject to the negative one to improve accountability to Parliament, and we ask that something similar be done to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the monitoring and assessment of automated vehicle performance.
Anthony Browne
The Secretary of State commits in the clause to monitor, and to publish annually their assessment of, the application of the statement of safety principles. Everyone who is interested in it will have access to it, including parliamentarians, so, again, the amendment is unnecessary.
Bill Esterson
I accept the Minister’s assurance that, although he is not going to follow the affirmative principle, he is going to make the assessment available to us. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 50, page 33, line 18, after “that – ” insert—
“(za) is not an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(zb) is not an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(zc) is not an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;
(zd) is not an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation of the devolved administrations for the purposes of changing or clarifying traffic legislation in respect of automated vehicles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Scottish Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Welsh Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,
(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.
Amendment 8, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Scottish Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.
(5) The Welsh Government may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of changing or clarifying whether, how or in what circumstances an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru or any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru applies to the user-in-charge of a vehicle.”
This amendment would extend the Clause 50 power to ministers of the devolved administrations.
Clause stand part.
Gavin Newlands
It is safe to say, Mr Vickers, that I was not expecting us to get to clause 50—[Laughter.] Luckily, I have a speech that I prepared earlier. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government and the operations manager of Transport Scotland are giving evidence on this very issue in the Scottish Parliament this morning. If I can pad this out until 11.25 am, I will be able to bring some quotes to the Committee before we leave our deliberations on the amendments and clause 50.
I rise to speak to amendments 9, 7 and 8 in my name and those of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. As I mentioned on Second Reading and briefly at the start of the sitting —it is very unusual for me or anyone else from the SNP to stand up during the deliberations on any Bill to say this—the devolved Administrations have for the most part worked happily with the UK Government on getting this Bill right for everyone across these isles, in line with the co-operative working between the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales over the past couple of years. So it is disappointing, to say the least, that the UK Government appear to have ditched that view when drafting clause 50.
The devolved powers that are properly the preserve of the Scottish Parliament are quite clear, yet this clause would unilaterally overturn that settled state and instead place the Scottish Parliament and Government under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Transport and his or her colleagues. Since devolution and the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has been agreed among all parties that consent is required from Holyrood when the UK Government seek to legislate in devolved areas.
Grahame Morris
This is an interesting point. There are a number of Bills whose provisions apply only to England or to England and Wales, and I have always thought there was an anomaly in terms of territorial extent and application. If someone is driving an autonomous vehicle, it seems slightly bizarre to have a different regulatory regime if they go over the border into Scotland or Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and on page 12 of the explanatory notes I have highlighted in green the part that says:
“There is a convention that Westminster will not normally legislate with regard to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the legislature concerned.”
I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that there has not been that consultation.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Of course, if there is any diversion between the regulations, the Scottish regulations will be better than any brought forward by DFT. I joke, but the Scottish Government—and presumably the Welsh Senedd—have been in discussions about this for a long time. In fact, the issues the Scottish Government have with clause 50 were recognised by the UK Government themselves. I say that not just because of the facts the hon. Gentleman pointed out in the explanatory notes, but because the Government themselves have said that clause 50 will require legislative consent. This is not the Scottish Government being uppity; the UK Government themselves have said that legislative consent would be required, but they have now ditched that approach and seek to implement clause 50 without seeking any legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament.
What has happened says so much about the Government’s approach to devolution in recent years and completely overturns that principle of devolution. Either we have devolution or we do not—it is not for the Government to pick and choose which parts of legislation devolution is applied to. Devolution should apply in those areas that are not listed in the Scotland Act 1998. It is simple as that, yet the Government seem to want to change the rules and move the goalposts at will to stymie devolution at almost every turn. They snatch power from a democratically elected Parliament and Government and give it to a Minister of the UK Government, who it is fair to say currently have zero mandate in Scotland. That may change come a future election, but at this point this Government have no real mandate in Scotland, and yet they seek to override the will of the elected Parliament of Scotland.
The amendments in my name and those of Plaid Cymru colleagues would remedy that democratic deficit by placing a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the Scottish Parliament and/or the Senedd before legislating in areas that are not properly theirs to legislate in. The Scottish Government have made it clear throughout the consultation and drafting process that working across borders on issues such as this—as alluded to by the hon. Member for Easington, who serves with me on the Transport Committee—is undoubtedly good sense, benefiting the automated vehicle sector and ultimately all consumers across these isles.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is completely valid. I am slightly perplexed by this issue, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say about the Government’s consultations with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, for that matter. For the system to work, we need to bear in mind the key point about digitalising traffic regulation orders. What will happen? People will drive from England into Scotland and vice versa, but the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to require traffic regulation orders to be provided by traffic regulation authorities—
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tutoring Provision
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tutoring provision.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and I thank hon. Members in all parts of the House who supported my application for it. Unfortunately, it clashes with a meeting of the Education Committee, but the Chair—the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker)—and various members of the Committee have been very supportive.
This debate is about the Government’s national tutoring programme and the 16 to 19 tuition fund, which will end at the end of this academic year. Like other hon. Members, I am really disappointed that no new money was announced in the Budget to allow it to continue. As a result, schools and colleges have two options: they can try to fund the scheme from their own meagre budgets, which would be hard to achieve given the cuts that they are already having to make, or they can scrap it altogether, which would be a travesty.
During the pandemic, children were
“at the back of the queue”
and “always overlooked”. Those are the words of Anne Longfield, who was Children’s Commissioner during covid. Despite the remarkable efforts of our teachers and education leaders, who heroically adapted their lessons for online learning, we lost tens of millions of hours of valuable classroom time, and disadvantaged children were most affected.
Sir Kevan Collins, the Government’s adviser, acknowledged that children needed £15 billion to bridge the educational gap created by the pandemic. When just a fraction of that was given, he promptly resigned. In a recent interview in Tes magazine, he recognised the value of tutoring and said that he had wanted to scale it up dramatically so that 5 million pupils would receive tutoring by the end of 2024. He was also clear that tutoring should be best managed and led by schools. He said:
“Schools know their children best.”
I could not agree more, but as we all know, the recovery programme for which Sir Kevan called was not delivered.
I have to be totally honest: I was not always a fan of how the Government’s national tutoring programme was implemented. It encountered numerous challenges from ineffective outsourcing to tortuous application processes, tutoring shortages and—dare I mention the word—Randstad. Even the Education Committee, which was then under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is now an Education Minister, recognised in a 2022 report that
“a complex bureaucratic system for applications may have hampered some schools’ ability to access…support”.
It further noted:
“Teachers and school staff know their pupils and know what interventions are likely to bring the most benefit.”
As Sir Kevan identified, the size of the tutoring programme also fell drastically short.
Despite all its failings, the tutoring programme managed to achieve some positive outcomes. When implemented correctly, tutoring has proved its worth time and again. It has helped pupils to catch up on lost learning and has shown many additional benefits such as improved confidence and school attendance. In the run-up to the Budget, more than 500 schools signed a letter to the Prime Minister, to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Chancellor, calling for more national tutoring programme funding. The letter was delivered to No. 10 by representatives of Action Tutoring, Tutor Trust and Get Further. I pay tribute to them for their amazing work in this area; several of them are watching from the Gallery today.
The Government responded that they would continue to support tutoring through pupil premium funding, but school leaders will be dismayed by that response. The pupil premium, which was established by Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government, was once a fund to support disadvantaged children, but since 2015 its value has eroded by 14% in real terms, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I think we all acknowledge that in recent years it has more often been used to plug gaps in school funding. The hon. Member for Worcester recognised that when he said:
“I’m not sure there is sufficient space in the pupil premium to support tutoring becoming part of the system.”
Why am I such a fan of tutoring? We are lucky that so much research has been done on the impact of tutoring. The Sutton Trust, Public First, the Education Endowment Foundation and others have all looked at it. This Government claim that they are led by evidence, so let us look at some. The Sutton Trust says that the attainment gap, which had been decreasing gradually throughout the early 2010s,
“stalled in the years before the pandemic. Since the crisis, the gap has widened considerably, with 10 years of progress now wiped out.”
It believes that tutoring is
“a key method of boosting learning”
for disadvantaged children. It also notes:
“The programme has had a considerable impact on levelling out access to tutoring, with 35% of working class Year 11 students receiving private or school-based tutoring, compared to 36% of students from professional homes.”
Work by the Education Endowment Foundation has shown the effectiveness of tutoring, showing an average impact of four months’ additional progress over the course of a year with small-group tutoring. It also recognised the particular benefits that tutoring can bring to disadvantaged children:
“Studies in England have shown that pupils eligible for free school meals typically receive additional benefits from small group tuition”.
It stands to reason: allowing a teacher to focus on the needs of a small number of learners and provide teaching closely matched to that pupil’s individual understanding will reap greater rewards than teaching a larger number of students. Small groups offer the opportunity for greater levels of interaction and feedback than whole-class teaching.
Let us take the example of Dylan, a typical student who has benefited from an Action Tutoring tutor. Dylan struggled with maths and was considered unlikely to meet the expected standard. His school set him up with tutoring, and he attended 16 sessions over a period of two years. As a result, he moved from a grade 3 standard to a grade 4 pass. However, the benefits were so much more than just getting the grade that he needed. Dylan said:
“Before I started my tutoring sessions, I dreaded maths because I didn’t enjoy it. But my tutoring sessions were amazing and really helped boost my confidence in maths. When I found out I passed my GCSE maths, I didn’t believe it. Dead serious, I literally was flabbergasted. I was like, what is even going on? I looked twice at it as I was just so flustered.”
That hope and excitement expressed by Dylan—that promise of being able to move on to the next stage of your life and pursue your dreams—is priceless.
Public First research shows the impact that tutoring has had on GCSE pass rates and overall grades in key subjects. Some 62,000 additional pass grades in GCSE maths and English were achieved as a result of Government-funded tutoring in the 2021-22 and 2022-23 academic years. Tutoring is an intervention with an impact on pupils right across the grade spectrum: it provided 430,000 grade improvements in total, with 220,000 in maths and 210,000 in English. The long-term economic impact on earning potential is significant, and so is the very real impact of strong foundations in numeracy and literacy on people’s lives.
We all know that under-18s in England must retake GCSE English and maths if they do not achieve a grade 4 pass. In 2023, that resulted in a staggering 167,000 students having to retake maths and 172,000 resitting English. When combined, that is the highest number of retakes in a decade. We are setting those children up for repeated failure unless different help and support is provided. Just 16.4% of students resitting GCSE maths in England passed with at least a grade 4 this year, and the pass rate for English was only slightly higher. That group of children need targeted help, support and time with a tutor in small-group sessions to get to the bottom of what they find difficult, with personal, structured work plans to boost progress. Targeted tutoring has been exceptionally effective in helping that group.
I was lucky enough to see the work of Get Further when I visited Southwark College last year. Sitting in on a few sessions allowed me to see tutoring at first hand. It was fascinating to see how tutors engaged one on one with pupils, helping them to unpack a maths question or discussing the meaning of a particular word in English. The children I spoke to all had aspirations and plans for the future, and they really valued the time they spent with teachers one on one or in a small group.
Aiden, at London South East Colleges, had twice missed out on a grade 4 at English GCSE. He was supported by a Get Further tutor, who helped him to understand things for the first time in a tailored small group and one-to-one setting. He said this about his experience:
“I was only aiming for a 4 as it was my third time retaking English and I wanted to get it over and done with. As I continued my tuition, I started to understand things I didn’t understand before and quickly improved. Now, I have a 6 and it’s all thanks to my tutor. I am so pleased with the grade I achieved and proud of how far I have come! In September, I aim to go on to Level 2 Health and Social Care and then move on to Level 3 or an Access to Higher Education course so that I can do Paramedic Science at university with awesome classmates who share what I aspire to be: someone who helps people at their highest and lowest moments.”
Tutoring can be truly transformational.
We should also acknowledge the many other spillover benefits that tutoring brings, which speak to many current concerns in our educational system. Some 85% of parents say that tutoring has had a positive impact on their child’s confidence, while 68% say that it has improved attendance. CoachBright recently published its impact report and has done interesting work on the relationship between tutoring and attendance. The results show that tutoring can reduce persistent absence by 11%. At a time when thousands of pupils are missing from school, tutoring can offer children and young people the opportunity to have a new trusted adult in their lives, giving them a new way to engage with their education.
The bottom line is that for every £1 spent on tutoring, £6.58 is generated in economic returns as a direct result of pupils achieving higher grades and having a higher lifetime earnings potential. The benefits are felt not just by those who receive the tutoring, but by our whole economy and society. The evidence is compelling, but there is also a strong political case for continuing tutoring: it is popular. Public First research found that pupils like tutoring: students were positive about their experiences and were willing to have more of it if available. Parents like tutoring: over three quarters of parents would support increased tutoring provision. Teachers like tutoring: they welcome the impact on academic attainment and the wider benefits such as pupil confidence, increased engagement in the classroom and reduced anxiety. This is a policy that is popular with pupils, parents and teachers. I have no wish to help the Government, but surely that sounds like a vote winner.
Liberal Democrats believe in tutoring, which is why we have said that we will offer a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs extra support, recognising that tutoring is most effective when we allow headteachers and college leaders to decide themselves how to run the scheme. I think tutoring is so important that I joined the Conservative Chair of the Education Committee and a former Labour Education Secretary—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—to try to convince the Government to maintain funding for the tutoring programme beyond the end of this academic year.
As we have heard from the case studies, tutoring can be a life-changing intervention. Those of us who are parents and are privileged enough to afford tutoring for our children do not hesitate to pay for it in order to boost their attainment and confidence. In the words of Lorraine Spence, whose daughter Naomi benefited from Get Further’s tutoring after she failed her maths GCSE:
“My daughter is now thriving at university but without the extension of this kind of funding, countless young people from low-income families will miss out on securing the gateway qualifications they need to unlock opportunities like this. Should tutoring return to being a luxury for the rich and a sacrifice for the poor? I urge the Government not to allow this to be the case. Instead, let’s make a more equitable educational system, where tutoring is accessible to all—and one positive legacy to come out of the pandemic.”
I could not agree more with Lorraine’s words. If the Government are serious about levelling up, I hope that the Minister will make a commitment today that he is willing to do battle with his Treasury colleagues to ensure that funding continues both for the national tutoring programme and for the 16 to 19 tuition fund. Schools and colleges need that assurance urgently to plan for the next academic year.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. I want to say a few words in support of the Government’s national tutoring programme, an outstanding initiative that has provided invaluable support, particularly for children whose education was impacted during the global coronavirus pandemic. I would also like to share my first-hand experience of the programme.
I am the Member of Parliament for Sedgefield in County Durham, and the programme has helped Dean Bank Primary and Nursery School, in Ferryhill in my constituency, to support some of the most disadvantaged students in the north-east. This is a school where 79% of students receive free school meals, and it is in the area that is the focus of my all-party parliamentary group for left-behind neighbourhoods. As it happens, it is also the school that I first attended. The school is based in one of the mining communities in my constituency, which deserve all the help they can get to stimulate social mobility and aspiration.
The national tutoring programme has brought about 430,000 grade increases and 62,000 additional passes in maths and English since it was launched. Indeed, Professor Becky Francis, chair of the Education Endowment Foundation, referred to tutoring as
“one of the best evidenced interventions we have to support disadvantaged pupils’ attainment.”
Meanwhile, according to Public First data, a projected lifetime earnings boost of £4.34 billion can be ascribed to the national tutoring programme, based on the tutoring delivered in the two years from 2021-22 to 2022-23 for just £660 million.
Despite what that data does to illuminate the education, tutoring is not all about numbers. At Dean Bank Primary and Nursery School, 20 pupils have been supported in their maths and English since October last year; in a tiny primary school, that makes such a difference to their world. The school is supported by Action Tutoring, an education charity hugely supported by the national tutoring programme. The school’s deputy head teacher, Will Haynes, has said:
“After the initial set-up period, the children had clearly gotten into it. They came into school, all excited, saying, ‘It’s tutoring day today!’ It’s going really well. It’s quick and easy to set up the laptops each week. The children look forward to seeing their tutors.”
In the past, a disadvantaged but rural community such as Ferryhill would have struggled to get tutoring support, but thanks to the internet, that is no longer the case. I thank Action Tutoring and its brilliant volunteers for what they do; indeed, one reason I am here today is that one of my staff, Douglas Oliver, who is here today, also volunteers with Action Tutoring, and he has massively enlightened me about how important its work is. Action Tutoring’s analysis shows that 65% of disadvantaged pupils pass their maths GCSE after attending at least 10 tutoring sessions with the charity. Action Tutoring pupils were nearly 13 percentage points more likely to pass maths GCSE than other disadvantaged pupils nationally. Those are significant interventions. I could continue, but what I want to say is that Action Tutoring’s work is indicative of so much of the valuable tutoring provided by volunteers and others. We must celebrate that work.
Pupil premium funding was introduced 14 years ago by a Conservative Government working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Although the Government gave something in the order of £400 billion of temporary support during the crisis of 2020 and 2021, it is vital that one small part of that support is renewed as the legacy of the pandemic endures for our youngest people. Of course, the Government live in a time of fiscal pressure following the shock of the pandemic and the illegal war in Ukraine, but we must continue to focus on education outcomes and the investment they afford us in our future. I hope the Government will look at the national tutoring programme as an option after this school year, because much needs to be done to look at how we embed tutoring for all students in the years ahead. Tutoring can stimulate aspiration in those furthest away from opportunity, and I encourage the Government to give it all possible support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I look forward to you being in the Chair every time I am here. Thank you for being here and for your fairness.
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for leading this debate on a very important issue. As always, I will try to bring a Northern Ireland perspective, not because the Minister has responsibility for Northern Ireland but because it adds to the debate. I will give some stats and talk about what we have done back home, and hopefully we can share those experiences for our betterment.
The hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat party have done much work on children’s education, and specifically on tutoring. She set the scene well and talked about what she and her party espouse and hope to achieve. She spoke about the benefits of tutoring, which were endorsed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). There is certainly a disparity across the United Kingdom, but we must ensure that children from all backgrounds can take advantage of good educational learning. It is great to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective on this issue.
The Government set up the national tutoring programme in England in response to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on education. Those two and a half to three years really did change life for everyone. The programme provided subsidised, small-group catch-up teaching and mentoring for pupils impacted by covid. It is crazy to think about where we were just a few years ago and about how much school young people missed out on. Although teachers did their best, it was always going to be a difficult task, so it was important that we looked at different ways of providing education. The Government did that, especially for key worker parents.
The latest child poverty figures for Northern Ireland show that 82,000 children live in absolute poverty. Remember that we have a population of 1.95 million, so those figures show the enormity of the situation and what we are trying to achieve back home—we are talking about almost one in every five children. Just under 100,000 children in Northern Ireland live in relative poverty. Adding those two figures together gives a sum of 182,000 living in absolute or relative poverty. Those figures worry me. They highlight not only the situation in Northern Ireland but the need for better one-to-one tutoring provision.
Key worker parents provided essential services, but their children had less face-to-face teaching at home, so it is likely that many of those children suffered due to that too. The hon. Members for Twickenham and for Sedgefield talked about a combination of issues, and I know that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) will do likewise.
I always look forward to the Minister’s response, because he tries to encapsulate our fears, concerns and questions, and gives us some encouragement as elected representatives. Funding for Northern Ireland was secured by the Halifax Foundation for Northern Ireland and the Charities Aid Foundation. That allowed for the creation of a free online tuition service for the children of key workers from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and for children with special educational needs. The combination of those two issues—parents who are away at work, and the education of children with special educational needs—is a massive problem. I have realised from all the debates we have here that the issues relating to children with special educational needs affect not just Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Ask a Tutor scheme really did make a difference, and I thank the Halifax Foundation for Northern Ireland and the Charities Aid Foundation for that.
The Government have said that raising children’s attainment is at the heart of their agenda, and that is very true. Being able to obtain good tutoring services is one thing, but that must be deliverable across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am a passionate believer in the strength of the Union, and I am sure everybody in this Chamber is of a similar disposition. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North spoke at my association dinner two weeks ago about the strength of the Union, and he enthralled that audience of true Unionists in Newtownards with his words. I put my thanks for that on record, and I am pleased to see him here.
Although it is fully understood that education is devolved, we need to ensure that the initial budget is there to support one-to-one tutoring in our schools. The Assembly is now up and working again, and the Minister for Education back home is my colleague Paul Givan MLA. I know him and I know that he will work hard on this issue, but there also needs to be the support from Westminster. I am sure the Minister will give us encouragement on that through his words, as well as his actions.
One of my staff members was tutored in maths through her fourth and fifth years of secondary school, and her sessions cost £32 for one hour each week. That was almost eight years ago, so I imagine that they cost at least another £10 to £15, which would make it quite challenging for any person to afford that individually—it could cost over £200 a month, depending on how many sessions someone was having. Although there are people out there who will be able to afford that—that is fine, and those are the sacrifices we make—there are those who simply will not be able to. Giving consideration to those families should be made a priority, and that is the first of my requests in this debate.
We all want our young children to grow up and excel at school, and to have the best opportunities possible, and providing extra one-to-one tutoring sessions is an excellent way to ensure they do. I see that through the staff in my office and what they have told me, and we heard it in the introduction from the hon. Member for Twickenham, who explained why tutoring is important, and others have added to that message and will add to it in a minute.
I urge the Minister to engage with the devolved nations to ensure that we can all play a role in improving educational outcomes for young people in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Isn’t it great that we have that Union? Isn’t it great that we can share these ideas? Isn’t it great that we can do that for our children?
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this incredibly important debate.
If I may, I will briefly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for giving me a plug and saying why I might have a career in the diplomatic corps in the not-too-distant future, which may come as a shock to many. I appreciate that he invited me, and it was obviously a pleasure to speak to the fine people of Strangford and surrounding areas about our precious and important Union.
The issue before us is very important for me, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I was a schoolteacher professionally, working in both London and Birmingham before entering this place. My partner is also an employee of Teach First, which analysed elements of the programme and was involved in delivering some of the tutoring in the earlier days. Although she was not an employee at that stage, it is important to ensure that the record is clear.
The national tutoring programme plays a massively important part in ensuring that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular—those who are registered for free school meals, and those who are not yet registered but who are technically eligible—have the academic ability to attain the grades they deserve. For levelling up to mean anything, we have to get education right. In Stock-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I can build every shiny building going and bring in every new job going, but what is it all for if kids from Stoke-on-Trent do not end up in those new high-skilled, high-wage jobs, in those buildings or in the new homes we are building in our local area?
Sadly, Stoke-on-Trent has remained in the bottom 20% for academic attainment and achievement for far too long. In the past, the Office for Students has ranked my constituency as the seventh worst in England for kids going on to higher education. Twelve per cent of my entire workforce have no formal qualifications, which is 8% higher than the national average. The number of kids achieving level 3 and 4 qualifications—A-levels or college and apprenticeship qualifications—remains in the bottom fifth nationwide. That is not something that I want to see.
Sadly, the city has languished under a disastrous private finance initiative deal. This is not meant to be a party political dig, but it was administered under the last Labour Government back in 2000. There are 88 schools trapped in a PFI contract run by the council and are seeing huge inflationary increases in their costs. It is predicted that up to £100,000 in additional funding will potentially have to be found for the annual contributions that need to be made, leaving us scrambling. I collared the Minister in the voting Lobby last night to demand more funding, and that goes to the heart of the point. I appreciate that the Government will point to pupil premium funding, which is a superb initiative, but I agree with the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who the hon. Member for Twickenham quoted: the reality is that the money simply will not be there.
There are huge inflationary increases in food and equipment costs, and with teachers’ salaries going up, which the Government have covered in part but not in full. There are also additional costs in Stoke-on-Trent, where we have those increased PFI contributions. Those inflationary pressures, again, driven by covid and Vladimir Putin’s illegal and immoral war in Ukraine, mean that schools are having to use every penny that they can find. They will not be able to continue the important tutoring scheme out of their own existing budgets because of the pressures that they are facing right now.
Stoke-on-Trent is exactly the area where that kind of intervention is absolutely necessary. I share the concern that at the end of this academic year, we will potentially see the end of the national tutoring programme as it is funded currently through additional Government support. I implore the Minister, and I will do everything I can with him, to lobby Treasury colleagues to demand that the scheme continues.
I will say this about the Prime Minister. Back in summer 2022, I supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) during the Conservative party leadership contest—it feels a long time ago, I know—because he had mentored me for a long time. I had a sense of loyalty to that, and I believe him to be a very good man. However, after he dropped out, I met all the leading contenders, including the current Prime Minister. When I sat down in the room with him for the first time and had a conversation about non-Treasury matters, seeing the fire behind his eyes when he talked about education was inspiring. It is so important, and it is something that sadly I had not heard enough of since the Blair years of “Education, education, education”, although I fear that that was more slogan and gimmick than actual delivery. Still, most importantly, at least it was on the forefront of the education agenda at that time.
Paul Howell
Does my hon. Friend agree that expenditure should be focused on initiatives like this programme, as opposed to the broader schemes that try to cover everybody from middle-income families to high-income families and do a broad sweep across the bottom? These are the interventions that the Government should really be focused on.
Jonathan Gullis
I completely agree. I have huge problems with universal schemes because they are not a benefit if everyone is receiving them, in my personal opinion. Having universal free school meals for every child in primary school is not a good idea, because why on earth would my children be given access to a free school meal when I myself can afford it? I would rather see that additional funding for middle-class and higher-income parents who can afford it invested in children from disadvantaged backgrounds, so that we can have those well-funded breakfast clubs but also ensure that schools can invest further in such things as the tutoring programme.
We should not forget that the Education Endowment Foundation’s own research says that small group tuition adds four months of progress on to students’ lives. Tes reported that as of January 2024, 390,000 grade improvements in English and maths have been attributed to progress made due to the national tutoring programme over the previous two academic years. That goes to show the importance of the scheme, particularly for English and maths, and particularly when we still have an archaic system in place that means that people must get a pass in those subjects to be able to do an apprenticeship, yet they would not need that to do their A-levels. We have a two-tier system, despite having a major skills shortage in this country. We talk the talk about ensuring that apprenticeships are equal to an A-level, but there are these bizarre barriers in place that mean they are not.
I hope that the Minister will take back the idea of abolishing the requirements at the foundation stage, in order to allow people to get on to apprenticeships and study their English and maths while on those courses to get them up to grade. Of course, any responsible company will want that for their employees because it will improve the outcomes and productivity of the company.
The Government should be applauded for around 5 million tutoring courses that have begun since the inception of the programme, and the fact that they were bold and brave in going for it, despite the fact that Randstad is a dark stain on the Department’s ability to procure. However, going back to what the hon. Member for Twickenham and I were calling for in those early days, it is vital to give the money to the schools and trust the headteachers in large part to deliver this particular programme.
The school-led approach is a much better system. Why? Teachers know who those pupils are. They know their backgrounds and their learning and support needs; they know their parents and have a relationship with them. Teachers are and have always been willing to stay behind after school. If we give teachers the opportunity to have a little more money in their pocket, bearing in mind they probably work double the hours they are actually paid for—I certainly used to do 60 hours a week as a bare minimum while on the frontline as a head of year—that could have a huge and positive impact for them. It could also have a positive impact on the many fantastic smaller focused third sector organisations that, again, have existed for a long time.
I hope we never see a repeat of Randstad, because that was an utter disaster. I was pleased to see that the Government were nimble on their feet and followed a school-led approach; giving that money to the schools directly had a positive impact. I saw that in my albeit very brief time as Minister for School Standards between September and October 2022. During that time, I went on a number of visits to schools in the Black Country that were using that funding. I spoke with the pupils themselves, who said that without the programme, they would not have had the confidence to put up their hand in class to ask teachers questions when they did not understand what was being taught to them.
The national tutoring programme has given pupils confidence—sixth-formers interacting with year 7 and 8 pupils who are new to the school, to build that sense of collective responsibility and help one another. The older pupils learn important leadership skills, using their lived experience to impart the knowledge they have learned from their excellent and outstanding teachers. It all goes to show the power of the scheme. I do hope we will see that.
In February 2023, the National Audit Office said that in the 2021-22 academic year, only 47% of the pupils accessing the scheme were disadvantaged. Like myself, the hon. Member for Twickenham and many other Members present will be worried by that. The national tutoring programme was designed for disadvantaged pupils; it should not be supplementing the tutoring of children whose parents could afford private tuition if needed. While I want to ensure that every child has the opportunity, we need to find out from the Minister— I hope we will hear this today—what the Government have done since that report to really drive up the number of disadvantaged pupils to hopefully reach the 65% target that was initially given to Randstad as part of the contract. That is exactly the type of figure that we would like to see. I agree with Lee Elliot Major, the professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, that it would be
“a national travesty if we fail to embed tutoring”
into our core schooling day in, day out. We therefore have that responsibility.
Schools Week reported that as of July 2023, there was a £240 million underspend in the tutoring programme over the 2021-22 and the 2022-23 academic year. Can I ask the Minister whether that money was reinvested back into the national tutoring programme to help to cover schools’ costs, which are obviously rising in year in, year out, and to deal with the tutoring programme? That was something I requested within the Department while I was a Minister: for any underspend to go into the next academic year to give schools more cover and give them longer to get the programme up and running, build more trust with pupils and put things in place. That is important as well.
My final contribution is simple. If the Government do not want to go ahead with the national tutoring programme in its current form, I personally believe there is only one other way we can go forward. As any other hon. Member would, I will shamelessly plug my own research paper, which I did with Onward back in November 2020. It calls for not only an extended school day, which I have long supported, but a shortening of the school holidays over the course of an academic year—reducing the summer holiday from six weeks to four.
I support that for two reasons. First, childcare is extremely expensive; it is even more expensive now than when I wrote that report. It was estimated that that change would save the average family £133 a week based on costs associated back in November 2020, which will obviously have massively increased since then. I appreciate that the Government have done a lot in the childcare space with the new scheme providing 15 hours of free childcare as of April. I must confess that my own child, who is two years old, will benefit from it, and we have started the process of getting our code to give to our childcare provider.
The second and most important reason is that from research I have conducted, I understand that it takes around seven weeks for a disadvantaged pupil at the start of a new academic year to finally surpass where they were at the end of the previous academic year. That is seven weeks of lost learning, during which time disadvantaged pupils are unable to accelerate at the same pace as their better-off peers, which is simply unfair. Reducing that holiday to four weeks—I am happy to have a two-week October half term, which would be better for pupils and teachers in terms of rest and wellbeing, as well as trying to spread the cost of the school holidays throughout the year more fairly—would give those younger people a better opportunity.
There are other ideas in the pipeline. I have a research paper that I will happily send the Minister to have a look at and tell me what he thinks. Ultimately, I think it is the right thing. I appreciate that multi-academy trusts can do that of their own volition, and some do, but it should be driven nationally as well.
As I said, education is the absolute bedrock to levelling up. It is the bedrock to making sure that life chances can be achieved. I have no fiscal rules when it comes to education, because I believe that if we shove all the money there, we will have better outcomes on health and work, fewer people needing to use the welfare state, better home ownership, better wages, and less poverty in our country. Education is at the epicentre of achieving that, and we should therefore be pouring money into the sector. That 92% of my schools are now rated “good” or “outstanding”, compared with around 60% in 2010, and 75% of my kids are now reaching the necessary levels in phonics, compared with 53% when we inherited government back in 2010, shows that we have got it right, and that all the changes and hard work can go on to build something more.
I am so passionate about making sure that we get education right. It is essential that the people I serve—my masters and mistresses back in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke; my Lord Sugars who will hire or fire me when the general election comes later this year—have every opportunity to make sure that their children can have the opportunities and ability to access the high-skilled, high-wage jobs I am bringing to my local area to improve their life outcomes. Stoke-on-Trent’s achievement of the levelling-up agenda is driven through the education sector.
Please, Minister: we have to keep this tutoring programme on the tracks. If we do not, an extended school day and shorter school holidays are the alternative, in my opinion.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for bringing forward this debate on tutoring provision, and all hon. Members who have spoken very passionately on behalf of the children, families and school communities they represent here in Parliament.
I think we all agree that the scale of the challenge that many of our children and young people are currently facing is immense. We know that children and families have really struggled with the combined impact of years of reduced investment in our public services, compounded by the impact of the pandemic. Indeed, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers, which many have mentioned, has widened across all educational phases since 2019, so any limited progress made in the decade before was wiped out in a couple of years. The hon. Member for Twickenham also highlighted that issue.
We know that what happens outside the school gates reinforces the impact of what happens inside them. With the rising levels of child poverty, the cuts to youth services in communities and the dwindling support for children with additional needs, schools are increasingly becoming the frontline, with teachers having to buy food with their own money and wash clothes for families, and the increasing challenge of mental health issues.
It has now been four years since the enormous disruption and lost learning experienced by so many children began during covid. What was most concerning at that time was the lack of planning for children and for the inevitable impacts: no plan for learning from home in the early days; no plan for ensuring that all children had the equipment they needed; no plan for schools, teachers, or how to support children afterwards. So when the classrooms finally reopened after covid, it was not surprising to anyone that children found it hard to adjust. They had had little socialisation or interaction, and some had received barely any education at all.
I saw the impact on my own children. My youngest had only just started school when he found himself back at home being taught by two parents who had no teaching experience, two other children to try to teach and support, and two full-time jobs that they had to undertake from home. It was an incredibly challenging time for families everywhere, and in far too many households, particularly where less support was available, children paid a very heavy price. Kevan Collins was therefore commissioned by the Government to set out a long-term recovery plan for our children, but the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor, opted out: he was simply not willing to make that investment in other people’s children. Our country continues to pay a very heavy price for the decision he took then, and it will for some time to come.
The National Audit Office reported last year:
“Disruption to schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic led to lost learning for many pupils, particularly disadvantaged children.”
It also reported:
“Left unaddressed, lost learning may lead to increased disadvantage and significant missing future earnings for those affected.”
As a key measure to address that, the Government introduced the national tutoring programme, which was initially provided through tuition partners. As hon. Members have noted, there were many missteps, from a very low uptake at the start to schools struggling to find the tutors they needed to deliver the support, but as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) highlighted, once the Government introduced the school-led tutoring element in September 2021, there was some success and take-up was higher.
Evidence gathered by the National Foundation for Educational Research showed that increasing the number of tuition hours
“led to better outcomes in maths and English.”
Crucially, however, the foundation noted:
“Less than half of pupils selected for tutoring were from disadvantaged backgrounds.”
As the match-funding requirements kicked in and Government funding went from 75% to 50%, schools that were trying to make the scheme work and that needed it the most found it ever more difficult to deliver. This year, many schools, especially those in the poorest areas, have used up almost all of their pupil premium and recovery premium funding to pay for tutors, leaving them little to pay for other interventions such as enrichment or training. Indeed, the benefits of the scheme risked being undermined by the way it was delivered because it was poorly targeted, so lots of children who needed the support the most were not able to benefit from it.
Tutoring was not mentioned in the Budget earlier this month, so it seems that the national tutoring programme is coming to an end. Just a few months ago, the then Schools Minister, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), stated:
“The Department has committed that, from the 2023/24 academic year, tutoring will have been embedded across schools in England.”
However, without a specific budget for tuition, it is assumed that schools will need to use their main budgets to fund that support.
Catherine McKinnell
I will just finish my point.
As I was saying, it is assumed that schools will need to use their main budgets to fund tuition support, absorbing the costs into what is already a shrinking pot. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister set out the Government’s vision of the national tutoring programme in the future. I was going to ask if he could do so in his response to this debate, but he is welcome to make an intervention now.
Damian Hinds
I will speak in a moment. I just wondered whether the hon. Lady is committing, in the event of her party coming into government, to having a separate line item for the tutoring programme over and above core school budgets.
Catherine McKinnell
The question that I am putting to the Government is how they envisage the future of the national tutoring programme. I would be grateful if the Government set out their vision. I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s point, as I deal with it in my speech—
Damian Hinds
It will not be long until there is a general election. We do not know exactly when, but there will be a general election at some point in the months to come. If the hon. Lady is saying that she thinks the Government’s course of action is a mistake, I am interested in hearing the alternative that she is setting out.
Catherine McKinnell
As I said, I am really interested to hear what the Government’s vision is. Given that they have committed to ensuring that tutoring is embedded within the national school system, what is their plan for ensuring that that happens? We will inherit that plan from them, so I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to my question. I will set out Labour’s costed plans in detail, but I am interested to hear how the Government will deliver on their pledge to ensure that tutoring is embedded within the national school system.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that schools funding in England is already not increasing as fast as the cost pressures schools are facing. That means that the poorest schools are likely to struggle the most to find the cash for tutoring, and that our most disadvantaged pupils will miss out. With access to tutoring seemingly diminishing, what is the Minister’s plan for children to recover the learning they lost, which they have still not recovered from? I appreciate that he would like to move these issues on to the next Labour Government to solve, but given that this Government are currently in charge, I am sure that, like me, listeners to the debate are interested in hearing what this Government’s plans are.
In government, Labour will consider how more tailored support could be most effectively delivered to ensure that children achieve what they need to in school. Crucially, we will look at introducing a range of measures to ensure that we close the attainment gap. We know that children’s speech and language have really suffered since the pandemic, which has the potential to affect their educational attainment in the much longer term, so Labour has pledged to equip every school with the funding to deliver evidence-based early language interventions to tackle the problem.
We understand that quality teaching is key to unlocking children’s potential, so we would use the funding available from ending the tax breaks currently enjoyed by private schools to hire 6,500 more teachers in our state schools, giving every child the teachers they need to benefit from a quality education.
Jonathan Gullis
It is a totally noble aim to bring more teachers into the system. Of course, the Government do an extensive work by providing grants for people taking specific courses; in some cases—science, for example, these are worth up to £20,000. What specifically is Labour’s plan for recruitment of new teachers that the current Government are not doing? I have previously asked shadow Ministers similar questions, because I genuinely want to understand what will be done differently by Labour, bearing in mind that this Government are giving out tens of thousands of pounds to people simply for turning up to the training course, let alone then staying on, with the levelling-up bonus payments in education investment areas. I am keen to hear what the Labour plan looks like.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member’s wish to talk about the challenge in recruitment and retention. Clearly, it is related to this debate today, in the sense that if we had all the teachers we need, would we need a national tutoring programme? Labour has set out quite detailed plans about how we will go about resolving the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, and we continue to have conversations with the sector to ensure that the money in the current spending envelope for bursaries and incentives is spent as effectively as possible, because clearly there is a problem. The Government are seriously missing their recruitment targets. We have a range of measures, but I do not think it would be appropriate to go into the detail that the hon. Member wants me to go into today. However, I recognise the sincerity of his challenge in that regard and his recognition of the challenge, and Labour is absolutely determined to meet it.
We know that children’s mental health is a huge challenge, so we will put a specialist mental health professional in every school and ensure that young people have access to early support. We will also invest in mental health hubs to ensure that young people can access mental health support where they most need it. We will offer free breakfast clubs in every primary school, to ensure that children have a softer start to the school day and the opportunity to learn, play and socialise. The evidence is clear that such clubs increase attainment and attendance; they will also put money back in parents’ pockets and ensure a start to the school day that can help parents to get to work.
We recognise that there is no one fix, given the level of challenge in our system, but we will focus not only on taking a more targeted approach, so that children who need additional support the most get it, but on making sure that there is a wider network of support for every school community. That network will ensure that every child has the best chance of having the best start in life.
This is all about Labour’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and to ensure that every child gets the firm foundation and high-quality education that sets them up for life. Because education is a priority for us, as it has been for every Labour Government, we will put it back at the centre of national life. We will prioritise our children, schools and families once again.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate today. I also thank everybody who has taken part: the hon. Member herself, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brought the Northern Ireland perspective, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who spoke for the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North rightly spoke of the hard times of covid, which we all remember. Our home and professional experiences were indeed very difficult. They were also very difficult to plan for, because they were experiences that our country, like others, had not had before. I do not think it is right to say that people were slow to react. For example, I thought that what happened in respect of Oak National Academy was amazing and came together quickly. The work that teachers and headteachers did converting to virtual education and enabling home learning was remarkable, but there is no doubt that it was an incredibly hard time. International studies such as the programme for international student assessment show that the whole world, with the exception of only one or two jurisdictions, took a really big knock from covid. Almost every country took a serious hit in educational attainment from covid.
England held up relatively well. That is part of the reason why in the most recent PISA results, in mathematics for example, England was ranked 11th in the world. That is an improvement on recent times, particularly so if one looks back to the period before 2010 when England had been ranked 27th. We also saw improvements in reading and in science. In the progress in international reading literacy study 2021, primary school readers in England were ranked fourth in the world and first in the western world. However, none of that changes the fact that covid was a terrible knock to education here and elsewhere in the world.
Munira Wilson
The Minister and his colleagues talk a lot about the PISA scores, and obviously we cannot deny that evidence. He talked about the impact of the pandemic, but does he recognise that the attainment gap had been starting to dwindle? I noticed that he smarted when I mentioned that the pupil premium was a Liberal Democrat commitment that we delivered with the Conservatives in government.
Munira Wilson
Sorry, I was not wishing to make a political point. My question is: will the Minister recognise that the attainment gap was actually starting to widen again before the pandemic, and that the pandemic accelerated that trend? That is what we are all here to try to tackle through the tutoring programme.
Damian Hinds
Let us not pursue the thing about the pupil premium. That happened to be in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat plans for Government ahead of 2010. The two parties worked well together in coalition, and that is a good thing that we should welcome. There had been progress on the disadvantage gap. It is also true, as I was just saying, that covid hit the whole world, but it also hit different groups of children differentially, and we are still seeing the effects of that in the disadvantage gap. I will come back to that.
Tutoring has been a key part of our recovery plan, and I thank everybody who has been involved in it: the tutors, the tutoring organisations, the teachers and teaching assistants, and everybody else who has made it possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield mentioned the particular role and contribution of volunteers, and I join him in that. It is a very special thing to do.
The national tutoring programme is not necessarily what always comes to mind when the person in the street thinks of tutoring. A lot of it, as the hon. Member for Twickenham alluded to, is small group work; it is not just one to one. Although very important work has been done by outside tutoring organisations, most of the work on the national tutoring programme has been done by existing staff in schools. We have committed £1.4 billion to the four-year life of the national tutoring programme in schools and colleges, and invested in the 16 to 19 tuition fund.
For the second year of the programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred to this—funding has gone directly to schools. That has enabled schools to choose the right approach for them and their children through the use of their own staff, accessing quality-assured tuition partners or employing an academic mentor. We created the find a tuition partner service to put schools in touch with those opportunities, and also provided training through the Education Development Trust for staff, including teaching assistants who deliver tutoring.
Nearly 5 million courses have been started since the NTP launched in November 2020, and 46% of the pupils tutored last year had been eligible for free school meals in the past six years. That is the “ever 6” measure—a measure of disadvantage. The 16 to 19 tuition fund will also have delivered hundreds of thousands of courses.
The tutoring programme has been part of the wider £5 billion education recovery funding, which is made up of the £1.4 billion for tutoring, £400 million for aspects of teacher training, £800 million for additional time in 16 to 19, and nearly £2 billion directly to schools for evidence-based interventions appropriate to pupils’ needs.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North rightly mentioned speech and language interventions. I can tell her that already two thirds of primary schools have benefited—211,000 year R children so far—from our investment in the Nuffield early language intervention programme. The evidence suggests that the programme assists children in making four months’ worth of additional progress, while children eligible for free school meals make greater progress of seven months.
Covid hit the world, including us. It did not hit every discipline in exactly the same way. Some of us will recognise from our own time at home with children that some things were easier to do than others. Reading at key stage 2 and junior school held up pretty well during covid. Maths has now improved and the standard is now close to what it was in the years before covid. Writing is still behind, although we have had a 2% improvement since last year.
Big challenges remain. No one denies that the No. 1 issue is attendance. This almost sounds trite, but there is an obvious link between being at school and the attainment achieved. It bears repeating that even if there are difficulties in having many children in school, we really have to work on attendance. As well as the overall attainment effect of attendance, there is a differential factor between the cohort of pupils as a whole and disadvantaged pupils; in other words, there is a bit more absence in the latter group than the former. There is also a link—some studies say it plays a really big part—between attendance and the attainment gap, which makes it doubly important that we work on attendance.
As colleagues know, schools are doing many things brilliantly, as are local authorities and others, to try to get attendance back up to pre-covid levels. Obviously, every child needs to be off school at some time because of sickness—all of us were when we were children. That will always be true, but we need to get back to the levels we had before covid.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North alluded to specific things that we do around breakfast clubs. It is important to do them in a targeted way, and not just in primary school, as the Labour party plans to do, but in secondary school as well. There are issues around mental health support, which is why we are gradually rolling out the mental health support teams across the country. Again, we think that it is right to have that in both phases—it is important at both primary and secondary school—and schools are also doing an immense amount of work.
Although the national tutoring programme was always a time-limited programme post-covid, tutoring will continue to play an important role and we know that the evidence shows that tutoring is an effective, targeted approach to increase pupils’ attainment. Headteachers are best placed to decide how to invest their funding, depending on their particular circumstances and priorities, and that approach underpins our whole approach to the school system, in that we put headteachers in charge. I anticipate many schools continuing to make tutoring opportunities available to their pupils and we will continue to support schools to deliver tutoring in future, including through pupil premium funding, which will rise to more than £2.9 billion in 2024-25.
Schools decide how to use their funding, aided by the Education Endowment Foundation, which sets out good knowledge and advice on the best uses of funding for the education programmes with the most efficacy. I do not think there is a conflict between universal and highly targeted programmes. We target via the funding formula and then headteachers are best placed, armed with the knowledge from the EEF and others, to decide how to use that funding. The overall national funding formula has the disadvantage element, which next year will be a bigger proportion than has previously been the case. Then, of course, there is the pupil premium.
Jonathan Gullis
I have outlined in detail why I think schools need the additional funding due to the financial pressures they are under. However, if the Government are not seeking to do that—which, personally, I think is a mistake—is the Department for Education planning to somehow monitor how many schools continue to deliver tutoring and the percentage of disadvantaged pupils? Or is the Department simply not going to keep an eye on the ball after the funding ends and rely on headteachers, who will, as the Minister has rightly said, do things in the best interests of their pupils? Ultimately, that will leave us in this place with less knowledge about the spending decisions and whether the support is continuing and embedded, which was the aim of the programme when initially introduced.
Damian Hinds
It is absolutely appropriate to embed tutoring into schools’ wider progress, because we know from our gold standard analyser the EEF and other studies that that approach has efficacy and achieves results, although obviously it depends on how it is done. As my hon. Friend puts it, we will keep an eye on the matter, but that is not the same as specifying that Mrs Smith the headteacher should do this but not that. We think Mrs Smith should be able to decide. We also have Ofsted inspections and the results are published as part of a system that is transparent but that also empowers schools, school leaders and trusts to make those decisions.
Munira Wilson
I completely agree with the Minister about giving headteachers and teachers autonomy. As a Liberal, I do not believe in things being controlled from the centre, and teachers know best, but the reality of the funding situation, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) pointed out, is that many schools are setting deficit budgets for the first time ever. We can talk about how money has gone up in cash terms, but it has not gone up in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that schools’ spending power has been reduced massively by inflationary costs.
I pointed out that the pupil premium has been cut by 14% in real terms. The tutoring fund underspent because many of the schools cannot match the funding that is available. The Minister may really believe that this is an effective, evidence-based intervention, but schools will not be able to continue without ringfenced, dedicated funding. I was told that last year when I went to visit Southwark College, which is dealing with some of the most disadvantaged pupils, who otherwise will have no life chances at all if they do not get the support they need.
Damian Hinds
On the subject of funding, including the pupil premium and the recently announced additional amounts for covering pension contributions, overall school funding next year will be £2.9 billion higher than it was in 2023-24. That will take the total to over £60 billion in 2024-25—the highest ever level in real terms per pupil.
We also remain committed to improving outcomes for students aged 16 to 19, particularly those yet to achieve their GCSE English and maths. That is a subject that came up earlier. I should stress that not having English and maths is not an impediment to starting an apprenticeship; the person just has to continue to study them while doing their apprenticeship.
I know that this subject stirs strong feelings in many people. We know that the workplace and life value of English and maths is immense, and that is why there is so much focus on those subjects as we develop the advanced British standard and in our design of the T-levels and some of the apprenticeship reforms. English and maths are so important for the futures of these young people, which is why in October we announced an additional £300 million over two years to support students who need to resit their GCSEs.
There is no rule that everybody has to resit a GCSE. Whether the person resits GCSE mathematics or takes a functional skills qualification depends on the GCSE grade that they got the first time around. The £300 million is part of what we call an initial downpayment on the development of the advanced British standard. As colleagues know, it will be a new baccalaureate-style qualification, bringing together the best of A-levels and T-levels in a single qualification and ending the artificial distinction between academic and vocational for good.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for securing this debate, and to everybody who has been and continues to be involved in the national tutoring programme and the 16 to 19 programme. Tutoring can have a transformational effect on pupils’ and students’ attainment, and I am proud that the Department’s flagship tutoring programmes have been supporting so many in catch-up following covid-19. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, all the schools and colleges that have participated in these programmes, all the tutors—including the volunteer tutors—who have delivered them, and of course all the pupils and students for engaging so enthusiastically.
Munira Wilson
I start where the Minister ended: by extending my thanks to all those involved in the tutoring programme, particularly the volunteers, including Douglas, who is here today and was namechecked earlier, from the office of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). The contribution that volunteers and teachers—who work extraordinarily hard, day in, day out—make to our children is invaluable. Thank you to all of them.
I also thank all hon. Members who turned up to participate today. I know that many others could not be here today, but they are also very strongly committed to the tutoring programme. The hon. Member for Sedgefield talked about the excitement that pupils often experience when they receive tutoring. That goes to my point about tackling persistent absence. We know that tutoring helps to bring down some of those absence levels. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of extending these programmes right across our four nations, given the benefits involved.
I think this is a first for me: I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and it is not very often I find myself saying that. Where I am in violent agreement with him is on something that I and the Liberal Democrats constantly point out. As a party, we see money spent on education and our children and young people as a long-term investment. I am afraid that the Treasury often sees children as a cost. We need to see them as part of our current society and also of our future society and our economy. Investing heavily early on will pay dividends and generate returns for generations to come.
As the hon. Member pointed out, levelling up starts here, with children. That is why I am so perplexed as to why the Government are not extending the programme. I know that the Minister said it was time-limited to start with, but given that the attainment gap continues to grow, and given the evidence that has been generated to show the impact, I am slightly surprised that we are not seeing a continuing commitment.
I am also disappointed that, following persistent questioning by the Minister, we heard no commitment from the Labour Front Bench to continue tutoring should there be a change of Government later this year or at the start of next year. Tutoring really does help tackle the attainment gap. I repeat my point to the Minister. He has said that it is a great intervention, but without the money, too many more children are going to be left behind.
Even if he may not have said so publicly right now, I urge the Minister to please go away and talk to the Treasury about whether money can be found to continue this important intervention, because our children really do deserve the very best start in life. We cannot just keep writing off those who do not have the same advantages as many of us. I speak as a parent who has invested in tutoring for my daughter. I want the child down the road who lives in much more challenging conditions, who does not necessarily have the support at home, to have the same benefit as my daughter, so that they can achieve great things, because every child has that potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tutoring provision.
UK Food Security
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Dyke and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK food security.
It is an honour to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and to open this important debate. The most widely accepted definition of food security is when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food, which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. That definition is built on four pillars: supply, access, supply stability and nutritional value. Food resilience is a critical aspect of ensuring food security and sustainability in the UK, and it needs to be incorporated into our agrifood systems.
The UK may score well on supply, with the Government food strategy observing that we produce about 75% of what we consume, but that number hides a range of self-sufficiency levels and some of the future problems that we will encounter. For example, the UK produces only 53% of the vegetables and 16% of the fruits that we consume. That makes our fruit and veg supply vulnerable to outside factors, as seen when a shortage of tomatoes hit the UK last February. When we consider that we import most of our fruit and veg from southern Europe, a region that will be heavily impacted by climate change, it is essential that we focus on putting in place the necessary measures now.
Food security is paramount to our national security. It is crucial that we take a holistic view of our food supply chain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Coincidentally, back home in Northern Ireland, Ulster University has just revealed that one in 10 UK adults live in households classified as marginally food insecure—10% are reported as living in households with moderate or severe food insecurity. She is right to bring this matter to Westminster Hall. Does she agree that more could be done in our schools, to extend free school dinners universally, to ease off on parents and, more so, to ensure all children have access to one healthy and nutritious meal each day?
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I will come on to that later in my speech.
We must ensure sustainability in our food production, which encompasses the nutritional quality of food, its accessibility and the stability of supply. When we talk about the sustainability of food production, we must first look inwards at food being produced at home. British farming is facing a crisis. I hear daily from members of my own family, neighbours and friends about the challenges that they are facing, and their concerns and anxieties regarding their business.
For that reason, I feel honoured to work alongside organisations such as the Farm Safety Foundation, which campaigns to raise awareness of the mental health crisis facing farmers and farm workers. The immense pressure that the industry has faced over recent years is taking its toll financially, physically and mentally. Many farms across the country are on the precipice, with 110,000 farms having closed their farm gates since 1990. Many farmers do not know whether they will survive the next 12 months.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Environmental Audit Committee has said that the food system globally and in the UK has become too driven by price alone. That race to the bottom for the cheapest food results in a squeeze on farmers’ incomes and results in the mental pressure the hon. Lady is talking about, as well as undermining food security. Does she agree that the Government must do more to ensure that UK trade policies support fair terms of trade for farmers here and abroad, rather than driving the import and export of cheap food?
Sarah Dyke
That is my very next point—the hon. Lady makes a very good one.
Unfair supermarket buying practices are leaving family farms teetering on a cliff edge. The current groceries supply code of practice is inadequate and rarely enforced. Nearly 70% of British fruit and veg farmers agree that we need tougher regulations to address the imbalance of power. Although our food system is structurally resilient, it is functionally non-resilient and it is not sustainable in the long term.
British farmers are receiving incoherent messages from the Government. On the one hand, they are told to engage more on sustainable practices, which is welcome, but on the other hand, this Conservative Government sign irresponsible trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that undercut our farmers on welfare practices and food standards. Good food security needs a trade policy that protects British agriculture.
We also need proper scrutiny of our trade deals. Even the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), did not have a positive opinion of them, stating that the UK’s free trade deal with Australia was
“not actually a very good deal for the UK.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
We need to support the production of sustainable food at home and allow parity in the market. We should allow the system to put more emphasis on localism to provide a food system that is resilient and delivers a vibrant, cyclical local economy. I represent a constituency in rural Somerset, where people live next to local food suppliers, but their food is not always available to buy locally, despite the wishes of those producing it.
Polling by the Sustain alliance states that 75% of farmers indicated that gaining access to alternative, local markets gave them opportunities to demand a more competitive price for their produce, while keeping revenue local to create local jobs, and incentivise further investment on their farms. The current market limits those opportunities, whether that be difficulties with planning applications, stopping the construction of farm shops, for example, or the restrictions with buyer contracts that prevent farmers from shortening the supply chain.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I agree entirely that if we are to protect the consumer, we also have an interest in supporting and protecting the long-term sustainability of our food producers. On the point of planning, one of the biggest challenges we face is that, although we welcome the ability of farmers to diversify with farm shops or support renewable energy production on their land to some extent, there is a lot of pressure from developers to develop prime agricultural land for housing. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done, at national and local level, to support prime agricultural land for the production of food, rather than for housing development?
Sarah Dyke
I agree that there needs to be a balance between food production and housing supply. My view is that we need to ensure that housing is developed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Further to the point that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made, many farmers in my constituency feel that, although rewilding is a fashionable concept, perhaps it goes a little too far, and we need to be more imaginative when deciding what can be rewilded and what should be kept and maintained in the same way, when not used for housing, for growing excellent British food.
Sarah Dyke
I agree that we need to balance food production with ensuring we protect our precious environment. Farmers obviously have a key role to play in that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Before my hon. Friend leaves this topic, I think this comes to the heart of the matter. One of the biggest barriers, particularly for red meat producers, to putting produce into a local supply chain is the inability to get it slaughtered close to the point of production. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the ever-increasing move towards larger, centralised abattoirs would allow a regrowth of smaller abattoirs closer to the point of production, which is better for animal welfare, carbon emissions and, ultimately, for producers being able to access that much more diverse range of markets?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. As the owner of a small flock of sheep—
Sarah Dyke
Fine Shetland sheep, indeed. I do understand the challenges of accessing a local abattoir, not only a local one but one able to help with the services that small producers require. I will cover that in a minute, but I would like to make some progress.
I want to see changes in the public procurement system that provides schools, such as King Arthur’s School in Wincanton or Ansford Academy in Castle Cary, Frome College or Huish Episcopi Academy with the flexibility to source local produce, whether that be food or drink, and ensure that local provenance. Many schools do not have the flexibility to do that. That particularly resonates with regard to the 800,000 children living in poverty who are not eligible for free school meals as their households are in receipt of universal credit and have in excess of a £7,400 post-tax income.
Building awareness among children of where their food comes from now can sow the seeds of good food habits for life. The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that we extend free school meals to all children in primary education and all secondary school children whose families receive universal credit, but there is a threat to that. There has been a 12% increase in the number of large-scale industrial farms in the UK from 2016 to 2023. The intensive nature of those farms means that accessibility to local food and drink is likely to be diminished. Environmental standards will decline and the custodians of our countryside—the small family farm—will disappear.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt and am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in her excellent speech. Does she agree that one of the threats to the family farm is the fact that we have a range of new schemes being put out by the Government, many of which are commendable in themselves under the environmental land management schemes heading but which fail to protect tenant farmers? Baroness Rock’s review includes 70 excellent recommendations, including that of a tenant farmer commissioner, which should be put in place to protect tenant farmers before many of them are kicked off their land by landlords exploiting new schemes. Is that not just morally wrong but extremely stupid because it reduces our ability to feed ourselves as a country?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I wholeheartedly support.
It is critical for long-term UK food security that we employ sustainable agricultural practices, which focus on appropriate food production that helps protect the environment, conserve natural resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring an adequate and reliable food supply to meet the demands of the population. The Government’s food strategy was described as “a waste of trees” by Professor Tim Lang. The Government should now not baulk at producing a robust land use strategy, which has been promised for more than a year but has yet to be seen. Can the Minister provide an update on that this morning? The Liberal Democrats will develop a comprehensive national land strategy, including a horticulture strategy to encourage the growth of the horticulture sector and effectively manage the competing demands on land.
I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its recent report on insect decline and food security, which raised an important issue. The loss of biodiversity and pollinators will have a heavy impact on our ability to grow food in future. Around 40% of all insects are at risk of extinction. They are an integral part of our ecosystem and without them, we simply would not survive. Dung beetles, for example, fertilise and aerate soils, helping to maintain pasture that livestock is fed on. Indeed, it is estimated that dung beetles may save the UK cattle industry a whopping £367 million a year through the provision of ecosystem services.
One of the many things for which Somerset is famous is our cider. Pollinators are crucial to apple production, yet we have already witnessed their decline. Buglife’s South West Bees Project report in 2013 focused on 23 bee species considered most at risk in the south-west. Twelve of the target species are found in Somerset. Sadly, however, six target species have already been lost.
The national pollinator strategy is due for renewal this year, and the Government must take the opportunity to redress our biodiversity losses. However, I do not have confidence that they will do so, because this is the fourth year in a row that the Government have authorised the emergency use of neonic pesticides, despite knowing the harmful effects on our wildlife. The Liberal Democrats oppose the use of these damaging pesticides and recognise how important it is to protect our wild pollinators, to stop further damage to our biodiversity and to protect UK food security in the long term.
That point brings me on to UK household food security. A resilient food system can help to stabilise food prices and minimise market volatility. According to the Food Foundation, the poorest 20% of households would need to spend half of their disposable income on food in order to afford the NHS’s recommended healthy diet. That is clearly impossible for those people.
Food-related ill health is a growing issue in our society. Unless we take action to improve our food system, it is estimated that 40% of British adults will have obesity issues by 2035. That would mean increased costs, not just for our NHS but for our economy as a whole, given that we already have 3 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. We must therefore stem the tide of junk food, unhealthy food and processed food that is currently flooding our supermarkets, our screens and our high streets. Instead, we must actively work to promote locally grown whole foods such as fruits and vegetables. That is best for our health, for our economy and for our planet, but also for our farmers, who want to sell their produce to local people. That is how we can create a thriving food culture of which we can all be proud.
Household food security can be a particularly prevalent issue in rural areas such as my constituency. Rural communities are less likely than urban areas to have a glut of supermarket choices. They are therefore more reliant on smaller local supermarket stores. Research by Which? has found that those stores almost never stock essential budget-line items, which may result in higher food costs and household food insecurity. The major unfairness is that these communities are often side by side with those that are growing food.
As I have pointed out, farmers want to sell their food to local residents, but the food system prevents that. We must act now to make that a reality, as we will soon face a time when climate change disrupts our system with increasing regularity. If we are not prepared and ready to adapt, our farmers will suffer, and as consumers we will all suffer. By taking a holistic view of UK food security, we can ensure that we have a sustainable future that supports British farmers, supports our environment and biodiversity, and supports the growth of a healthy nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for securing today’s incredibly important debate. It has also been a pleasure to hear the interventions from right hon. and hon. Members.
UK food security is vital to our national security. Strengthening it by supporting our farmers and food producers is a top priority for this Government. Our high degree of food security is built on the supply of food from diverse sources—from domestic production as well as from imports through stable trade routes.
We produce 63% of all the food we need, and 73% of the food that we can grow or rear in the UK for all or part of the year. Those figures have changed little over the past 20 years. UK consumers have access through international trade to food products that we cannot produce here, or at least not on an all-year-round basis. This supplements domestic production and ensures that any disruption from risks such as adverse weather or disease do not affect the UK’s overall security of food supply.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has well-established ways of working with the industry and across Government to monitor risks that may arise. The key forum is the F4, which is chaired by a DEFRA Minister and comprises the National Farmers Union, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality; it covers the interests of the sector from farm to fork. This extensive, regular and ongoing engagement helps the Department to quickly prepare for and respond to issues that have the potential to cause disruption to food supply chains.
We also continue monitoring of the market through the UK agriculture market monitoring group, which monitors price, supply, inputs, trade and recent developments. We have also broadened our engagement with the industry to supplement our analysis with real-time intelligence as required. Domestically, the Government have committed to maintaining, if not enhancing, the level of food that we currently produce. That includes sustainably boosting production in sectors in which there are post-Brexit opportunities.
Food production and environmental improvement can and must go hand in hand. We are already seeing the benefits of our environmental schemes, which are supporting food production domestically and are delivering environmental benefits. For instance, actions through the sustainable farming incentive support the creation of flower-rich buffers that help pollinators, which in turn help to produce a better yields. Our soil management actions ensure that farmers are supported in the foundations of food security, such as the health and the resilience of soil.
The Agriculture Act 2020 imposes the following duty:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
We are seeing that through the roll-out of the environmental land management schemes.
Jamie Stone
Farmers in my constituency have made the point that when a carbon capture audit is done of a farm, the value of grassland in holding and storing carbon is underestimated. That should be looked at again in the overall audit of these farms, which could help in turn to support the growth of excellent beef on our farms.
Robbie Moore
Having been involved in the agriculture sector for my whole life before entering this place, I know just how important pasture and grassland are to carbon sequestration. When we are rolling out environmental land management schemes, it is important that the benefits of pasture land through carbon sequestration are taken into account. That is why the reforms that we have introduced, through coming out of the common agricultural policy, are so important to supporting a highly productive sector that is environmentally sustainable.
In addition to the sustainable farming incentive, the farming investment fund and the farm productivity innovation funding will further improve farm productivity. Our schemes will ensure our long-term food security by investing in the foundations of food production, such as healthy soil, water and biodiverse ecosystems. Backing our farmers is so important, which is why the Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary announced a range of measures at the National Farmers Union conference to boost productivity and resilience in the sector, including the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, which is expected to total £227 million.
Tim Farron
The Minister mentions the rolling out of the grant offer, which can be very valuable to many farmers. Is he aware that tenants cannot make those grant applications themselves? Does he agree with his noble Friend Baroness Rock that tenants and landlords should be able to make joint applications for capital grants so that our farmers can thrive and our tenants can remain on the land?
Robbie Moore
Baroness Rock’s review produced a fantastic report with many excellent recommendations. My DEFRA colleagues and I are in close interaction with Baroness Rock and are working our way through her many recommendations. If we are rolling out schemes, it is vital that any innovation or productivity grants, along with any sustainable farming incentive schemes or others that fall under the environmental land management schemes, are available to all applicants to ensure that we can get the best out of the land that they farm.
Building on the recommendations made, the £427 million of funding for measures announced at the National Farmers Union conference doubles the investment going into productivity schemes, growing the grant offer from £91 million last year to £220 million this year. We have already awarded £120 million in grant funding to farmers through the farming investment fund and have committed £120 million to 185 projects as part of the farming innovation programme. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste, by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it. Together, these funds will support innovation and productivity and will improve animal health and the environment.
We will continue to work across Government to ensure that we carry out the commitments made in the UK food strategy and at the farm-to-fork summit in respect of the national planning policy framework. We want to ensure that this fully reflects our shared food security and climate and environment ambitions. The national planning policy framework sets out clearly that local planning authorities should consider all the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land when making plans or taking decisions on new development proposals. This point builds on the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Where significant development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, planning authorities should use poorer-quality land in preference to a higher quality.
Food supply is one of the UK’s 13 critical national infrastructure sectors. DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency are joint lead Government Departments, with DEFRA leading on supply and the FSA on food safety. We work closely with the Cabinet Office and other Departments to ensure that food supply is fully incorporated as part of emergency preparedness, including consideration of dependencies on other sectors.
In the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government made a commitment to produce an assessment of our food security at least once every three years. The first UK food security report was published in December 2021, and the next food security report will be published in December 2024. To ensure our continued food security, the Prime Minister has also announced that a food security index will be published annually—that has been welcomed by the sector—and will complement the three-yearly UK food security report. We are currently developing the content of the index, but we expect the index to present the key data and analysis needed to monitor how we are maintaining overall food security. Productivity, resilience and environmental sustainability are incredibly important to domestic food production and are a key element of our food security.
At the National Farmers Union conference, the Prime Minister also made an announcement about ensuring that we are giving internal drainage boards more support. We know how important lowland farmland is for producing food, which is why the £75 million of funding announced by the Government during the spring Budget and earlier at the NFU conference is so important to ensure that we can give our internal drainage boards the support that they need to mitigate flooding downstream as well as possible.
On health and wellbeing, I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about the Farm Safety Foundation. I know that James Chapman, the chair of the trustees, is doing an excellent job; he has been involved in the organisation since 2014, I believe. I wish him and his team well with the Farm Safety Foundation, as I know just how important that organisation is to improving not only farm safety, but the general health and wellbeing of our farming community.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the land use framework. I reassure her that the Secretary of State wants to ensure that food productivity is at the heart of the land use framework, which is why we are scrutinising it before it is released. Not only does it have to cover energy security, biodiversity offsetting, net zero and other measures, but we want to ensure that food security is at the heart of it before it is released. Our food security is strong, but we are not taking it for granted; we will continue to work across the supply chain to maintain and enhance it.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I assure them that the Government consider food security to be incredibly important and will keep it as a top priority for the DEFRA ministerial team.
Question put and agreed to.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian Refugees
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered international support for Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The southern Caucasus is a melting pot of cultures, religions and ethnicities. Over the centuries, these different groups have at times co-existed peacefully and at other times experienced turmoil and bloodshed. In recent memory, we saw the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923, when an estimated 1.5 million people were killed by forces from the Ottoman empire. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late 1980s, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan, officially voted to become part of Armenia. Azerbaijan sought to suppress the separatist movement, while Armenia backed it. This led to clashes and eventually a full-scale war. Tens of thousands died and up to 1 million were displaced, amid reports of ethnic cleansing and massacres committed on both sides.
The most recent hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan show that conflict is never far away. Although they have recently negotiated a peace agreement, tensions remain high, and if there is a peace it is certainly fragile. Just last year, a number of us gathered in Westminster Hall to raise concerns about the blockade of the Lachin corridor, the main supply route from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. At the time, several hon. Members highlighted the potential for starvation and humanitarian catastrophe. The supposed Russian peacekeepers were at best observers and at worst actively supporting the ongoing persecution of the local Armenian population.
Sadly, the outcome we most feared was realised last September when, after a nine-month blockade, the Azeri military expelled the Armenian population. This forced displacement of a people has taken place when the eyes of the world are turned elsewhere. As Armenia is a small country with a population of 3 million, the arrival of more than 100,000 refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as a further 40,000 refugees from the war in 2020, has had a significant impact on it.
I was a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that visited Armenia last month. We met a group of refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, who described the events of the blockade and their eventual expulsion in harrowing detail. They described the so-called Russian peacekeepers travelling to Armenia—a privilege not afforded to the local population—and buying goods and supplies only to resell them to the starving people at massively inflated prices. They described the difficulty of acquiring medical supplies, fuel and even water. They described the violent end of the blockade, when the people were shelled out of their homes. We heard how the shelling started at 12.30 pm, when children were at school and separated from their parents. They described the chaos of people trying to locate their loved ones, and of people abandoning their home with just the clothes on their back.
The lucky ones had some fuel in their vehicles; the others just walked. The 40 km journey to Armenia took three days because of Azeri forces’ continued bombardment and because of obstructive bureaucracy by the Azeris at the border. The lack of water on the journey meant that many, especially the elderly, did not make it.
Many of the refugees are now staying with family members in border towns and in and around Jermuk, but every Armenian town has been impacted by the influx of refugees. The refugees are, of course, critical of Azerbaijan, but they are also critical of the Russian peacekeepers’ failure to protect them.
A number of officials we met believe that the Russian forces had been directed by Moscow to foster instability, not peace. This seems to be substantiated by Kremlin rhetoric. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov has insisted that Russia does not bear blame; he said that there was “no direct reason” for the exodus, merely that people were willing to leave. As an aside, non-intervention by Russian peacekeepers sets a dangerous precedent that international humanitarian law can be breached without repercussions, and opens up the risk of future Azerbaijani incursions into Armenia, for example to secure a path to its exclave of Nakhchivan.
When we met the mayor of Jermuk near the border, he described the triaging that had taken place and the intensive support, both practical and psychological, needed for these broken people. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed that, noting that the 100,000 refugees required critical support.
For many, this ethnic cleansing of a people has echoes of the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923. It is notable that while 34 countries, including the USA, Canada and France, have recognised the historic genocide, the UK has failed to do so. Several hon. Members have raised that point, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). In denying formal acknowledgement of the historic atrocity, the UK Government continue to delegitimise the collective pain endured by the Armenian community. A Foreign Office memo from 1999 is revealing as to the motivations behind the UK’s position. It reads:
“Given the importance of our relationship (political, strategic, commercial) with Turkey…recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK”.
I would appreciate a response from the Minister on whether the failure to recognise the historic genocide is simply an attempt to appease a trading partner.
Let me return to the situation on the ground in Armenia. In October 2023, UNHCR launched a $97 million emergency refugee response plan to provide urgent humanitarian aid and protection to the refugees and to those hosting them in Armenia. That support runs out at the end of this month, but not one refugee has been able to return home. Although there has been international support, for which the Armenian Government are grateful, far more is required. The US has committed $28 million since 2020, the EU has provided €17.5 million since September, and France committed €27.5 million in 2023. The UK, to date, has committed £1 million.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech outlining the scale of the crisis for Armenians who have left Nagorno-Karabakh and are now refugees. Does she agree that £1 million is woefully insufficient to support the Armenian Government in helping those refugees, and that we need to hugely scale up our support?
Carol Monaghan
I think it is important that we are not critical of the support that has been given, and £1 million is a good starting place, but I agree with the hon. Member. I ask the Minister what further financial and humanitarian support the UK will provide for the Armenian Government to support the refugees and their hosts in Armenia. Aside from providing aid, the UK Government have a moral responsibility to show leadership in the region. They must undertake all diplomatic efforts to foster dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan and help to create the conditions for a true sustainable peace that will allow displaced Armenians to return home.
In October 2023, the UK Government argued:
“It is vital that international humanitarian organisations have independent access…We therefore welcome Azerbaijan’s decision last week to allow UN agencies into Nagorno-Karabakh, to complement ongoing efforts by the ICRC”—
the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, given that the Armenian population had been ethnically cleansed a month earlier, that seems rather futile.
In January 2024, the UK Government stated:
“We welcomed the two countries’ historic joint statement of 7 December, in which important confidence-building measures were announced, aimed at reaching an historic agreement and securing lasting peace for the region.”
However, there is little confidence that that peace agreement will be sustained.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Member mentions a lack of confidence that the progress towards peace will be sustained. I have a couple of questions. First, does she welcome the bilateral agreements and discussions between the leaders and Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia towards that end? Secondly, can she explain why, or from whom, the lack of confidence is coming?
Carol Monaghan
First, any agreement that is reached has to be welcomed. Any steps forward have to be welcomed. As for who is concerned, the people we spoke to in the border towns who see Azeri incursions—who see the troops coming over the border—are the ones who are telling us that they do not have confidence in the agreement. That is because they are not seeing it being played out in real time in front of them.
Given the events of the past six months, I was concerned to read that in November 2023 Foreign Office officials were encouraging British business leaders to capitalise on lucrative commercial opportunities in Nagorno-Karabakh to support President Aliyev’s rebuilding agenda. That is quite simply an abdication of the UK Government’s moral and ethical responsibilities. It is also hypocritical. How can the UK Government condemn Azerbaijan’s “unacceptable use of force” in Nagorno-Karabakh in September and then, six weeks later, encourage British commercial involvement in the region? Can the Minister provide clarity on the reasons for encouraging British businesses to exploit the tragic situation?
Despite limited attention from international media, the situation on the ground in Armenia remains critical. Urgent assistance is required for the refugees and for those supporting them. When we asked the refugees about their hope for the future, they responded that they simply wished to return home. The International Court of Justice has issued an order requiring Azerbaijan to
“ensure that persons who have left…and who wish to return to Nagorno-Karabakh are able to do so in a safe, unimpeded and expeditious manner…free from the use of force or intimidation.”
Although the Azeri Government state that return is safe, the refugees were clear that this is impossible. They were starved, they were bombed and they were killed, so their hope to return cannot be realised, certainly not at the present time. My final question to the Minister is this: what representations has he made to the Azeri Government on the treatment of the refugees and on their safe passage back to their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Several hon. Members rose—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob even if they have put in to speak, so that I am clear on who wants to speak.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Elliott. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on obtaining the debate. She was a valuable member of the delegation from the British group of the IPU that I took to Armenia a few weeks ago. It is good to see all the other members of the group in the Chamber today; I suspect all of them will wish to contribute to the debate, with the exception of Lord McInnes, who I am sure is pursuing these issues in the other place. I thank the IPU for arranging the visit and Joe Perry for accompanying us. It is also good to see His Excellency the Ambassador here in Westminster Hall today; he has been hugely helpful.
I think we all felt that to be in Armenia at that time was extremely valuable. I have been to Armenia five times over the past few years, although that is a small number compared with the visits that Baroness Cox has made; indeed, she is known as the Angel of Artsakh because of her numerous visits. However, on a previous occasion I was able to visit Nagorno-Karabakh to talk to the Administration at that time. I did so because I believe that one of the most important things for us to do as Members of Parliament is to hear the arguments from both sides and see things for ourselves. I was very disappointed that the consequence of my simply going to Nagorno-Karabakh was that I was blacklisted by Azerbaijan; indeed, I believe that I am still blacklisted by Azerbaijan, simply for visiting Nagorno-Karabakh and holding those talks.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West has described what I have to say were extremely moving meetings that we held with the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. Whatever the rights and wrongs, to listen at first hand to their reports of the suffering that they endured was a very emotional experience—particularly some of the tales about how, without being given any notice, they were dragged from their homes and forced to march to neighbouring Armenia, which took a number of days. Not all of the people who set out made it to Armenia; some died on the way.
I pay tribute to the people we met in Jermuk, particularly the governor and the mayor, for the way Jermuk has opened its doors and welcomed the refugees. They continue to give them support. However, 100,000 people have moved into Armenia from Nagorno-Karabakh and that has imposed enormous pressure, so I absolutely endorse the calls for us to give them support.
I will say just a little about the conflict that has been raging for many years between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is the case that Nagorno-Karabakh is within the borders of Azerbaijan, but it was populated by Armenians. It is also true that a number of Azeris had previously been displaced. However, I do not want to get into the arguments about sovereignty and the history behind them. We have a humanitarian need to support refugees.
We were also privileged to hear from the Catholicos of All Armenians—His Holiness represents all Armenians —about the impact of the conflict on the priests and the churches in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is also a matter of serious concern. The status of Nagorno-Karabakh has been the cause of repeated conflicts and tensions between two neighbouring countries for decades, although there now appears to be a possibility of resolving the conflict and reaching a peaceful settlement.
We were extremely privileged to have a meeting with Prime Minister Pashinyan, who expressed to us his wish to achieve a peace and the plan he is putting forward to achieve peace. One of the most remarkable things about the plan that is being advanced by the Prime Minister of Armenia at the moment is that it does not contain any territorial ambitions to regain control of Nagorno-Karabakh. That has been the subject of some criticism, as we heard from members of the opposition in Yerevan, but it is a realistic recognition of what has happened and an attempt now to try and attain a peaceful settlement.
There are still issues to be resolved, in particular the issue of the corridor connecting Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan. Those are both Azeri territories, but the corridor will go through Armenia, which—quite understandably—believes that any corridor through its own land must be controlled by Armenia, although they are open to negotiating free access to ensure that it is possible to travel easily between Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan.
However, despite the apparent opportunity that now exists to obtain a peaceful settlement—we heard repeatedly from Armenians their desire to do so—in the last few hours the Prime Minister has issued a statement saying that Armenia could be at war by the end of the week, because Armenians believe that Azerbaijan continues to have territorial ambitions not just to take back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, as it has done, but for Armenia itself. So it is a very fragile situation.
As leader of the UK delegation, I met members of the Azerbaijan delegation to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe when I was in Vienna a couple of weeks ago. They are absolutely adamant that they have no aggressive intent towards Armenia and that this is propaganda being put out by the side of Armenia. Yet even while we were in Armenia, four Armenian soldiers were killed in the continuing conflict around the border. We were also taken up to see territory that is undoubtedly Armenia but is still under occupation by Azerbaijan.
There are some serious issues to resolve, but given the expressions of willingness to reach a settlement that are being made by both sides, now represents an opportunity for anything that we can do to facilitate that—I will be interested to hear the Minister’s view—because there are wider strategic issues at stake. Armenia is a former Soviet country. It has a Russian military base and has been seen to be closely allied with Russia. However, partially because of the feeling among people in Armenia that they received no support from Russia when they were under attack, there is a real anger and a wish to break away and move closer to the west. That was something else we heard when we were there; indeed, Prime Minister Pashinyan has been quite courageous in already making clear Armenia’s willingness to leave the Collective Security Treaty Organisation of Russia and its former satellites. His ambition to move Armenia closer to the west is in some ways not dissimilar to the decisions taken in Ukraine 10 years ago when it, too, decided that its destiny lay not with Russia but with the west and the EU. In the same way that we supported Ukraine in its ambition, we should be supporting Armenia in that.
I came back from Armenia in some ways encouraged that that was its clear decision, and that it saw its future lying in closer relations with this country. At the same time, a dangerous situation still pertains between the two neighbours. I think that there are opportunities to help resolve the situation that are perhaps greater than they have been for many years, so if there is anything that we can do, I hope we will work hard to achieve that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Although this debate’s title is primarily concerned with Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, there is a complex situation in a complex region, with multiple factors at play in some 4,400 square kilometres. Whether we call it annexation or occupation, the refugee crisis results from a struggle that struggles at the moment to gain attention in a world where we are becoming increasingly desensitised to conflict, be it Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Palestine. Yet we talk here of a European near neighbour—a democracy—that has a hostile neighbouring territory in Azerbaijan, with its aggressions and ethnically motivated crimes against Armenians.
The figures are grim, with 10 months of illegal blockading of food, fuel and electricity and the forced displacement of 100,000 people. My interest in the matter comes from my constituents. We have a vibrant and sizeable Armenian community and many members are hyphenated Armenians—Iranian-Armenians, Syrian-Armenians or Turkish-Armenians—underscoring that this is a country that has had pogroms, massacres and genocides for many years.
I was on the delegation in February with other MPs. That visit took in the Prime Minister, the President of the very handsome wood-panelled National Assembly, Opposition and Government people and, in fact, a Minister for Economy who had to resign hours after our visit. However, it was only when we got out of the embassies and the ministries and we got out to Jermuk in the snow-capped hills that the most memorable aspect of the visit took place. We got out of the cosy confines of the capital, Yerevan, and took in the ancient monastery on our route in the mountains, in a sign that that was the cradle of Christendom.
The atrocities we have seen—the destruction of churches and crosses, and the attempt to entirely delete Armenian culture through the renaming of towns and cities—are sickening. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) pointed out, during our visit four soldiers were killed. The most memorable aspect of our visit was the refugees we saw.
Jermuk, which is known as a bottled water brand with a reindeer as its logo, was once a fashionable ski resort and spa town, but it is now 80% deserted because of the decline of that former trade. Instead, it is readjusting to its new existence, accommodating the influx of Nagorno-Karabakh refugees.
We heard harrowing stories of human suffering—really touching stuff about people who fled on foot in the absence of fuel and took days and days to get over the border. We heard about the sadistic actions of the Russian soldiers, with their black market boiling sweets and all sorts of other horrific stuff. We spoke to the mayor and governor of Jermuk. Generations of these people have been beset by trauma, but they have integrated well and are grateful for what the municipality has been doing,
In this country, our voice should be stronger. In this Chamber in 2020, we debated the blockade of the Lachin corridor, but our weak response emboldened those actions. This was totally foreseeable all those years ago.
It has been pointed out that Armenia has an old elite that moved from a velvet revolution, and is turning away from Russian influence—I think it has been called the pivot away from the Kremlin. The transition has not been comfortable. The EU has granted candidate status to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, but Armenia has had no such privilege. It also has no love from Russia, despite the fact that it is still a member of the CSTO.
We vowed to use our voices to raise the plight of the Armenians on our return. We laid flowers at the national genocide memorial—again, the very fact that there is a national genocide memorial is significant. The hyphenated Armenians of Ealing and Acton remind us of how wide the Armenian diaspora is: it is scattered throughout many countries, forced out by continuous persecution, genocide and displacement. Among the 20,000 Armenians in London, we have Ukrainian-Armenian communities. Ealing has long commemorated the Armenian genocide of 1915. We have an apricot tree at Ealing Green, which was upgraded this September to a more permanent memorial, but it has already been vandalised by, it is suspected, the Turkish Grey Wolves group, which protested its inauguration last autumn.
I have called for this Government to recognise 1915 as a genocide. Our closest ally, Biden, has done so, and yet there has been no budging from our Government. This timidity—this vacuum—encourages these actions by Azerbaijan, which has recently had an election whose result was entirely foreseeable, rather like the Russian election this weekend.
Ealing and Acton are richer for having the Navasartian centre in Northfield and the Hayashen centre in Acton, which have both done fundraising for Nagorno-Karabakh refugees, but what are our Government doing? It feels as if, in our post-Brexit world, we are desperate for trade deals. On the role of BP, I would like to ask the Minister how much oil pulls the strings of these relationships. People who did election observation in Baku said that they could smell the oil when they landed; it is all about oil. It is ironic that COP29 will be held in Baku—what an act of greenwashing. Yesterday at the all-party parliamentary group, we heard that the ground was being rendered infertile for flora and fauna by this scorched earth policy.
I pay tribute to my Armenian communities, and I want to press the Government on aid. We know that the 0.7% commitment, which the manifestos we all stood on pledged to maintain, has been cut. Could there be a Homes for Ukraine-type scheme for refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh? We saw the trauma and the need for psychological help for people who have undergone this recent cycle of violence—and it is a cycle of violence. Ultimately, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh want to return to their land, to the places that they have lived in for millennia, even though we see attempts to wipe out territories such as Artsakh from the map.
While the eyes of the world might be elsewhere, we must be consistent in our principles. On Ukraine, we say that self-determination is right and destruction is wrong, so why can we not apply the same principles consistently here?
Shnorhavor. Thank you.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing yet another debate on Armenia and Armenians. We have spoken a lot in this Chamber and in the main Chamber. We have had my private Member’s Bill—the Recognition of Armenian Genocide Bill—and others, and we had a debate on the Lachin corridor blockade at the start of the recent problem. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for Armenia and as part of a delegation that went to Armenia last Easter at the invitation of the Armenian Government. There is strong interest in the subject, not only among colleagues here today but in the overflowing Public Gallery, for which extra furniture has had to be provided. That does not happen often.
We had an alarming and sobering briefing yesterday from the former human rights ombudsman for Armenia, Dr Tatoyan. He gave us an update on the latest threat facing Armenia, as well as the chronology of what has happened in Nagorno-Karabakh over the past year.
I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) have said, so I will not repeat it, but will highlight the origins of the issue. The recent conflict goes back to 27 September 2020 when Azerbaijan, emboldened by strong military support from Turkey and with equipment provided by Israel, among others, launched an unprovoked and large-scale military invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Over 44 consecutive days, Azerbaijan relentlessly assaulted Nagorno-Karabakh, resulting in the tragic loss of over 400 Armenian lives. Civilian infrastructure, including churches, schools and hospitals, became deliberate targets of Azerbaijan. There was a particular concern, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned, about some of the Christian relics and monuments, because Armenia was, of course, the first Christian country. We do not have to go far in Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh to see the history behind that.
The conflict ended in a ceasefire agreement on 9 November 2020 between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but the trilateral statement was heavily skewed against Armenia. Let us fast-forward to the end of 2022 and the blockade of the Lachin corridor, with bogus eco-protesters supposedly blockading that vital corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Azerbaijan completely ignored all orders under international law and the International Court of Justice to clear the corridor. Instead, Azerbaijani soldiers replaced the protesters.
On 19 September last year Azerbaijan launched a full-scale offensive, piling into Nagorno-Karabakh, mercilessly reoccupying territory and driving Armenians out of the homes that they had been in for generations. They blockaded escape routes out of the territory, as we heard yesterday, and took a number of military and political prisoners—specific individuals.
Despite the Azerbaijani Government’s having assured an amnesty, they took into captivity former Nagorno-Karabakh Presidents Arkady Ghukasyan, Bako Sahakyan and Arayik Harutyunyan. They remain in captivity. Other political prisoners of war include Ruben Vardanyan, Davit Ishkhanyan, Davit Babayan, Davit Manukyan and Levon Mnatsakanyan—Hansard will be relieved to know that I have provided details of those individuals.
What was the result of all that? Frankly, it was full-scale ethnic cleansing. The population of Nagorno-Karabakh used to be 160,000 before the 2020 war. Women, the elderly and sick people were evacuated during the initial bombings, and many never went back after the ceasefire in November 2020. The very sick and some students left Nagorno-Karabakh during the blockade. It is estimated most recently that after the attacks in September 2023, 105,000 Armenians left Nagorno-Karabakh, in a state of chaos, on blocked roads that took hours and days to negotiate.
It has been calculated that Nagorno-Karabakh is almost completely empty of its original population, with just 50 people remaining. Armenian sources report that those people who remained due to age or physical and mental conditions are even unable to use their mobile phones. That huge surge of people into Armenia has had an impact on the population of Armenia, which is not a large country of 2.8 million population. Just over 100,000 represents 3% of that country’s population suddenly appearing on its doorstep.
It is also a country that lacks funds and a long-term plan, so it has been a really difficult set of circumstances to cope with. The Armenian Government have generously given one-off payments of $250 to the refugees, followed by a $185 monthly stipend. The average wage in Armenia is $668 a month. A quarter of the Nagorno-Karabakhans were already living below the official poverty line.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned that there had been pledges of support from the EU, but there has been a big delay in the disbursement of those funds and funds from other countries. The UK has so far pledged only £1 million, which is a good start but does not reflect the scale of a humanitarian crisis that has gone so under the radar because the world’s attention, as we know, is on what is going in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza. Those new arrivals from Nagorno-Karabakh include 30,000 children and 18,000 aged over 65. There are many men with limbs missing from war injuries and landmine explosions from the conflict. This is a population in above-average need of help and support.
What has Azerbaijan done? Azerbaijan is trying completely to remodel, rename and reculturalise—if there is such a word—the entire territory. In October last year, Azerbaijan renamed one of the streets in the city of Stepanakert after Enver Pasha, one of the architects of the Armenian genocide. What more hostile, provocative act could there be? In March, just a few days ago, footage was aired on Azerbaijan television of various buildings and monuments in the capital Stepanakert, including its historic parliament building, being demolished for no good reason.
There are more than 4,000 Armenian historical and cultural monuments across Nagorno-Karabakh, among them churches, khachkars, burial grounds, historical cemeteries and bridges. There is a real concern about the future of the culture of Armenians left behind in Nagorno-Karabakh that could not be taken out of the country.
Carol Monaghan
When we were in Jermuk, we saw two khachkars—the posts with crosses—that had been removed from Nagorno-Karabakh. They were in pieces. We were told that there were many thousands that people could not take with them. The ones that we saw were more a thousand years old, and there will be many others left behind. It is real cultural destruction.
Tim Loughton
It is completely gratuitous, unnecessary cultural destruction. It is all about trying to erase the name, the culture, the history and the heritage of a people who have lived in that territory for many, many generations. After the 2020 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Government of Azerbaijan blatantly issued a set of postage stamps picturing a man in a hazmat suit, effectively cleaning out Armenians from the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. That is ethnic cleansing, in any shape or form that one might describe it.
We have a number of asks for the Minister today. Notwithstanding our long-standing and important economic links with Azerbaijan, we have humanitarian responsibilities and a long-standing relationship with Armenia, Armenians, and the Armenian diaspora across the world and in the United Kingdom. Will the Government investigate whether ethnic cleansing under the UN definitions has taken place? If so, what are the implications of that? Will the Government press for investigation in respect of both political and military prisoners who are still being held by the Azeris?
What will the Government do to put pressure on the Azerbaijanis to withdraw from the 4,400-square-kilometre territory within sovereign Armenian boundaries that they are still occupying—some 30 or so villages? As we have heard, there is great alarm that they may make further military encroachments deeper into clear, sovereign Armenian territory in the very near future.
There need to be consequences for these abuses of international law. There need to be sanctions. I think the UK has a role to play in any peacekeeping force that could go back in to make Nagorno-Karabakh and the borders of Armenia safe, because this is a very fragile situation. We have a duty of care here. One of the duties of this House is to make the world aware of this ethnic cleansing and this huge humanitarian crisis—it may have been going on beneath the world’s radar while its attention is turned elsewhere, but that makes it no less serious a humanitarian crisis—that is going on as we speak.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing a very important debate and for her clear and excellent speech setting out the plight of the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. The debate is obviously timely, given the return of the IPU delegation to Yerevan—I think all of us have turned up to this debate. Our thanks go to the IPU, to Joe Perry and to our leader there, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), for organising that visit. It is also timely because of the uncertainty about continuation of the UN aid that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West spoke of earlier.
It was poignant for me to visit two years on from the previous delegation. Then, we were warned many times, in stark terms, that while the eyes of the world were elsewhere, Azerbaijan would take control of Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia would stand by. Members of the APPG—I declare an interest—who were on that visit raised questions and debates and went to see the Minister about that; I remember a particularly feisty speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on it. And that was exactly what happened following the nine-month blockade, designed to drive the ethnic Armenian population out in a brutal way, which the European Parliament has described as ethnic cleansing.
That is why now we should heed the warnings from those we met in Yerevan just a few weeks ago, who told us that the risk of escalation is ever present—in fact, four Armenian soldiers were killed during our visit there. I am talking about the encroachment on 30 villages, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to; the incidents on the borders; and the fear that Azerbaijan could use military force to impose the Zangezur transport corridor—supported by Russia—with references to Armenia as “western Azerbaijan”. It is a fragile ceasefire. I hope the Minister today will acknowledge that fear and do all he can, with the levers he has and with the relationship he has with Azerbaijan, to be a friend to Armenia.
The subject of today’s debate is, rightly, the fate of those driven from their homes. Most of them have ended up in Armenia, although some are in Russia and Europe. We talk of 100,000-plus refugees—almost the entire population of Nagorno-Karabakh, as others have said—but we should also remember the 40,000 displaced in the 2020 conflict. One in 30 of Armenia’s population is now from Nagorno-Karabakh; although the Armenian Government have tried to be generous with the payments the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to and with housing, psychological support and employment, it is an enormous number of people to integrate and a long-term plan will be needed for those exposed and facing an uncertain future.
Like other hon. Members, I will never forget those refugees we met in Jermuk. We promised them that we would give them a voice, and we are doing so today. They were subjected to a nine-month blockade, lacking food, medicine, energy and fuel— surrounded and very isolated. We heard of those killed and injured by shrapnel, of those forced to walk the three days to Armenia—as fuel was only sold at inflated prices, if they could get it—and of those who died on that walk. We heard of mothers who boiled sweets to get sugar into their children, and reports of Russian peacekeepers who sold food at inflated prices, exploiting human misery. We also heard of the refugees’ arrival with absolutely nothing but the scars they carried from that blockade—too fearful to ever return home, if ever they could.
We saw on our visit the generosity, led by the mayor and the governor, of the local authorities and communities that are trying to help. However, the magnitude of the problem is beyond what Armenia can cope with. International humanitarian aid has come, but more will be needed; 60 international and local organisations have helped, and Armenia has taken out a loan from the World Bank. The diaspora, including the community in south Wales—I thank them for their efforts—have also helped, but longer-term integration will require more, with housing and employment a priority.
Resolving humanitarian issues must be prioritised alongside diplomatic negotiations. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what more the UK Government can do with their international partners to address the plight of the refugees and the scale of the problem right now. We have already talked about the £1 million given in aid and how that should be increased. Could the Minister also explain what he knows about the UNHCR response plan? That plan sets out relief efforts until the end of this month. What happens next?
More generally, could the Minister explain what conversations the Government are having with the Government of Azerbaijan regarding the right to return for those who are displaced? With Armenia freezing its membership of the CSTO and significantly rebalancing its international relations, what practical steps is the UK taking to embrace Armenia’s pivot to the west? I also join other hon. Members in asking the Minister about reports that the Government encouraged businesses to get involved in the rebuilding of Nagorno-Karabakh, exploiting what is a horrific situation.
I know the Minister has visited Armenia twice in recent times. With Armenia reliant on its neighbour for trade, energy and grain, what more can the Government do to build on the strength of those ministerial visits, and on strategic partnerships, to co-operate on energy projects, infrastructure, transport and defence? I also want to raise the issue of acknowledging the genocide in 1915. In Cardiff we have the first memorial to that genocide in the UK, and many of us join members of the Armenian community in their commemorations there.
I also join other hon. Members in raising the destruction of cultural sites and artefacts, particularly the khachkars that we saw when we visited the Catholicos. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West said, we saw just two; they were absolutely beautiful and ancient, but we were told that there were thousands more that have been destroyed.
There has been a very good turnout for this debate, not least in the very busy Public Gallery. Will the Minister please recognise that, and acknowledge that we in this Parliament care about the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, that we care about Armenia, and that we want our Government to actively help to strengthen our relationship with, and be a friend to, Armenia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said so well earlier, our voice in this place should be stronger.
Several hon. Members rose—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. I call David Duguid, but I ask him to bear in mind that we have nine and half minutes left for Back Benchers.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I will bear that in mind, Ms Elliott. I will start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests, which includes my role as an officer in the all-party parliamentary group for Azerbaijan. My wife is from Azerbaijan, and I wish all my family and friends there who might be watching this debate a very happy Nowruz for tomorrow.
The history of the Karabakh region is a long and complicated one, as other hon. and right hon. Members have already said. It predates the formation of the Soviet Union, but for most observers and commentators—and for the purposes of today’s debate—the history since the fall of the Soviet Union is most relevant. However, the stated history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including that stated in today’s debate, does not always go right back to the start of recent hostilities that predated the fall of the Soviet Union. Separatist demonstrations, confrontations and skirmishes, as well as failed interventions by the Soviet leadership, took place at various times between 1988 and 1991. During that time, Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were also forced to flee from that country.
The conflict escalated into all-out war after Armenia and Azerbaijan attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Often, when the history of this period is presented, it only goes back to when Armenian-backed forces were already in full occupation of the region, even though it was internationally recognised as the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan. However, what is not often reported—it has not been mentioned by hon. Members today, at least not yet—is that as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region, over 800,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis from that region also became displaced.
Jumping ahead, in 1994 a ceasefire was reached through Russian mediation, but skirmishes continued along what became known as the line of contact. During that time of ceasefire, there were a number of international resolutions. In January 2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemned ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis. In May 2007, the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation adopted a resolution considering the occupation of Azerbaijani territory as the aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan, recognising the actions against Azerbaijani civilians as a crime against humanity and condemning the destruction of archaeological, cultural and religious monuments in the occupied territories.
In March 2008, an OIC resolution further condemned the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenian forces and Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan, ethnic cleansing against the Azeri population, etc. Also in March 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 62/243, which demanded the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Finally—although this is not by any means an exhaustive list of the resolutions that were made—in May 2010, the European Parliament in Strasbourg adopted the resolution that the occupied Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno-Karabakh must be cleared as soon as possible.
In September 2020, a new war erupted in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, in response to which the United Nations called on both sides to de-escalate tensions and resume meaningful negotiations. That war ended in November 2020, when a trilateral ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia was signed, according to which Azerbaijan regained all of the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh as well as one third of Nagorno-Karabakh proper, including Shusha and Hadrut.
Unfortunately, an identifying feature of this conflict has been the extensive use of landmines throughout the area, particularly along the contact line, as well as in the form of booby traps that were left behind by departing Armenian occupying forces. According to the Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action, as a result of a survey that is still ongoing, it was initially estimated that over 1 million hectares of land in that area could be contaminated by approximately 1.5 million landmines.
From 1991 until the ceasefire in 2020, over 3,000 people —I think it was almost 3,500 people—were injured or killed by landmines in this area. However, even since that ceasefire in 2020, a further 346 people have been added to that number, as of 5 March this year. With landmine contamination accounting for some 12% of Azerbaijan territories, coupled with reports that Armenia was failing to provide reliable maps, the threats emanating from the mines will continue to disrupt the life and economic wellbeing of Azerbaijani displaced persons for decades to come.
I welcome the assistance that the United Kingdom Government have given up to now, not just to the specific mine-clearing efforts in Azerbaijan but towards the learning of valuable lessons during that operation, which will no doubt prove invaluable in other areas of conflict where landmines are being used.
Others have discussed the events of 2022 to 2023, which culminated in the return of occupied territories to Azerbaijan. At that time, there was an exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians from the area, mostly to Armenia itself, which is the core subject of this debate. There is no doubt that the conflict itself and the return of occupied territories to Azerbaijan must have been distressing and destabilising for the people living in Karabakh. In some way, the desire to flee may be understandable, particularly given some of the propaganda and fearmongering that might have taken place with regard to the intentions of the Azerbaijani authorities. However, Azerbaijan refutes any accusation of ethnic Armenians being forcibly removed.
Various UN missions, including experts from UNICEF, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, visited the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan twice in October 2023 and did not come across any reports of mistreatment with respect to ethnic Armenians or civilian infrastructure, including cultural objects.
Similarly, the UNHCR and the Red Cross, present on the ground throughout, have not—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. I did say that we had until 3.28 pm, and we have one more speaker.
David Duguid
I apologise—I misheard. I will skip ahead to my conclusions, in that case.
Azerbaijani authorities have repeatedly and unambiguously confirmed their commitment to create conditions for Armenians to stay and reintegrate and to ensure the right to return for those Armenians who can apply for Azerbaijani citizenship. Their return should of course be respectful of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. As Azerbaijan sees it, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is over. With the exception of a few local incidents, the past five months have been the calmest period in the history of the former conflict going back to the late 1980s.
Azerbaijan and Armenia have never been this close to peace since they were neighbouring Soviet republics. I will not repeat the full extent of what has been done, but, as part of the confidence-building measures, Armenia supported Azerbaijan’s bid to host COP29, while Azerbaijan supports Armenia’s candidacy for COP Bureau membership. Both sides have been working continuously on the draft peace agreement throughout the past five months.
As I mentioned earlier, Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign Ministers have met, as have their countries’ respective leaders. All those meetings have appeared to be positive and constructive, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how he and the UK Government view the progression of those talks. As Azerbaijan and Armenia engage in direct negotiations to reach sustainable peace, it is important that the progress of those negotiations, and therefore the future of the whole region, is not undermined by domestic or international political interference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for setting the scene well. She spoke about the 100,000 refugees. Let us focus on what the debate is about: the refugees and the fact that they have been abused. They have been attacked, had their property stolen and had health and education issues. Their whole way of life has changed because of the aggression of Azerbaijan. We should be clear about what has happened and be under no illusions. I remember a former Member in this House, Stephen Pound, was a friend of Armenia, and he told me many times about stories that related to that. There is absolutely no doubt that Russia’s aggression towards Armenia has had a detrimental effect on good people, who have been abused as a result.
As my party’s health spokesperson, I want to speak about human rights. The relationship between human rights abuses suffered by minorities and refugee flows and internal displacement has been demonstrated time and again. The link between minorities and refugees was recognised in a resolution of the Commission on Human Rights in 2001 concerning persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities.
With your agreement, Ms Elliott, I will speak quickly about the issue of religious belief and ethnic minorities, because that is what I do in this House as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. I do not know any of the people in the Public Gallery, by the way, but I am sure that some of those people have been disenfranchised for being ethnic minorities or for their religious beliefs. Religious minorities as refugees face greater chances of human rights abuses and discrimination across the whole world. Human rights and freedom of religious belief march hand in hand; if one is taken away so is the other, and that is how it works.
As the conflict continues, the religious rights and actions for and against religious minority refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh must be addressed. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will take on board that issue. I know that the two shadow spokespeople, the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), will do so. In addition to refugee rights in FORB, the UK must maintain relations and monitoring of the rights of freedom of religion or belief within Armenia during this conflict, because they have lost so much.
I will give an example. I am aware that on 7 February Yerevan’s criminal court of appeal rejected an appeal by 20-year-old Baptist conscientious objector Davit Nazaretyan against a two-year jail term imposed in October 2023 for refusing military service. I am a Baptist as well, and I understand this issue for Baptist religious groups and other groups as well. Nazaretyan’s applications for alternative civilian service were repeatedly denied. He is considering a further appeal and will not be required to go to jail until any further appeal is heard. The last known jailed conscientious objector was freed in 2021.
This will be my last comment. I give you my word, Ms Elliott; I certainly will not take eight minutes to put over my point of view. Freedom House reports:
“Article 18 of the constitution recognises the Armenian Apostolic Church as a ‘national church’ responsible for the preservation of Armenian national identity; 94 percent of the population identifies as Armenian Apostolic. Members of religious minority groups have reported some discrimination in the past.
In 2020, the National Security Service opened an investigation into Yazidi activist Sashik Sultanyan after he publicly stated that Yazidis experience discrimination in Armenia; international human rights NGOs criticized the investigation as retaliatory and unlawful. The case was apparently ongoing in 2023.”
In conclusion, as someone who takes a deep interest in human rights issues and freedom of religion and belief, on behalf of all the people in the Gallery and the 100,000 who have been disenfranchised and discriminated against, I think it is time to stand up for those people and do the best we can.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing this debate, which is long overdue. It is over a year since we debated the closure of the Lachin corridor and the impact of Azerbaijan’s aggressive actions towards the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, also known as Artsakh.
In January 2023, the majority of those who spoke recognised the dire humanitarian situation emerging in the region. We understood the tactics being employed by Azerbaijan and we warned that without a sufficient response from the international community, there would be full-scale ethnic cleansing, which is exactly what has happened. As I mentioned at the time, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, made his desired outcome of the blockade clear when he said:
“Whoever doesn’t want to become our citizens can leave, the road is open. They can go by the cars of the Russian peacekeepers, by buses, no one will impede them.”
What a welcome that is. He wanted to force the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to leave their ancestral homeland.
Nine months after that debate, we saw those words put into action after Azerbaijan violated the 2020 ceasefire agreement by launching a full-scale military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh on 19 September. More than 100,000 Armenians—almost all the region’s ethnic Armenian population—fled in fear of persecution, in addition to the 40,000 who had already fled in 2020. The Lachin corridor, which has been blockaded for so long, became the only escape route for those people fleeing on foot, by car or truck, by carriage or tractor—by any means necessary. They left behind their homes and belongings, their churches and cemeteries, and their businesses and schools. They were forcibly displaced from their land and became refugees.
A group of more than a dozen non-governmental organisations, including Genocide Watch, have issued a warning that all the conditions for ethnic cleansing are now in place. What assessment have the UK Government made of that claim, and will the Minister commit to supporting an independent fact-finding mission to establish what has occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh, and to support and promote justice for the victims in the coming months? Furthermore, what conversations is he having with Azerbaijani colleagues regarding the right of return for those who fled Nagorno-Karabakh, and what guarantees for the safety of those displaced would Azerbaijan be willing to provide, in line with the International Court of Justice order?
Armenia now faces an extensive refugee crisis. Within an estimated population of 3 million, one in 30 people in Armenia is now a refugee. Most of the refugee population arrived in Armenia suffering from the acute effects of the blockade, with medical workers reporting a high number of cases of malnourishment, dehydration and a lack of access to prescriptions. Armenia has been generous in providing resources to host refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, but the aid has been straining the state budget, and it is not clear how long the Armenian Government can sustain the payments. It is a huge burden for a country of some 3 million people, a quarter of whom already live below the official poverty line.
In October last year, the UNHCR estimated that the Armenian Government would need $97 million to cover refugees’ essential needs through the end of March. The Armenian Government have sought international aid, but the amounts received have been insufficient. France, the EU and the US have led the way in providing support. France has given €27.5 million in financial support, alongside the delivery of humanitarian aid containing 5 tonnes of medical equipment for the treatment of severely injured persons who have been forcibly displaced. The EU has given €17 million, while the US has provided $11.5 million to address healthcare and other emergency needs.
The UK, meanwhile, has offered only £1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet humanitarian needs. That is a welcome start, but it is not enough. More aid is needed to immediately tackle the ongoing refugee crisis caused by the mass displacement, so will the Minister commit today to providing more financial assistance?
Although aid is much needed, it addresses only the symptoms and not the cause of the crisis. Support and protection are required not just for Armenian refugees, but for Armenian human rights and, ultimately, Armenian sovereignty. Atrocities do not begin when the first family is expelled from their home, or when the first village is razed to the ground. Wars do not begin when the first shot or missile is fired, or when the first troops and tanks cross the border. More often than not, they begin with words. They begin with othering and dehumanising a group of people. They begin by rewriting history, as we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). They begin by laying claim to other people’s territory.
Let us hear some of the words of the President of Azerbaijan in recent years. Early last decade, he tweeted:
“Armenia as a country is of no value. It is actually a colony, an outpost run from abroad, a territory artificially created on ancient Azerbaijani lands.”
In October 2020, during the war, he made a public address in Azerbaijan in which he said, regarding the progress of the war:
“We are driving them away like dogs!”
A couple of years ago, he encouraged the Azerbaijani media to refer to Armenian settlements by Azerbaijani names, and has encouraged the use of the term “western Azerbaijan” instead of Armenia. All of that is historically incorrect and is hate speech. Those words are being put into practice.
In the Nakhchivan exclave of Azerbaijan, all Armenian cultural heritage has been destroyed, most notably the cemetery of Julfa, where thousands of centuries-old monuments were destroyed to make way for a military shooting ground—shocking, is it not? From the Google Earth satellite’s view of the site, an Azerbaijani slogan has been carved on a hillside where the cemetery used to reside, saying, “Everything is for the homeland”. Will Armenian culture and heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh suffer the same fate? More than 4,000 Armenian historical and cultural monuments are under the threat of total destruction. Can the Minister assure me of the steps that the UK Government are taking to preserve that cultural heritage?
Shamefully, the UK Government have also been caught encouraging UK businesses to participate in Aliyev’s plans for Nagorno-Karabakh. One senior UK Government official encouraged business leaders to take advantage of the financial opportunities. He said that a
“huge western chunk of the country…needs to be rebuilt from the ground up”.
Therefore, why are the UK Government not willing to condemn Azerbaijan’s actions towards Armenia, but are instead willing to be complicit and participate in those actions? When the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued an expert opinion explaining that Azerbaijan’s impeding of food, medical supplies and other essentials in Nagorno-Karabakh represented
“the archetype of genocide through the imposition of conditions of life designed to bring about a group’s destruction”?,
and when the ICJ considered it “plausible” that the Lachin corridor blockade produced a real and imminent risk to the health and life of Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, why did the UK not take provisions to prevent this?
The renewed conflict demonstrates the failure of years of diplomatic efforts to prevent the persecution of ethnic Armenians. The lack of any condemnation, sanctions for wrongdoing and action to ensure a sustainable peace will only be taken as the green light for further acts of aggression. Indeed, in Syunik province, illegal incursions have been made on Armenian sovereign territories, with the establishment of armed outposts blocking roads, denying access to fields, places of work and places of worship, and intimidating and threatening civilians.
Azerbaijan continues to make territorial demands on Armenia and has ambitions to create the Zangezur corridor connecting Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave and to Turkey, cutting off Armenia’s southern border with Iran. Any land grab from Azerbaijan is illegal under international law, and the UK has a duty to take a stand on that. Will the Minister make it crystal clear today that this is unacceptable? These are the next steps in creating what President Aliyev calls “western Azerbaijan”, and it is, quite simply, akin to the Putin playbook in Ukraine being repeated by Aliyev in Armenia. We cannot, and must not, embolden this behaviour.
Throughout the world, the rules-based system is under threat by the actions of leaders who believe they can act with impunity. The flouting of international law is becoming more commonplace, and it is getting closer and closer to home. Whether it is Russia, Israel or Azerbaijan, the UK cannot pick and choose when human rights protections and international law apply depending on who it is allies with. If the UK is to play a credible role in the world, it must be consistent, and in this instance, it must support the rights of Armenian refugees and the Armenian people.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing this crucial debate. We have heard typically powerful speeches from across the House, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
With such an unsettled global landscape, we must be absolutely clear not to lose sight of enduring geopolitical hotspots with the potential to lead to further human suffering and risk the escalation of wider tensions. Tensions in the Caucasus are a key example of that, and I am pleased that we are able to debate that today.
The situation in the region remains very serious. I remain in regular contact with both the Armenian and Azerbaijani ambassadors to the UK, and I have met the Foreign Ministers of both Azerbaijan and Armenia in recent times. We all want to see peace and stability in the region. Any return to the full-scale conflict of recent years would be an absolute disaster for the region and for all peoples. It is fair to say, as we have heard today, that this has been a profoundly challenging year for the people in the region and more broadly.
Last September, Azerbaijan launched a military incursion into Nagorno-Karabakh, which, at the time, was home to an ethnic Armenian population of 120,000 people. That was preceded by the nine-month blockade of the Lachin corridor, leading to shortages of food, fuel, medicines and basic provisions, which completely undid the social fabric of the enclave and led the UN to declare a humanitarian emergency in August 2023. I have raised that issue regularly with the Minister, publicly and in debates in the House.
We saw gas supplies cut off and electricity and communications damaged; I know that that was a concern to Members across the House. Nagorno-Karabakh became unreachable to the world and the implications of that period of such unimaginable insecurity and uncertainty continue, understandably, to reverberate throughout the population, now displaced, with lives altered irrevocably. No people should have to live in such conditions.
Last September, Nagorno-Karabakh came under direct Azeri control, and the ethnic Armenian population has now had to flee into Armenia. Although the ICJ issued provisional measures in November 2023, ordering Azerbaijan to allow ethnic Armenians to return
“in a safe, unimpeded and expeditious manner”,
they remain in Armenia.
I am pleased that efforts have since been made by both countries and by global interlocutors, include the EU, the United States and ourselves, to find peace and normalise relations. The situation remains very precarious. Any further deterioration would only compound the suffering experienced by the people, especially the refugees located around Yerevan and Syunik.
From reports in recent days, peace seems closer than ever, publicly at least, but we have to remain cognisant that, given the recent history, we will have to go much further to bring tensions down and to ensure that the territorial integrity of both Armenia and Azerbaijan is maintained. We have heard powerful testimony from colleagues who went on the recent IPU visit, and we must remember that there is always a tragic human face to conflicts such as these.
As Action Against Hunger highlights, Armenia now faces an extensive refugee crisis. One in 30 people in the country is a refugee. More than half of those refugees are women and girls, nearly one third are children, and nearly one fifth are elderly. Their whole lives have been uprooted.
There is a mental health crisis, too. Nearly 22,500 of those refugees are estimated to be living with a mental health condition. Clearly, it is beyond the capacity of any one Government to manage this crisis. Despite the many global crises we face, which we debate regularly in this place, including in the main Chamber, we cannot allow the Armenian refugees to endure the challenges of 2024 without adequate support and without a clear means of beginning to rebuild the lives that they lost in September last year.
I have a number of questions to the Minister, and I hope he will be able to provide some clarity. First, will the UK Government continue to play a constructive and substantial role in brokering lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan? What recent discussions has he had with counterparts from both countries and other interlocutors? What were the outcomes of those discussions?
What discussions has he had with French and American officials, particularly about dealing with the impact on individuals who have been displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh? How can we work together to provide critical support to those refugees? We simply cannot return to the violence of 2020, when more than 6,500 people lost their lives and civilians had to live under the perpetual threat of conflict and violence. We need to work, of course, with European and regional partners to secure a return to dialogue more broadly and a peaceful settlement.
I hope that the Minister can provide some further clarity on the funding issues that colleagues have raised. In September last year, he and the Government announced £1 million for the ICRC to support its humanitarian response for those refugees. The FCDO said in February this year that it continues to liaise with the UN, ICRC and other NGOs to assess humanitarian needs in the region.
What have the results of those assessments been? What has that money been spent on? Indeed, has it all been spent? Is it the view that the £1 million payment is sufficient? In comparison, France announced in December that it was taking its total contribution to emergency appeals to €27.5 million. The EU has provided €17.5 million in humanitarian aid to assist those displaced in Armenia. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on the sufficiency and the assessments that have been made of our support.
An important issue was raised around the protection of cultural and religious heritage, not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but more broadly. What assessments of that has the Minister made? what discussions has he had with the Azeri authorities and with UNESCO and other bodies? The issue is of critical importance, and reference has been made to Armenia’s critical role, particularly in the history of Christianity.
Nagorno-Karabakh and the wider region may seem remote to many, but I am afraid that it contains men, women and children who have been successively let down for years, and they need and deserve our focus and support. Will the Minister say a little about alleged extrajudicial killings, torture and abuse of prisoners of war? What assessment has he made of the individuals who are still held in prisons? Has he discussed the issue with his counterparts in Azerbaijan and elsewhere?
Will the Minister set out a wider strategy for the Caucasus, spanning diplomacy, aid and trade, and, crucially, atrocity prevention, humanitarian support and the upholding of human rights? Also, what assessment has he made of UK corporations in the region? That is an important point. We have a significant presence, and with that come particular responsibilities in relation to ethical practices.
We are clear, and I think there will be unity in the House on this, that Russia should have no place in the region’s future and that it would actively seek—indeed, it is actively seeking—to impede progress towards peace, security and good governance. The last few years have demonstrated that Putin’s vision for the region is for one that is less secure, less cohesive and weakened so that it remains in Russia’s sphere of influence. What assessment has the Minister made of Russia’s engagement in the region, and what steps are being taken in concert with our partners to counter Russia’s malign influence?
I note that Armenia has frozen its membership of the CSTO and is apparently considering leaving. What is the UK Government’s view on that? Also, how can we support all countries in the region, and indeed across Europe, that are seeking to extricate themselves from Russia’s malign influence? Finally, what is the official UK Government position on the right to return for ethnic Armenians removed from Nagorno-Karabakh? I referred earlier to the ICJ provisional judgments. I hope he can provide a clear answer on that issue.
The people of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be forgotten. They are the human face—the huge human face—to this tragedy. The impact on individual lives, which many hon. Members here have heard about directly, has been immense. I hope the Government will continue to support those people in their plight, as well as working to bring about a lasting and enduring peace in this troubled region. The view of the official Opposition is that the UK has a critical role to play in the Caucasus, and I hope the Government can demonstrate that they are ready to meet the challenges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am pleased to be here to answer this important debate, Ms Elliott. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing it and for highlighting, through reference to her recent experience of travelling in the region, the acute challenges facing those affected by September’s military action in Nagorno-Karabakh. I appreciate her sharing her impressions of her time there.
I am grateful for the contributions of all other hon. Members, and I shall seek to cover off the questions and points raised during this afternoon’s powerful and compelling speeches. I will begin by reflecting on the humanitarian situation, before turning to the topic of peace efforts. As colleagues have concluded this afternoon, lasting peace is at the heart of any long-term solution and any improvement in the lives and livelihoods of people in the region.
As hon. Members have eloquently set out, relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan are deeply complex. The plight of refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh is the most recent chapter in a 35-year conflict in which hundreds of thousands of civilians on both sides have been displaced from their homes. As we have heard this afternoon, Azerbaijan carried out a military operation last September that restored its sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, nearly the entire ethnic Armenian population of around 100,000 people fled to Armenia, where they faced acute humanitarian challenges.
Although the UK fully recognises Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, we are also clear that the use of force is not an acceptable means of resolving tensions between communities. As we have heard this afternoon, that military operation followed a nine-month restriction of the Lachin corridor—the only road linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia—which resulted in a dire humanitarian situation, including shortages of food, fuel, medicine and other basic supplies. The UK made it very clear bilaterally, as well as in the OSCE and at the United Nations, restricting access to the Lachin corridor and other supply routes was unacceptable, and we publicly called for access to be restored.
Dwelling on UK action as part of the humanitarian response, we continued to work alongside international partners in both countries to support humanitarian responses to the situation. Last September, as has been discussed this afternoon, we announced £1 million for the Red Cross’s movement of life-saving medication, healthcare and other essential support for the most vulnerable people affected by the conflict. I have heard the calls this afternoon for an increased financial contribution, and I can say that we will of course continue to keep these issues under review. We should also bear in mind that we have contributed £1 million to regional de-mining since 2021. I have noted the views of colleagues this afternoon, and we will also keep that issue under review.
We provided further medical assistance to survivors in Armenia in partnership with the UK medical education database, including medical supplies given to the National Centre for Burns and Dermatology. We are committed to supporting Armenia as it provides for the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, and we will continue to work with international partners and the Armenian Government to strengthen their capacity to support the refugees and the communities hosting them. We are also determined to support Azerbaijan to make safe its recovered territories for the return of its own displaced population, as well to ensure the integration of ethnic Armenians who wish to return. As I have mentioned, we have contributed £1.5 million to mine action in the region, which continues to have a very important, lifesaving effect.
I turn to the peace process. I intend during my peroration to answer all the questions posed. It is clear that the peoples of both Armenia and Azerbaijan have suffered greatly during this long-running conflict. That is why the UK Government have been a leading voice in urging peace and engaging extensively with both Governments. I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) summed up the current feeling when he said that there is a realistic recognition of the current situation and a quiet positivity about the possibility of peace, and I concur with that sentiment.
The UK stands by to be a partner for peace, and we will continue to engage energetically in diplomacy and to offer our ability to convene and encourage. In a nutshell, our role is to try to enable those two countries successfully to come together, settle and conclude a lasting peace.
Dr Huq
Would the Minister be able to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) regarding Russian influence? We hear of Russian peacekeepers, but is that not a contradiction in terms? Should there not be international border forces?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is a contradiction in terms to refer to Russian peacekeepers. They are nothing of the sort, and we see the Russian role across the region as nothing but extremely unhelpful meddling; I may dwell on that at the end of my remarks. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) about our approach in the context of Russia’s historical role in the region, it is clear that practical experience has revealed Russia to be an unhelpful and unreliable ally.
It is clearly incumbent on countries such as ours—I say this conscious that His Excellency the Ambassador is in the Public Gallery, and I am very glad to see him there—to offer the hand of friendship and partnership to Armenia. I am very pleased that during my last visit we undertook the first stage of the strategic dialogue that now exists between our two countries. It represents a thickening and deepening of an increasingly meaningful bilateral relationship that is good for both sides and for the region.
On the peace process, in calls with the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan last September, I urged both sides to return to dialogue and ensure unfettered humanitarian access to the vulnerable people and communities affected by events in Nagorno-Karabakh. The then Foreign Secretary reiterated that message last October when he spoke to various Foreign Ministers. As I mentioned, I visited Yerevan and Baku last November, where I met the leaders and Foreign Ministers of both countries, and I urged them to engage meaningfully in internationally mediated negotiations to reach an agreement and secure a lasting peace for the region. I was delighted that President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan met in Munich last month at the security conference, and that their Foreign Ministers quickly followed up with a meeting in Berlin at the end of February. We continue to engage energetically on the diplomatic front.
I am encouraged by both sides’ openness to continuing their discussions and to recognising and welcoming the offers of international support. We, in concert with our allies in Europe and across the Atlantic, continue to stand ready to support them at every step of their journey towards peace. I again refer to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon: there is a realistic recognition of the opportunity that lies ahead for both leaders to achieve a meaningful and sustainable peace, and we should be quietly optimistic about that. We will continue to offer support through our diplomacy as they do that important work in a bilateral context, which is something we should be quietly encouraged by.
Stephen Doughty
The UK will be hosting the European Political Community summit. Does the Minister see that as another key opportunity for the UK to play a role in finding peace?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are pleased that we will be hosting the EPC in July; it is a very useful convening moment and a good opportunity for leaders from the Caucasus to come together, in concert with other European leaders, to progress peace.
Let me turn to some of the other questions that were asked. On the preservation of religious sites, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are responsible for ensuring that the cultural heritage of all the peoples of the region is protected and preserved for the benefit of all. We take very seriously reports of the destruction of religious and cultural sites, and we support the work of international organisations undertaking observation missions to evaluate those. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the important issue of freedom of religion, and I entirely agree with the sentiment he expressed.
Several hon. Members asked about prisoners of war and war crimes. We continue to encourage the return of all prisoners of war and the remains of the deceased from the conflicts. We were pleased that Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to the release of 34 prisoners in December last year. We continue to call for—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister to leave a moment or two for the Member who moved the motion to wind up.
Leo Docherty
To conclude, therefore, I reiterate that we stand by those affected by this conflict. We will continue to offer humanitarian support, and we will energetically offer our diplomatic support. We hope that, after many turbulent years, there is a real, meaningful and sustainable chance for peace in the south Caucasus.
Carol Monaghan
I pay tribute to the Government and people of Armenia, who have ensured that the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh have been given the food, shelter and support they require. I thank all those who joined us this afternoon in the Public Gallery, including His Excellency the Ambassador. Finally, I thank all Members who have participated in this really important debate. It is important that we shine a light on the troubled area of Nagorno-Karabakh and ensure that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh who are currently in Armenia are not forgotten.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered international support for Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh.
Baby Loss: Coroners
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I will call Tim Loughton to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered baby loss and the role of coroners.
I am afraid you have a double dose of me this afternoon, Ms Elliott. That is obviously far too much for the people in the Public Gallery, who have made a surge for the exits.
This short debate will be focused on my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which has been going for quite a while now and remains unfulfilled in one part; that is the purpose of the debate. My Act started in the private Members’ Bill ballot in autumn 2017. It had its Second Reading on 2 February 2018. It passed all its parliamentary stages in February 2019 and passed into law in May 2019, almost five years ago. There were four parts to this historically quite ambitious and complicated private Member’s Bill.
The first part was that the names and details of mothers should appear on marriage certificates, now an electronic record. That came into being in May 2021, since when I have received many grateful thanks from mothers or the husbands of late mothers whose names could be now recorded on marriage records.
The second part was the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, which came in on 31 December 2019 and became regulation on the last day of Parliament before the election in 2019. Since then, more than 25,000 happy couples have availed themselves of that facility.
The third part was for the Secretary of State to produce a report on the registration of pregnancy loss. A pregnancy loss committee was set up, and I sat on it. Within the last couple of weeks, baby loss certificates have become a thing and again have gone down very well.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the four provisions that he brought forward, particularly the pregnancy loss one. It is something that probably all of us have to come to terms with in our family, and it is difficult. It is always a difficult topic to discuss, but the hon. Gentleman is right to bring it forward. As families, we can all feel for those who have lost babies during pregnancy. We feel for our partners, our wives, our mothers, our sisters, and all those who have lost as well. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters. This legislation, of which I am very proud, is designed to make a very painful situation for many parents who have lost babies that much more bearable, in so far as is possible.
I hope that there are parents who have benefited from that part of the Act, but there are still parents waiting to benefit, because the fourth part has yet to become a reality. That was the section of my Act that made a one-line amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 empowering coroners, if they see fit, to investigate stillbirths in certain cases. It also requires the Secretary of State to prepare reports, and yet we have not got a report. All we have is a factual account of the consultation, which opened on 26 March 2019 and closed on 18 June 2019. Its results were reported, after years of nagging from me, on 6 December 2023, barely three months ago. It took four and a half years for the Government to publish the results of that consultation, which is quite extraordinary.
I was given excuses all the way through. I have had meetings with Ministers, but part of the problem is that this is a joint responsibility between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I feel sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister. He is not the normal Minister, but I know he will give me helpful information at the end of this debate. The measure had overwhelming support in reports from the Justice Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee, the latter when it was chaired by the now Chancellor, who was very supportive. So why is it taking so long? We were given excuses by the Health Minister—it was delayed because of coronavirus and then delayed because of changes of Ministers. All that has happened. But we have had some consistency among Ministers and we are well past covid, thank goodness. Why is it a problem that still needs to be addressed and why on earth has it taken so long?
It is a problem because, every day, 13 babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth. The Government have done much to increase safety in maternity departments, but it is still a problem. We still have a relatively high rate of stillbirths compared with other European countries. Even though it has come down by 19.3% since 2010, it remains a big problem and a source of great grief among parents, who go through the trauma of having carried a child, in some cases to term, only for that child to be born dead.
I will briefly revisit the reasons why this part of my Bill was necessary. In my speech back in those heady days when it was first proposed in 2018—I was very hopeful at that stage—I said then that I knew that, with my last measure in the Bill, we were pushing at an open door, as the Health Secretary had signalled his support for it at the Dispatch Box during a statement on stillbirths. I said that there appeared to be an anomaly in the law where coroners in England have the power to investigate any unexplained death of any human unless it is a stillbirth. That is because a baby who dies during delivery is not legally considered to have lived; if a baby has not lived, it has not died, and coroners can investigate deaths only where there is a body of a deceased person.
However, one in three stillbirths are of healthy babies who die at term. In some cases deaths occur because of mismanaged deliveries—there have been a number of high-profile cases involving clusters of such deaths well above the national average. That is why I was urged by my own coroner, Penny Schofield in West Sussex, the Coroners’ Society and coroners around the country, as well as many birth-oriented charities, to bring in the measure.
Those reasons have, if anything, got even stronger because we have had a series of scandals in maternity departments over the last few years. We had the Ockenden inquiry into maternity care in Nottingham, where 1,266 families contacted the review teams directly to express concerns about the deaths of their children. Then we had the scandal around the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, where the deaths of more than 200 babies and nine mothers were investigated. There was the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust review, and some years ago there was the Morecambe Bay review of the unnecessary deaths of 11 babies and one mother. And only this week, we had the report in the press that one in seven maternity units has closed in the past decade, sparking warnings of a mounting crisis in healthcare for women, along with estimates of a shortage of midwives across England. Consequently, this issue is as live as ever, and it is as important as ever to get it right. What we absolutely need is trusted, independent scrutiny of why certain stillbirths have happened.
If I look at what the Government produced in their response—well, no, they have not produced their response; I will correct myself. If I look at what the Government produced in their factual report in publishing the results of the consultation back in December, I see that the ministerial foreword says that
“we are working to improve the information available to families regarding the investigative processes that may take place following a stillbirth.”
Hear, hear! It continues:
“It is essential that we get this right, given the emotional impact that losing a baby has on parents and others involved.”
That is absolutely right. However, it also says:
“Respondents both supported and were against proposals that coroners should have a role in stillbirth investigations”,
which ignores the fact that respondents overwhelmingly supported the proposals, and I will cite the figures that prove that.
The Government gave a factual summary of the consultation and promised further information and Government action later, with no timescale, which is the issue that I would really like the Minister to address. In addition, however, the way that the report was skewed meant that it dwelt too much on reasons why a change in the law was not necessary. Excuses were given, such as that
“the mandatory nature of the investigations could be distressing and intrusive”.
We are only looking to give the coroner the power to pick up a small number of cases—not every stillbirth that happens, but those where there are serious questions to be asked. Another reason was about
“the loss of parental control over whether a post-mortem examination would take place.”
It is important that the coroner makes the final decision on whether to investigate, because there are suspicions about some stillbirths—mostly those caused by the domestic violence of a partner, who effectively wants to hush things up.
Other reasons cited were the “potential for duplication” and the “impact on resources” for coroners and local authorities. This should not be a cost-based measure. Another reason was
“that there would be a significant increase in demand on paediatric pathology”,
but again, no figures are given for how many stillbirths would actually be investigated. We are talking here about dozens and not hundreds or thousands. Finally, there are extraordinary excuses, such as:
“Coroners are not best placed to identify and disseminate clinical learning”.
Well, they investigate an awful lot of adult deaths and are able to identify and disseminate clinical learning in relation to those cases; why should the same not be true of baby deaths? The Government seem to be talking down the ability and efficacy of coroners, which is slightly worrying.
Back in 2017, after I had published my Bill, the Government announced their intention to consider whether and how coroners could carry out stillbirth investigations at 37 weeks’ gestation and over. I agree with that; I think it should apply to full term stillbirths. Then, the Government produced their consultation. I will skip ahead to the results of that consultation, in particular some quotes that were supportive of coroners being involved. A bereaved family member said:
“I feel it is important for parents to feel completely confident that the investigation is run by someone completely unbiased and impartial, especially when there is concern there may have been substandard care.”
I agree, and in anybody’s judgment that person is the coroner. The Government gave the excuse in their report that
“coroners were not best placed to make these determinations and would need to rely on medical professionals”,
But why would that be any different from a coroner’s role in investigating adult deaths over which there are question marks?
I have to say that the result of this consultation was pretty definitive. I will get to the actual figures. The number of people who responded to the consultation was 322. Of those people, 244, or 75.8%, replied in the affirmative to the question:
“Do you think coroners should have a role in investigating stillbirths?”
By a factor of three to one, people think that coroners being involved would be a good measure.
In answer to the question,
“Do you agree with the proposal about ascertaining how it was that the baby was not born alive?”,
86.7% of respondents said that coroners have a role to play and that there were questions that need to be asked.
In answer to the question,
“Do you agree that, as part of the findings, coroners should identify learning points and issue recommendations to the persons and bodies they consider relevant?”,
85.8% of people responded yes.
The fourth question that I would like to highlight is:
“Do you agree that no consent or permission from the bereaved parents, or anyone else, should be required for coronial investigation?”
That is a more contentious issue but, still, 63.9%—almost two thirds—said that they should be mandatory, even if the parents did not agree. That is important for the reasons I have just given.
The final consultation question that I want to flag up is:
“Do you agree with the proposal to investigate only term and full-term stillbirths?”
The response was 70.6% no. People were saying that the scope of coroners to investigate stillbirths should be even wider and begin earlier than being proposed. By any measure, this was a consultation that overwhelmingly backed the measures in my Bill and the changes that have been supported so widely in this House, in the coroners’ field and in the medical field by many people.
Finally, this is my question to the Minister: how much longer do we have to wait? I have been in this place for quite a long time, and I have never seen such a wide gap between legislation requiring consultation coming in and that being published, let alone the Government deciding what to act on. In a letter to me accompanying the publication of the consultation, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), said:
“Officials are also exploring mechanisms for improving existing processes to further address the aims of the coroners’ proposal. A further statement will be issued in due course.”
That chilling phrase, “in due course”, is one we hear so often from Ministers who have not got a handle on when they will do something that they know needs to be done. My question to the poor Minister who has been dragged here today, for whom I have every sympathy, is: please can we get on with this? There is no excuse for not doing so. The consultation has taken place. Everyone has said, “Yes, this is a pretty good idea.” The legislation also had overwhelming and unanimous support from both Houses of Parliament when it went through all those years ago.
Can we please now have a clear timetable for when we will get the Government’s formal response? I hope the response will be, “Yes, we agree, and we will now get on with it.” If it is not, all the people interested in this will urgently be owed an explanation of why this should not go forward in the way that has been suggested, given that the Government’s own consultation has shown such overwhelming support for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work in shining a light on the important but complex and extremely sensitive issue of stillbirth, which, despite the experience and incredible dedication of our medical professionals, continues to touch the lives of too many families.
Bereavement is never easy, but to lose a child through stillbirth is a tragedy. The Government are committed to supporting parents through such a difficult experience and ensuring that they have access to the support they need. More than that, one of our highest priorities is to reduce the number of stillbirths and other adverse maternity outcomes. To help to achieve that, we are committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, lessons are learned and care is improved to prevent avoidable stillbirths in future.
To put that aim into context, the Government set the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternity deaths, and brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth, by 2025. Also by 2025, we want to reduce the pre-term birth rate from 8% to 6%. We are making good progress, but we recognise that more still needs to be done to achieve that ambition. Since 2010, the stillbirth rate has reduced by 23% and the neonatal maternity rate of babies born after 24 weeks’ gestation has reduced by 30%.
Although we can demonstrate clear progress, it is vital that we continue to learn from the tragedy of every stillbirth. Concerns about the consistency and independence of those investigations have given rise to the calls for a more transparent and independent process, for which my hon. Friend continues to advocate so consistently.
The coroner, as an independent judge, investigates deaths for which, among other things, the cause is unknown, so it is easy to understand the proposal that their role should be extended to include the investigation of stillbirths. However, I want to take a moment here to emphasise an important point: at present, coroners do not have jurisdiction to investigate a stillbirth because, sadly, as my hon. Friend said in his speech, where there has not been an independent life, there has not legally been a death. A child born who is showing signs of life has had an independent life, so that child’s death must be investigated if the coroner’s jurisdiction is engaged. When there is doubt about whether a child was born alive, that is a matter for the coroner to determine, and it is open to anyone, including the bereaved family, to report a case to the coroner if they believe there is a need for such an investigation.
In 2016, the Government committed to consult on whether, and if so how, the coronial investigation of stillbirths should be introduced. The commitment was made as part of a fresh maternity safety strategy. Since then, a range of important safety initiatives have been rolled out, including a perinatal mortality review tool, which is now available in every maternity service in the UK. The tool enables trusts to review all stillbirths and neonatal deaths by setting out a set of questions and principles to guide trusts through a standardised review process. The tool’s secondary aim is to ensure local and national learning to improve care and ultimately prevent future baby deaths. Collation and analysis of the data from the tool and the production of annual national reports on the key themes arising from the reviews and recommendations are intended to improve safe maternity care and safe outcomes for babies.
In addition, the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme, established in 2018 and now hosted independently by the Care Quality Commission, provides independent, standardised and family-focused investigations for families, which also provide learning to the health system. Alongside those initiatives, the consultation on coronial investigation was taken forward in 2019, again as my hon. Friend said. We are extremely grateful to everyone who submitted one of the 334 responses to the consultation document, to the 63 people who attended stakeholder workshops and, in particular, to those respondents who shared their personal experience of the pain of stillbirth.
The findings of the consultation were complex, as my hon. Friend said. The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal for coroners to have a role in investigating stillbirths, but many did not agree with the proposals for how that should be implemented. Some were concerned that bereaved parents would not be able to withhold consent to the investigation or any associated post-mortem examination, that the investigation could be distressing and intrusive, that the length of the investigation could delay closure for the bereaved family, that the process might not fulfil the parents’ expectation of finding answers, or that they could feel like they were being blamed.
There were also significant policy and practical concerns, including the potential for duplication, friction and confusion between investigations by the coroner, the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme and the trust or health board, and the potential impact of that on clinicians’ behaviour. There was also a concern that the safety initiatives introduced in 2018 would achieve the same policy objectives as a coronial investigation in any event.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the Minister; I understand the points that he is making and I appreciate his points about the distress that it may cause to parents, and about blame and everything like that. Whether the child was stillborn or lived for a couple of minutes makes no difference to that potential distress. However, in the latter case, the coroner would have the power to investigate, which could cause the same distress to the parents as doing so could the child had been stillborn. Why is there that distinction?
Gareth Bacon
I thank my hon. Friend for his points; I am reflecting the points made in the consultation. His point is well landed, and officials and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) will have noted the case that he has just made.
In addition, there were concerns about the resource impact on the NHS and the locally funded coroner services. Crucially, there would be a significant increase in demand on already stretched paediatric pathology services, with a significant lead-in time to train new resource. Nevertheless, I note the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made in his speech.
In any event, some respondents felt that coroners would not be best placed to identify and disseminate clinical learning points at a regional and national level. Although many acknowledged that coroners could deliver investigations into stillbirths, there was no consensus on precisely how they would do so and some strong opposition to the specific proposals that we put forward.
Given the importance and the sensitivity of the issue, it is imperative that we get the response right. That means carefully considering the issues identified by the consultation and working through the complex questions that they raise. Work to publish a response was paused during the pandemic. Again, as my hon. Friend said, and as I have explained, the landscape of maternity investigations has changed significantly. One of the key questions that we are considering is whether the current maternity safety initiatives are already achieving, or have the potential to achieve, the overarching objective without the need for coroner investigations.
While the Government were developing and publishing their consultation proposals, Parliament passed the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which my hon. Friend introduced. As he has explained, section 4 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the preparation and publication of a report on whether, and if so how, coroners could investigate stillbirths. The Act also provides a power for the Lord Chancellor to make provision for coronial stillbirth investigations through secondary legislation if, following the publication of the report, that is considered appropriate. The fact that those provisions are on the statute book is a testament to my hon. Friend’s commitment to the issue, and I can of course understand his frustration that it has not yet been resolved, which he has eloquently expressed today and on other occasions.
As I have said, we have to get this right. To that end, in December the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care jointly published a factual summary of the responses to the 2019 consultation. I have set out the key findings this afternoon, and the two Departments continue to work through their complex implications.
As an immediate next step, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—he has now joined us—on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care, have told me that they would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to share the latest thinking and discuss possible ways forward on the outstanding issues. I can confirm that by the summer recess, we will make a further statement that sets out the Government’s position on this policy.
To conclude, let me reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to respond to this important debate, as well as my thanks to all others in attendance and to all those who have made some very valuable contributions to this issue along the way.
Question put and agreed to.
Child Trust Funds
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Child Trust Fund access for people seeking to manage the finances of others.
It is a pleasure to use this debate to highlight the ongoing issue of disabled young people’s access to their child trust funds and to recognise the good will of the Minister and his Department, but to demand changes that would solve issues for the courts, CTF providers and, above all, the disabled young people and their families. We have the means to secure easy access to funds that rightfully belong to those young people—funds that could prove invaluable but which are being denied to them by a lack of information and processes that may be well-meaning in intent, but are Kafkaesque and off-putting in delivery.
It is a pleasure to move the debate under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted to see the Minister in the Chamber, as I know he is focused on the issue, as well as other hon. Members who have taken a real interest in getting a resolution on the issue.
I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Andrew Turner. Back in September 2020, Andrew found that his disabled son, Mikey, was locked out of his child trust fund. He simply wanted to buy an adapted bike with Mikey’s money, and Mikey’s life-limiting condition meant that time was of the essence. The child trust fund was Mikey’s only financial asset. That should have been the start of a simple process in which a loving parent who looks after his disabled son can use that child’s own funds to enhance the wellbeing of the child. Instead, Mr Turner found that he and thousands of others were required to go to court when the account matured. Such is the complexity that Mr Turner was independently advised that it would be easier and cheaper for him—I hate to say this—to wait until Mikey died, when a simpler process existed to reclaim the money. He was naturally deeply upset. He was also determined to do something about it, not just for Mikey, but others in the same predicament.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman. As I said to him before the debate, I want to give the Northern Ireland perspective. In Northern Ireland, the responsibility for the management of the child trust fund account for a child when there is no person with parental responsibility is transferred to the Share Foundation, which deals with inquiries until the child turns 18. Does he agree it would be a good idea if the responsibility went to relatives in the extended family, such as grandparents, to ensure that they can provide guidance within a familial setting in relation to finances? That would be a simple way of doing it—letting the grandparents or the extended family look after things.
Sir Jeremy Quin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will touch on the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but the fundamental point that unites many people in the Chamber is the desire to get easy access for parents to ensure they do not go through a court process, incurring fees, going through bureaucracy and requiring the support of GPs and social workers, to access what in many cases is an average of about £2,000. It is just too much bureaucracy and work when it is rightfully the asset of their child.
I know many people in the Chamber, not just the hon. Gentleman, take a close interest in the matter and have far more personal experience than me, as parents of children with disabilities. They know that parents of children with disabilities have so much to do. Often that involves struggling to get what is rightfully theirs from Government. That is one area in which Mr Turner felt that progress could be made. The good news is he found a groundswell of support from parents and charities. I would like to thank in particular Contact for its support and Renaissance Legal for its tireless campaigning. There is support from child trust fund providers and, indeed, from the Minister, and yet four years on, we are still nowhere near where we need to be.
I would like to set out the scale of the problem. I will set out what I recognise the Government have attempted to do to mitigate the problem and, lastly, what I believe they should do to go further and largely to resolve it for most families with disabled children. Let us be clear: it is not a new issue. It is very apparent and has been well rehearsed—not only as a result of my constituent’s brilliant campaigning. The Public Accounts Committee looked into the issue last year as part of its analysis of child trust funds. The PAC highlighted a wider problem with CTFs as a whole, but it drew particular attention to access for young people lacking the mental capacity to manage their own savings.
In these circumstances, a family or carer must gain legal authority to access funds that belong to the young person involved. To do so requires an application for a deputyship order to the Court of Protection in England and Wales. For England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice estimates that between 63,000 and 126,000 young people may not have the mental capacity to access and manage their matured CTF when they reach 18. All CTFs will mature between 2020 and 2029. Tens of thousands of young people will therefore be subjected to a prohibitively lengthy, costly and complex process simply to access what is rightfully theirs.
In relation to stand-alone CTF applications, there were just 70 court applications between September 2020 and May 2023, compared with about 27,000 accounts maturing over the same period. The Department, in its Treasury minute responding to the PAC, broadened the scope of applications to include not just stand-alone CTF applications but other assets. However, even on that basis, the number of applications for 16 to 21-year-olds between September 2022 and March 2023 was still only 312. Whichever statistic one chooses to cite, thousands of people are missing out on what is rightfully theirs, because we are not informing them of their rights, and if we do, the process is too complex and too costly for all but a few.
I know that the Minister is a decent man. He put aside time to meet Mr Turner and me on this issue, and I know that he has instructed the Department to engage. I know that he is keen to make it simpler for families and he has ensured that changes have been made. I acknowledge that the MOJ last year moved some of the application online, waiving the fees and creating a toolkit for parents. That is to be welcomed, and I believe it was introduced with excellent intent. However, the process still involves completing 12 forms, including the duplication of a number of forms, and 93 pages. This includes requiring time-pressured GPs or social workers to complete a 21-page mental capacity assessment, which not all are prepared to do. With all the pressures on the families of disabled young people and the associated cost of becoming a deputy, is it surprising that they do not prioritise accessing what are, on average, funds of about £2,000? However, that is £2,000 that could and should be used to the benefit of the disabled child.
I know that the Minister and his team wish to help further, and there is a means to do so readily at hand, already in use and absolutely capable of being advertised and delivered on. It could help to deliver tens of millions of pounds—actuarial analysis suggests up to £73 million—into the hands of those who desperately need it. I thank the chief executives of two child trust funds, OneFamily and Foresters UK, for talking me through their proactive approach, which puts their customers first. Those two funds account for more than half of all CTFs. Very commendably, those providers recognise the problem and are applying a common-sense and pragmatic approach to its resolution. That is in effect using the Department for Work and Pensions appointee scheme—a tried and tested system to enable families to manage their child’s benefit income. It provides adequate protection and is the obvious solution to unlock the savings of disabled young people.
Let us be clear: this is no free-for-all. The providers require evidence that the parent or guardian is a DWP appointee; they require identity checks and confirmation of the child’s capacity. This process is available only in relation to funds under £5,000, and complex cases may still have to go through the courts. However, it has enabled the providers to meet the needs of hundreds of disabled children. There is a problem. Despite following a DWP process, and despite the knowledge that were a DWP appointee to be acting fraudulently there would be far more at stake than a modest child trust fund, this sensible route is frustratingly not officially sanctioned. The financial institutions are commendably going on risk to allow access to the funds. They know that there are far more affected families out there, but as responsible, regulated entities, they do not believe they can advertise their willingness to help in this pragmatic way, which combines existing safeguards with swift access.
Those two leading institutions and others with a similar proactive mindset assist 900 families a year—a significant multiple of the number aided through the court route—but thousands still need support. I therefore have three requests for the Minister that would help to resolve this issue. Will he engage with the DWP to extend the appointee scheme and officially include savings held in CTFs? Will he engage with the finance industry to formalise what is already a successful industry process, and in doing so enable it to advertise that route so that families can take advantage of a simple scheme? Lastly, will he help families to secure basic information about their CTF provider if the account has been lost?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his superb speech. He has approached this debate in an extremely constructive fashion, with a common-sense, straightforward solution to the problem. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to apply common sense. Child trust funds are a wonderful advantage to many young people, but the most vulnerable are missing out. My right hon. Friend has outlined a way in which the Government can address the biggest part of this problem.
Sir Jeremy Quin
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings me, brilliantly, to my conclusion. I agree with him. Movement on those three issues will prevent thousands of unnecessary court applications, and reduce bureaucracy and cost for the parents of disabled youngsters. Above all, it would put to work funds that could make a real difference to young people who could really do with a little extra help.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for securing this debate. I agree with everything he said. I hope there can be cross-party agreement today that we need to move forward at long last.
I also pay tribute to Andrew Turner and his family—particularly his son, Mikey—for the work they have done, but I am sure Mr Turner will agree that others have played a big role, including lawyers such as Philip Warford, journalists such as Jessie Hewitson, and Martin Lewis. Financial service companies have shown leadership, and Contact, other charities and families, many of whom are here, have campaigned. Their voices have come together, and I hope that the Ministry of Justice will listen.
I should declare an interest: I have a 16-year-old son, John, who has an undiagnosed neurological problem that means he cannot really walk by himself or talk, and has serious learning disabilities. He will never be able to manage his own personal affairs, let alone financial affairs. Although my wife and I, and many wonderful professionals, work to give him as much independence as possible, there is no way, when he reaches the age of 18, that he will be able to get the money from his child trust fund. I declare an interest, but I hope I have an insight into the issues that families face and the problems they have as carers. Just looking after their children on a day-to-day basis can be quite enough, without having to worry about lots of bureaucratic forms and having to go to the court of protection.
I have been involved in this debate for some time. I met Mr Turner in 2020, and I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 October 2020. The then Prime Minister said:
“I will do whatever I can to help”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1058.]
He made that promise nearly four years ago, and we are still here. Hopefully we can do a bit better today.
After that, I met the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who was then doing the current Minister’s job but is now Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. I think I met him three times, and we discussed all the options. We have seen the work that has been done—the waivers, the so-called simplification of the forms, the digitisation—in an attempt to make this work. Sometimes, particularly when the Ministry of Justice proposed a consultation on the small payments scheme, I supported it. I did not think it was the best solution, but I was trying to be constructive, so I went along with it to try to make it work.
However, I am afraid that all the efforts have failed, demonstratively, by the statistics that the right hon. Member for Horsham and many others have shown. To date, the Ministry of Justice has utterly failed to solve the problem, so we need action. We cannot wait much longer. The number of young people and their families, and the amount of money, will just build up over time. The problem will not go away, unless one Minister—I am sure it will be the Minister present today—actually grasps it properly.
I set out initially believing that the DWP appointee scheme was the right one. Families are aware of it, and it has worked in Government and for much larger funds. The amount of money that a loved one gets through their disability living allowance or personal independence payment far outweighs the average amount from a child trust fund, but apparently it is not possible to use that scheme because of the difference between flows of money from DWP and savings and capital. For the life of me, I have never quite understood that distinction, but perhaps there is something in it. I will come on to what I think is behind the Ministry of Justice’s objections.
In the spirit of being constructive, two solutions seem to be on the table. One is the proposal for a new, one-off order solution, which the right hon. Member for Horsham talked about. A family would still have to fill in a form, but it would be a one-pager. They would still have to go the Court of Protection, but it would be a very simple process. I think it has been well thought through by campaigners, and different fund managers have been involved. I believe that Mr Turner wrote to the Ministry of Justice before Christmas. Unfortunately, he received an email from an official in December 2023, which stated that
“we are not able to consider any proposals for an alternative process for accessing CTFs at this time.”
That is not good enough, Minister. People are working hard to come forward with practical solutions within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, and officials are not even willing to see people who are trying to be constructive.
I think that the one-off order solution would work. The Minister might not be able to answer today, but I would like to ask him: would it require a change to primary or secondary legislation to get that solution working, or would the registrar of the Court of Protection simply have to change the administrative rules? It is probably as simple as that, and it would suddenly unlock the problem both for child trust funds and junior ISAs. That is one solution, which the MOJ would be in control of.
The right hon. Member for Horsham touched on another solution: working through the financial service companies, which have shown huge flexibility and taken risk upon themselves. That would not be an MOJ responsibility; I think the MOJ would have to talk to the Treasury. I think the Government have landed this problem in the lap of the MOJ and said, “You sort it out.” If the Minister went to the Chancellor or another Treasury Minister and said, “Look, we want you to say this, and we are happy for you to say it,” all the Treasury Minister would have to say is, “We are relaxed about fund managers of child trust funds or junior ISAs taking that approach, taking the risk upon themselves if anyone objects, and marketing, giving information and promoting the idea that people with DWP appointee status can use the funds and transact them on behalf of their loved one.” That would be what we might call a market solution, but from my insight into how government works, that would require the MOJ to give the green light to the Treasury to make that statement.
Those are two simple, zero-cost solutions to allow vulnerable people to get their own money. After four years of trying, I urge the Minister to wake up and smell the coffee. Why might the MOJ object? I will put myself in his shoes and the shoes of the officials to work out what on earth is going on. The first issue might be the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court of Protection and their underlying principles. When officials and Departments have jurisdiction over an Act of Parliament, they can get jealous about how it has worked and not want to see any change. I get that—we have been there. However, democratically elected politicians must challenge the principle behind the Act, to test whether it has been taken too far, because in law there are other principles that apply, including proportionality and reasonableness. Surely those principles apply here. We are talking about small amounts of money for very vulnerable people whose parents and carers ain’t got the time to go to court. They may phone up one person and ask, “Can you help me?” but if the financial service company or the court says, “Well, it is a bit complicated,” they just give up, because their young person is in pain, needs medical help and needs to go to the hospital. That is the reality of their lives.
Sir Jeremy Quin
First, on the specific point of proportionality, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the financial providers are talking about sums below £5,000, and the average child trust fund here is about £2,000? Secondly, tens of thousands of pounds would to through the DWP appointee scheme, which means that in comparison the child trust fund is a tiny amount of money. On the grounds of proportionality, the right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good case.
Ed Davey
I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He might be interested to know that, while I am not an expert, I am told that principle 5 of the 2005 Act talks about the least restrictive option to achieve the best interests of the vulnerable adult. Can the MCA apply itself to itself, please?
I wonder whether there is another reason why the Ministry of Justice is sticking to the principle despite all the evidence and pressure. Perhaps it wants to get more people to go to the Court of Protection so that the judges there can help with the deputyships of those vulnerable adults as they turn 18. One can have a discussion about whether more families should ultimately go to the Court of Protection. However, when one reads the guidelines of the Court of Protection, it is clear that it rightly sees itself as a court of last resort for a family dispute about money or, more likely, for how a person should be cared for, who should be caring for them and where they should live.
Sometimes, if there is a dispute in the family, the court is necessary and the Court of Protection is brilliant at that. Sometimes, a vulnerable adult may have no loved one or family member, and then the Court of Protection rightly fills that vacuum. However, if families can come to an agreement among themselves, more often than not that will be better than having to go to the Court of Protection. We should make the Court of Protection available to more people. We could advertise and market it—people may want to think about that in due course.
My wife and I are old parents; my son is 16 and I am 58, so I am quite an old dad. I worry about when my wife and I die. My son does not have a degenerative condition, and he is going to live for quite a few years. Of course, we are thinking in due course of going to the Court of Protection or getting a family member such as his sister or one of his cousins to be there for him. The Court of Protection, as I say, has good reason to be there. No one is against it, but it should be used when it is needed.
Perhaps the Ministry of Justice thinks that it has no court backlogs and loads of judges who are just sitting there twiddling their thumbs, so we should give them more business. Come on! Please take the pressures off the system by adopting something simple. I do not like saying this, but there may be a reason why people in the judiciary and legal profession are keen to force people to go to the Court of Protection even when it is disproportionate. Perhaps it is vested interests. I really hope that that is not what we are dealing with, because it is not acceptable.
We are talking about people who are vulnerable, and parents and carers who are stretched to their limits. We are talking about small amounts of money. I urge the Minister to listen to us, and to go back to his Department and the Secretary of State and say that the officials and some of the judiciary from the Court of Protection need to be overruled on this. We need to act proportionately. We need to act in the best interests of thousands of young people who should have access to their own money.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who spoke so well. I entirely agree with what has been said.
I had the pleasure of speaking a few weeks ago at a conference organised by the Share Foundation. Gavin Oldham is in the Gallery for this debate. Andrew Turner spoke at the conference as well and laid out all the practical challenges that we have heard. There was also a very good speech by Ruth Kelly, the former Labour Minister who had oversight of the child trust fund policy when it was introduced. It inspired me to recognise how often good Conservative policies are introduced by non-Conservative Governments, because I have a great respect for the policy.
Another speaker discussed the real genesis of the child trust fund, which was, of course, Tom Paine. In the 1770s and 1780s, he wrote about an approach by which Governments simply gave families a lump of capital as a means of sustaining them and ensuring that they developed the habits of thrift, industry and self-reliance that we all need. We might remember that in the 1990s, the then Labour Opposition were developing ideas around what they called asset-based welfare, which is a very good principle and one that I would not give to Labour entirely. We all share these ideas—[Interruption.]
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
The debate may now continue until 6.15 pm. I call Danny Kruger to resume his speech.
Danny Kruger
Thank you very much, Ms Elliott—I shall resume, rather than start again. I was saying that the child trust fund has its roots in a very good British tradition: the principle of asset-based welfare. In the 1990s, there was a tussle about the approach to public services. On the one hand, there was what we have come to call new public management, which was about centralised and bureaucratic quasi-market systems based on individual entitlements and comprehensive services. On the other, there was asset-based welfare, which was about putting capital into families and supporting communities to develop their own collective responses to social challenges.
In the new Labour years, the new public management model won out, with the great and noble exception of the child trust fund, which is such a brilliant innovation. It is such an important principle that people should be trusted to manage wealth and to sustain their families directly. I regret that, in 2010, when the coalition Government came in, the child trust fund was abandoned —I was going to have a pop at the Liberal Democrats, who I am sure were responsible for scrapping it, but let us just blame George Osborne, because we can all unite on that. Junior ISAs were established instead, and that is also a very good principle.
I want to echo the points that were eloquently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about the real injustice that families now endure. Back in the days when the child trust fund was created, not enough consideration was given to children without mental capacity to access and manage their own finances upon becoming adults. Something very wrong was done without anybody intending it and without it being properly thought through. I will not repeat the points made by my right hon. Friend, but we have a huge obligation to right that injustice.
It is worth pointing out that we have not just tens of thousands of young people locked out of money that is rightfully theirs and without the money or incentive to pursue a Court of Protection case to unlock it. There is also a significant disincentive to open a junior ISA for parents with a disabled child who are thinking about the long-term future and whether it will be possible to access that money. So we are inhibiting the principle of saving altogether.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham made very good suggestions about a one-off order solution—I absolutely echo the case made there—and also about the DWP appointee scheme. The fact that we do that for benefits—as we have heard, those often account for much greater sums than the child trust fund—means that we should extend it. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about relieving the pressure on the Court of Protection.
The principle of child trust funds is such a good and important one in terms of the welfare model that we should have. The injustice that we have at the moment—the complexity of the system and the fact that there are so many dormant accounts—does not apply just to the families who know about the money that belongs to their disabled children and who want to access it; many millions of young people do not know that they have the right to this money—that it is, in fact, rightfully theirs. I understand that about 6 million young people have accounts, worth around £2,000 each, that they are unaware of, and it is estimated that around 1 million of those young people will come from deprived circumstances. What an enormous injustice it is that all that money is sitting there in Government accounts that they are not able to access! This has been described as malign neglect; it will not be deliberate—nobody is actively trying to prevent young people from accessing money that is rightfully theirs—but, nevertheless, for reasons we have heard about, disabled children and young people more widely are not being given access to money that is rightfully theirs.
I echo the point made by campaigners, including Gavin Oldham from the Share Foundation, about having a default withdrawal policy whereby the system knows the bank details of young people who are registered with HMRC. I understand that about 60% of young people with child trust fund accounts that they have not yet accessed could simply be given the money. That should happen; there would need to be communications and an information campaign around that, but it is the right thing to do, not least because it would stop the outrage of companies charging a 25% fee for the benefit of informing young people of the fact that they have this money. That, I think, is the future model.
As a country, we should be proud of the principle of child trust funds. A lot of people are increasingly thinking that we need to develop approaches around asset-based welfare. I noticed that David Willetts, a former colleague of ours, is proposing something similar—a capital sum granted to young people at coming of age—and Gavin Oldham has suggested that inheritance tax receipts should be used to invest in child trust funds for the future. I think that this is an old idea whose time has come, and I hope we can fix the immediate problems we have and then think more broadly about how to extend this model more widely.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a special pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Elliott. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for securing this debate on behalf of his constituent Andrew Turner. I congratulate him on his detailed speech, which outlined very clearly the challenge before us.
I also want to comment on the speech from the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am grateful to him for sharing his personal experience of engaging with the system with his son, John. He demonstrated a special empathy for other parents of children with challenging disabilities. He offered solutions, and I remind the House of his most important statement: that people are just after their own money. He also spoke of the need for a simpler system.
That point was repeated by the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)—I have just found out how to pronounce his constituency properly, so I hope I did it justice this time—who lamented the fact that we no longer have the children’s trust fund, which was set up by the Labour Government. He tried to blame the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but it was the right hon. Gentleman’s colleague in the Treasury—the same person who axed the hospital that was planned in my constituency. Health inequalities have widened ever since, and the hospital is not even on the Government’s new list. The hon. Member for Devizes confirmed that there is consensus in the Chamber that we need action: he said, “Simply give them the money,” which is a good thing for me to mention at the beginning of my speech.
Andrew’s fervent campaign to bring about change stems from the challenges faced by his family, who have come up against tremendous problems along the way as they have tried simply to get access to the money they saved for their son Mikey. We heard about the distress faced by Mikey’s family and others, and also about the deeply disturbing legal advice that Andrew received: that it would be easier and cheaper to wait until Mikey died, because a simpler process could then be used. I cannot find the words to describe the anguish I would feel in such circumstances.
Andrew has become an advocate for the many parents of children with disabilities who all too often come up against these barriers. I pay tribute to him and charities such as Contact for their hard work on this issue. I also thank the other parent campaigners—Nasreen Yasin, Claire Binney, Michele Creed and Ramandeep Kaur, as well as Rachel Dixon, John Roberts and their son, Joseph—for joining us today.
Under the fund introduced in 2005, every child born in the UK between September 2002 and January 2011 received up to £500 in Government vouchers as an incentive for their parents and guardians to open a savings account for them. That initiative was ditched by the coalition Government in 2011, when the junior ISA was created. Disabled children and those from low-income families received an additional amount to provide greater benefits in later life. The trust money was then locked away, and parents were able to add more to the account each year until the child turned 18. Again, as we have heard, parents of children who lack the mental capacity to manage their finances themselves when they turn 18 face making a deputyship application to the Court of Protection to access their child trust fund or junior ISA.
The Ministry of Justice estimates that between 63,000 and 126,000 young people may fall into that category, yet the Court of Protection approved only 15 applications in 2021. The Minister will be aware that Andrew wrote to the Lord Chancellor yesterday outlining the scale of the challenge. He highlighted that, since 2020, an estimated 31,488 disabled young people have been unable to access £72.4 million of child trust fund and junior ISA savings.
The Public Accounts Committee looked into this matter and highlighted reports of families finding the deputyship application process difficult, time-consuming and costly. Fees are waived if families are applying to access a child trust fund, but there are other barriers. The Committee heard that a six-page GP letter is needed as part of the process. The Down’s Syndrome Association said in evidence that low awareness of banking safeguards among the parents it supports is also a barrier to accessing their child’s trust fund. It explained that the fee waiver does not apply if the young adult is still in education, and that many families believe that they still need to pay for the services of a solicitor.
I recognise that the Government have considered measures they hoped would address the problem over the years, but the legislation and processes put in place to support individuals and their families should be much more accessible. We need closer working between the finance industry and Departments to find a workable solution to this ongoing problem. That would have the potential to significantly increase accessibility, helping many more families to access savings locked in child trust funds and junior ISAs.
I agree with the statement from Una Summerson, head of policy and public affairs at Contact. She said that implementing a less restrictive approach is in the best interests of disabled young people. Disabled young people must be allowed to enjoy their savings like everybody else, and continuing to promote actions that fail to address this issue will simply perpetuate injustice. There is an opportunity to bring common sense into the debate and to commit to a new approach.
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful speech, and I thank him for his kind comments. We all hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us that the Government will look at the issue again and will make changes, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this Government fail to make changes, at the next election and in the next Parliament, it is vital that his party, working with others, makes those changes?
Alex Cunningham
Yes. Whichever Government are in power, they have to make the changes necessary to make it much easier for people to access the funds. I do not know what the mechanism will be, but I think we can all say that the next Government, of either colour, will deliver on that particular promise, but the Minister might get this sorted before we have that general election. Today might have been the last day the Prime Minister could have called the election, but we still have a few hours to go—bring that on!
The Government referred in their consultation response to clear evidence of the challenges in the current system, with the Court of Protection property and affairs application forms being too lengthy and complex, and the time taken between completing the application to the final order being made being too long and disproportionate for the sums involved. Instead of a wholesale change, however, the Government opted for incremental changes to the current court process. In 2023, the Ministry of Justice created a toolkit for parent carers on making financial decisions and implemented a new digital process for property and affairs deputy order applications, which was rolled out last year and is set to speed up the process. Users can complete some of the court forms electronically and can digitally submit remaining paperwork.
Sadly, Contact tells me that none of the Government’s piecemeal changes has meaningfully simplified the court process or made it more accessible for families with no legal experience. The Government’s strategy is not working. If their intended aim was to have a process that was as accessible as possible, it simply has not been achieved. I hope that the Minister will outline the impact that those changes have had on application processing times, addressing whether future digitalisation of Court of Protection processes is planned, and outline exactly how the Government will remove those blockages to the funds once and for all. Let them have their own money!
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for securing the debate and continuing the conversation we have had for some time. I was pleased to meet him and his constituent Mr Turner last May to discuss the issue, and I welcome the ongoing debate that we are having.
I will not tiptoe down memory lane, as colleagues have —I am not sure that revisiting the coalition Governments of 2010 onwards is particularly helpful to today’s debate. What I want to do and what is important—and I am sorry if it is dry—is lay out the legal framework that is there is to protect vulnerable people. I understand clearly that the actions of the vast majority of parents are well intentioned, and that they act with great honour and kindness looking after their child or young adult. However, my job is also to protect vulnerable people from any form of abuse, and that weighs heavily on any reforms that we take forward. I appreciate that people will disagree vehemently with me, but I have to take into account the fact that not every parent would act with the best of intentions when accessing the funds.
It is a well-established common-law principle that an adult must obtain proper legal authority to access or manage the finances or property of another adult. That includes, for the purpose of today’s debate, a matured child trust fund of a young adult. People are understandably unaware of that legal principle, and it may be surprising to parents and carers who have been heavily involved in decision making for their young person prior to their turning 18. I want to iterate the steps that we have already taken to try to improve the process, particularly as regards awareness of what steps need to be taken as the young person reaches the age of 18.
Ed Davey
Before the Minister talks about reforms that have been made, can I bring him back to the point of principle that he outlined at the beginning of his remarks? I do not think anyone disagrees that there is an important principle, but there is equally a principle of proportionality that I mentioned in my speech. Can the Minister address that point? Where does proportionality arise in his thinking about the principles involved?
Mike Freer
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am happy to have an ongoing conversation. In fact, this is the first time we have discussed the matter face to face since I took on my portfolio. Proportionality is a valid point, but what is the level of risk that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to take? It will be different from the one that I or the Government are prepared to take. The right hon. Gentleman or anybody in this room may be prepared to say that 10, 20, 100 or 1,000 young people could have their money accessed inappropriately. That is a proportionate risk that they are willing to take. My view is that I want to minimise that risk and that proportionality is not easily measured.
I am not a lawyer. I look to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and my legal friends to say that there may be a legal definition of proportionality. However, the definition of proportionality for those who are making decisions against those who are asking for change may be different. I am willing to see if we can bridge the gap, but my view is that I want to ensure that we can both improve access and that protections remain in place so that those who may not have the best interests of the young adults in mind do not get access to funds with total liberty.
Ed Davey
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. It was direct and to the point, and he has given way again, which is generous.
When we look at the risk, we have evidence from the industry, which has looked at the case and many firms and funders have said that they are prepared to take on the risk themselves. Even though the Government are behind it, because the risk and the amount of money are so small, the firms have taken on that risk themselves. Is that not a lesson that the Minister should dwell on? If the MOJ is not prepared to act on that, would he at least go and talk to his colleagues at the Treasury and see if they can make a statement about the way in which the financial services could take on that risk and how the Government would support that?
Mike Freer
I am always happy to discuss with any provider and certainly the provider I have spoken to. No provider has beaten a path to my door saying, “We think you have got it wrong and our risk assessment is right.” Any organisation is entitled to make their own risk assessment and accept the consequences if they get it wrong. That is their decision. As for my risk assessments, perhaps I am being over-cautious. I am willing to be challenged on that and I appreciate that people have a different view, but I want to ensure that I take the least risk regarding vulnerable adults.
I will talk briefly in the time left about the work we have done with the Investing and Saving Alliance to try to improve accessibility and knowledge. Given the time, I will have to skip over the part of my speech about the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I think everyone in the room is probably aware of the methodology of applying for the deputyship that gives people access or the ability to act on other people’s behalf. I will not go through that in any great depth.
We have heard that the court process was cumbersome, which is why we looked at how we could change that. We consulted on what kind of different system we could put in place, but there was not a consistent view from the consultation on how we should reform access to the funds. In fact, if we go into the consultation, many people wanted to add safeguards to a new form of access that actually made the system even more cumbersome than the one we were trying to reform. That was a difficulty, as we did not get a common view on what checks and balances needed to be in place. We talked not just to parents, but to charitable organisations, the legal and finance sectors, groups representing the elderly and so on, and we heard that it was too complex. The big message that came out was that people were not really aware of what they had to do or when they had to do it.
I think that the first ask from my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was whether we would extend appointeeships to cover child trust funds. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to extend the availability of information. I am more than willing to go back to the DWP and talk about whether its process is suitable for child trust funds. It is a very different process: it is about accessing regular payments rather than lump sums, so there is a different quantum at risk. It would take primary legislation to access the DWP-type processes—we double-checked that today. It is not a quick fix, but it is certainly one that I am more than happy to go back and have another look at.
I want to ensure that we are streamlining the processes. Can we take the paper out? Can we use more digital processes? We have seen that the time has reduced from 24 weeks to 12 weeks. We will continue to liaise with the President of the Court of Protection to monitor performance and see what more can be done.
A key issue is that people often do not know what they have to do until the child turns 18, and then they are locked out. We have done two things; I apologise if this sounds a little disjointed. I sat down with TISA, the major provider of child trust funds, and we agreed that as part of its normal maturity mailing, it will include advice and information about how to access and use the Court of Protection to get the relevant legal powers in place. We are taking early steps to educate people as to what they need to do before the person turns 18. That comes alongside the toolkit, which, as hon. Members have noted, provides practical guidance on how to access and navigate the legal process.
My right hon. Friend’s second ask was about making people aware of how to find lost funds. We are doing more work to provide information. People can use the “Find my child trust fund” service on gov.uk. We can continue to do more to raise awareness of that.
Alex Cunningham
It is a good idea that providers are prepared to write out and provide additional information. I welcome that, but it is not going to solve the problem. Does the Minister agree that it is no good just having a one-off? It will have to be done on a regular basis, as more young people become mature and approach the age of 18.
Mike Freer
The shadow Minister pre-empts me. This is a regular communication strategy: TISA will continue to notify those who are heading towards maturity of what they need to do to access the fund once they turn 18.
I have also been working with the Department for Work and Pensions on accessing its client bank. We have agreed with the DWP that we will contact the cohort of parents and carers who receive personal independence payments and who may lack the mental capacity to access their child trust fund. We have an agreement in principle that we will do a mailing—not a one-off, but a constant mailing—so that people in this cohort, which we think is particularly relevant to child trust funds and difficulties of access, will become aware in advance of what they need to do. One of the big messages from the consultation was about the lack of understanding and knowledge of the steps until it was too late.
I appreciate that hon. Members have said, “Give them the money.” I get that. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the vast majority of parents act in the very best interests of the child. I am not a parent, so I cannot possibly understand the role of a parent having to juggle all the demands of everyday life while having a child who needs additional support. I accept that my knowledge is limited, but the risk of just one parent not acting in their child’s best interests, but accessing those funds inappropriately, weighs very heavily on me.
I accept all the points about proportionality, and I am happy to have a conversation about where the line on risk is drawn. Broadly speaking, where I am coming from is improving education, improving access and improving knowledge, but I cannot in all good conscience say that I am going to throw open the accounts and give unfettered access without some checks and safeguards to ensure that the very small minority do not have the ability to abuse a young adult. However, I will commit to following through with colleagues at the DWP to see whether there is anything we can do to copy or piggyback on their approach and make the system more accessible.
Sir Jeremy Quin
I am grateful for the Minister’s candour. We have heard what he has to say. Like the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), I am keen to work with the Minister, and I know that he has put changes in train to improve the situation. I was pleased to hear what he said about mailing, and we will certainly work with him to see how it can be improved. I know that his intent is absolutely genuine and that he has genuine worries about ensuring that any scheme is safe for all, but this is about proportionality. There is a concern that thousands of young people may miss out because of the Minister’s genuine concern about what could be a very small number indeed.
I come back to the point about the DWP appointee scheme. If fraud is at work, which is always a risk when the Government are distributing or giving access to money in any form, there are far bigger fish to fry than the child trust fund. Trying to avoid that tiny risk prevents access for many thousands of people. We should be able to find a more effective yet secure way through. I urge him to keep reviewing the issue.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will talk to the DWP about the process. I understand his point about primary legislation, but ultimately if primary legislation is required to ensure that we can right a wrong and get fairness, I am sure that it would not be a controversial bit of legislation—and what on earth are we here for? I look forward to ongoing discussions with the Minister and to finding a solution that works for all these disabled young people and their families.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Child Trust Fund access for people seeking to manage the finances of others.
Written Statements
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office: Horizon Inquiry Participation Costs
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
In October 2023, I announced our intention to provide funding of up to £150 million, plus any contingency that may be required, to support the Post Office fully participating in the Post Office Horizon it inquiry and to support the delivery of redress to postmasters.
Since then, those costs have increased and the Government have decided to provide access to contingency funding, and award a further £40 million to ensure Post Office can continue to deliver this important work. The Government remain determined to address the wrongs of the Horizon scandal.
In accordance with the Subsidy Control Act 2022, the Department for Business and Trade’s assessment of the funding’s compliance with the subsidy control principles was previously referred to the subsidy advice unit. A report was published, which concluded that the Department had
“conducted an assessment which considers the subsidy’s compliance with the subsidy control principles in line with the Statutory Guidance”.
[HCWS355]
Simpler Corporate Reporting
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Yesterday, the Government announced our first set of intended regulatory changes as part of our commitment to make the non-financial reporting framework smarter, simpler and better for business. These changes focus on reducing regulation on small and medium-sized companies, ensuring that reporting requirements are proportionate, so that those companies can focus on their growth and delivering for their customers. 2 of 3 out of: Micro Small Medium Large Old New Old New Old New Old New Annual turnover nmt* £632k nmt £1m nmt £10.2m nmt £15m nmt £36m nmt £54m £36m+ £54m+ Balance sheet total nmt £316k nmt £500k nmt £5.1m nmt £7.5m nmt £18m nmt £27m £18m+ £27m+ Average number of employees nmt 10 nmt 50 nmt 250 251 + *nmt = not more than
The Government intend to lay legislation this summer to lift the monetary thresholds that determine company size by 50%, in order to take account of inflation and to reduce burdens on smaller businesses, a change that we are able to make following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union—see table. Overall, the effect of these changes is that 5,000 large companies would be reclassified as medium-sized and access more proportionate reporting; 13,000 medium-sized companies would be reclassified as small companies, enabling them to benefit from exemptions to statutory audit requirements as well as the ability to file simpler accounts; and 113,000 small companies would be reclassified as micro-sized companies, which will allow them to file simpler accounts—a benefit for more than one in every four businesses that are currently classified as small.
The Government will also remove several low-value, obsolete or overlapping requirements from the directors’ report, and from the directors’ remuneration report and policy; make it easier for companies to issue digital annual reports; and fix some technical issues in the audit regulatory framework that have been identified following the assimilation of EU law into UK law.
In total, these changes will deliver a deregulatory saving of around £150 million per year to UK companies, with small and medium-sized companies set to benefit by approximately £145 million per year.
The regulations will directly benefit both preparers and users of annual reports and accounts. They will remove low-value and duplicative information and make annual reports shorter, more navigable and better focused. Preparers of annual reports—UK businesses up and down the country—will have more time to spend on running their business. Users of reports—investors and shareholders—will be able more easily to access relevant information to support effective decision making.
By refining the framework and delivering deregulatory cost-savings for business, the Government are taking action to strengthen the UK’s business environment and our international reputation as a great place to do business.
And the Government intend to go further. The Government intend to consult later this year on amending the definition of a medium-sized company for company reporting so that the threshold on the maximum number of employees to be classified as a medium-sized company is increased from 250 to 500. It will also consult on exempting medium-sized companies from having to produce a strategic report and on exempting smaller public interest entities from audit tendering and rotation requirements. This will further reduce the bureaucratic burden on companies that are the lifeblood of the UK economy, meaning that they would not be subject to the more stringent reporting and accounting requirements faced by large businesses. I will update the House on these further proposals in due course.
[HCWS354]
Football Governance Bill
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I wish to inform both Houses that the Government have today introduced the Football Governance Bill into Parliament, marking a critical milestone towards the establishment of an independent football regulator.
Football is a defining part of our national identity, with clubs bringing fans and communities together week in, week out. It is a multibillion-pound industry with a truly global footprint, and we are committed to securing its future growth. But in recent years it has become clear that there are systemic issues at the heart of our national game that the industry has failed to resolve itself, despite repeated calls for reform. The consequences of these issues can be catastrophic.
The collapse of clubs like Bury and Macclesfield Town, the devastating impact of the pandemic and the failed attempt by some English clubs to join a breakaway European super league have all demonstrated the financial issues in the game and the need for more accountability to fans.
This legislation is the next step in our ongoing commitment to safeguard the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans. It follows the Government’s White Paper, “A sustainable future—reforming club football governance”, published in February 2023, which built on the fan-led review of football governance’s recommendations and set out a comprehensive plan to introduce an independent regulator.
In developing the Bill, we have taken the time to carefully consider the full range of recommendations set out in the review and we believe our policy will legally achieve the proposed outcomes while ensuring a proportionate approach.
Introducing an independent football regulator will strengthen the governance and financial resilience of football clubs to protect the national game and clubs’ links with their communities and fans. The regulator will not intervene in or seek to change the sporting fundamentals of the game we love—it will ensure a more sustainable future, with fans at its heart, for generations to come.
The regulator’s primary purpose will be to ensure that English football is sustainable and resilient for the benefit of fans and the local communities football clubs serve. It will achieve this by:
Operating a licensing system, where all clubs in the top five tiers of the men’s English football pyramid will need a licence to operate.
Establishing a new, strengthened owners’ and directors’ test to make sure a club’s custodians are suitable and to protect fans from irresponsible owners.
Setting a minimum standard of fan engagement and requiring clubs to comply with new FA rules on club heritage, giving fans a veto over changes to the badge and home shirt colours, as well as the strong existing protections for club names.
Requiring clubs to seek regulator pre-approval for any sale or relocation of their stadium.
Preventing clubs from joining breakaway leagues that do not have the support of the fans or that threaten the heritage or sustainability of English football.
Having a backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcast revenue when the leagues fail to reach an agreement—subject to certain thresholds being met.
Establishing a compulsory “Football Club Corporate Governance Code”.
The regulatory regime will be designed to be proportionate and, as such, the regulator will not adopt a “one size fits all” approach. Instead, it will tailor any intervention to the specific circumstances it faces and in doing so will avoid placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on clubs. The regulator’s approach will be advocacy-first: aiming to work constructively with clubs and then leagues to resolve issues wherever it can. Only where this has proven ineffective, or in the most urgent cases or serious instances of non-compliance, will the regulator have powers to intervene more directly or strongly.
This legislation also recognises that English football is a source of significant importance to fans and communities across the country. It will establish a new regulatory framework in a way that ensures the regulator must seek to minimise adverse impacts on financial investment in English football or on club competitiveness, and minimises the impact on sporting outcomes in general. This will balance the need for change to secure the long-term future of our national game and the need to restore fans’ place at its heart with the importance of ensuring continued global success.
In developing these proposals, we have undertaken significant engagement with a broad range of stakeholders and experts. This has included regular meetings with the Premier League, the English Football League, the National League, the Football Association (FA) and the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), as well as official and ministerial-level meetings with clubs across the football pyramid. I want to thank all who have engaged with us throughout the entire process, and helped us shape the Bill.
We will continue to work and engage with industry, fan groups and across Parliament as the Bill progresses to ensure we can deliver on urgently needed regulation. Alongside the legislation, the Government have established a shadow regulator, which will act as a forerunner to the regulator with responsibility for set-up activity and preparatory work for the regulatory regime.
I would welcome the support of colleagues across both Houses as we take this important legislation forward.
[HCWS358]
Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
On 26 January 2024, I issued a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) in relation to the anticipated acquisition of Telegraph Media Group Ltd (TMG) by RB Investco Ltd on the grounds of the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression in newspapers.
The PIIN triggered a requirement for Ofcom to report by 11 March on the media public interest considerations and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on jurisdiction and competition issues. I issued a statement on 12 March to confirm that I had received those reports and undertook to set out my “minded to” decision on the next step in this process: whether or not to refer the merger to a fuller phase 2 investigation.
On the basis of the regulators’ assessments, I can now confirm that I am minded to refer this merger to a phase 2 investigation on the grounds of the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of newspapers.
The CMA has found that arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation; a finding that is a prerequisite for me to be able to refer this matter for a further investigation at all. However, it does not believe that it is or may be the case that this merger has resulted, or may be expected to result, in substantial lessening of competition within a market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services.
Ofcom has found that it is or may be the case that the potential merger situation may be expected to operate against the public interest, having regard to the specified public interest considerations. In particular, it considers that International Media Investments (IMI), a majority partner in RB Investco’s parent company, may have the incentive to influence TMG in a way that could potentially act against the public interest in the UK by influencing the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph newspapers.
I will be publishing both the CMA and Ofcom reports in due course, copies of which will be deposited in the Library of both Houses. I will also publish the letters to both parties setting out my “minded to” decision.
I am now required by legislation to allow the parties the opportunity to make representations to me before I reach a final decision. I have given them until 9 am on 25 March 2024 to respond.
I will aim to make a further statement on any decision I may come to as quickly as possible.
The pre-emptive action order I issued on 29 January 2024 will continue to apply to the merging parties and related entities until a final decision has been taken on matters described in the January PIIN.
In the meantime, given the ongoing quasi-judicial nature of this process, I am unable to comment substantively on the matter of this case.
I had also issued a PIIN on 30 November 2023 in relation to the anticipated acquisition of Telegraph Media Group Ltd by RedBird IMI, which was then RB Investco’s parent company.
The CMA has found that arrangements as described in the November PIIN are no longer in progress or in contemplation. I accept the CMA’s findings on this matter and this PIIN now ceases to be in force.
[HCWS357]
Brook House Inquiry: Government Response
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
The Government are today publishing their response to the Brook House inquiry. The Government are grateful to the chair of the BHI, Kate Eves, for her review and welcome this important contribution to ensuring the safety and welfare of those in detention. The response has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, CP 1041, and copies are available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
This inquiry, in which the Home Office was a core participant, was in response to an investigative current affairs documentary broadcast in September 2017, which included covert footage of abuse of detained people at Brook House immigration removal centre by a small number of contracted service provider staff. The inquiry was established on 5 November 2019 and published its report on 19 September 2023. The inquiry formally closed on 31 January 2024.
The aim of the inquiry was to establish the facts of what took place and ensure that lessons were learnt to prevent those shocking events happening again. The Government expect the highest standards from contracted service providers.
The Government wish to highlight the significant improvements that have been made since 2017 to uphold the welfare and dignity of those detained across the estate including strengthening safeguards, promoting a culture of transparency and improving the oversight of contractors’ performance. The Government are confident the measures taken so far in responding to the BHI have gone a long way to addressing many of the key concerns raised, and will continue to reflect on the findings from the inquiry ensuring that they are fully embedded into the development and implementation of new and emerging policy initiatives.
[HCWS356]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.45 pm. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—which I am advised is singularly unlikely—the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 8 February, following publication of the department’s response to its consultation on implementing minimum service levels for fire and rescue services. Before we get into the detail, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all those who work in fire and rescue services: for all that they do, I am extremely grateful.
The services provided by fire and rescue authorities are critical to the safety of the public and the protection of property and the environment. It is therefore crucial that the public remain able to access fire and rescue services when they need them. The overarching aim of these regulations is to help ensure that this happens on strike days. Using powers introduced by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, the regulations will allow fire and rescue authorities to issue work notices to ensure that there is sufficient cover to answer all emergency calls and respond to fire-related emergencies as if strike action was not taking place.
The minimum service level for fire and rescue services includes three core aspects. These are control rooms, emergency incident response and fire safety services. Broadly speaking, the responses to the Government’s consultation, including those from the majority of fire and rescue services, were in favour of a nationally set minimum service level, but with a degree of local flexibility. This is reflected in the provisions set out in the regulations.
For control rooms, the minimum service level makes sure that emergency calls are answered and assessed, and resources dispatched to emergency incidents, as if it were a non-strike day. Decisions on the number of staff required to fulfil these functions will be for individual fire and rescue authorities to take.
For firefighters, we have set the minimum service level at 73% of the appliances—by which I mean fire engines and other fire and rescue service vehicles—that would be available if strike action were not taking place at that time. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine the number of staff required to safely crew and oversee these appliances.
The decision to set this aspect of the minimum service level at 73% is based on detailed modelling, summarised in our consultation response. The modelling calculates the proportion of days over the past five years on which demand exceeded the number of appliances required to meet a minimum service level set at different thresholds. The model identified 73% as the threshold at which every fire and rescue service would have enough appliances available to meet emergency demand on more than 97% of days. In the interests of public safety, we therefore consider 73% the most appropriate point at which to set this aspect of the minimum service level.
Many fire and rescue services also host national resilience assets, which would form an important part of any response to major and significant incidents, such as a major building collapse or a wildfire. It is of the utmost importance that fire and rescue services can maintain these capabilities and keep the public safe. This is why the minimum service level for national resilience assets is set so that they are capable of being deployed as if the strike were not taking place. Like other provisions in the regulations, fire and rescue authorities will consult trade unions and determine the number of staff required to meet this minimum service level.
The third key element of the minimum service level is to provide cover for urgent fire safety issues. Under the regulations, fire and rescue services will be expected to have staff available to rectify any emerging issues that pose an imminent risk to life and so would normally require a same-day response. This could include any significant fire safety issues uncovered at residential or public premises. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine how much cover will be required for these activities, although we anticipate that the number of urgent fire safety issues emerging on a strike day is likely to be relatively small.
The minimum service level set out in these regulations is designed to balance the ability of workers to take strike action and the need of the public to access essential services. In summary, this is a proportionate step to ensure that public safety is protected on strike days. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, in the debate on the strikes/minimum service legislation and the regulations made under it, the rationale for the right to strike sometimes gets overlooked. I will cite for your Lordships three very short passages, not from Marx and Engels or Sidney and Beatrice Webb but from the highest courts in the United Kingdom and Canada.
First, I cite a case of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords from 1942, Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch, in which Lord Wright said:
“Where the rights of labour are concerned the rights of the employer are conditioned by the rights of men to give or withhold their services. The right of workmen to strike is an essential element in the principle of collective bargaining”.
The second authority that I want to put before your Lordships is a case in the Supreme Court of Canada from 2015, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan. In it, the Chief Justice cited an earlier case in the Ontario High Court, with approval, in which it was said that
“freedom of association contains a sanction that can convince an employer to recognize the workers’ representatives and bargain effectively with them. That sanction is the freedom to strike. By the exercise of that freedom the workers, through their union, have the power to convince an employer to recognize the union and to bargain with it … If that sanction is removed the freedom is valueless because there is no effective means to force an employer to recognize the workers’ representatives and bargain with them. When that happens the raison d’être for workers to organize themselves into a union is gone. Thus I think that the removal of the freedom to strike renders the freedom to organize a hollow thing”.
Finally, in a later passage, the Chief Justice said:
“The right to strike is essential to realizing these values and objectives through a collective bargaining process because it permits workers to withdraw their labour in concert when collective bargaining reaches an impasse. Through a strike, workers come together to participate directly in the process of determining their wages, working conditions and the rules that will govern their working lives … The ability to strike thereby allows workers, through collective action, to refuse to work under imposed terms and conditions. This collective action at the moment of impasse is an affirmation of the dignity and autonomy of employees in their working lives”.
As your Lordships well know, collective bargaining operates successfully in the fire service, including in relation to incidents that may occur when strikes are called. Those issues are negotiated, as are terms and conditions and—most recently, of course—pay, but the effect of these regulations will be to remove the right to strike for a large proportion of the staff of the fire and rescue service. For example, as the Minister pointed out, 73% of appliances and crew must be available, as on a non-strike day. In my local fire station, there are three appliances, so the application of the 73% rule means that all three must be present, available and fully crewed on any strike day.
In addition to that, 100% of control room staff must be available, as must 100% of the staff whose job it is to work national resilience assets such as high-volume pumps and, I think, aerial ladder platforms. The effect of these regulations will be to diminish the bargaining power of the fire and rescue service’s workers and union, which will result in worsening terms and conditions and will lead to difficulty in retention and recruitment.
The United Kingdom has ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which protect the right to organise and to bargain collectively. They are two of the five fundamental conventions of the ILO, the importance of which the UK recently reasserted in the trade and co-operation agreement it reached with the European Union when leaving. Under Article 387(2) of that agreement, the obligation on the EU and the UK is as follows:
“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards”.
The words
“labour and social levels of protection”
are defined in Article 386 as including the fundamental ILO conventions. Under Article 399(2),
“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”,
which it then summarises.
It is clear that these regulations will lead the United Kingdom to be in breach of its international legal obligations. It is true that the ILO jurisprudence permits a state to adopt minimum service legislation, but that is on one condition, which has a number of aspects. First, the minimum service level must be the subject of negotiation between the social partners; secondly, the fulfilment of that minimum level of service in any particular firm or enterprise must be the subject of negotiations between the unions and the particular employer; and thirdly, in the event of disagreement, there must be an established method of resort to either judicial or arbitral resolution of the failure to agree. That applies in all the countries in western Europe.
There is a fourth element to it. Where workers are deprived of the right to strike, such as, in our case, control-room staff, compensatory measures must be adopted by the state which bars the right to strike. The compensatory measures are that the ability to seek arbitration must be speedy, binding, independent and impartial. None of those conditions is available under these regulations or indeed under the Act itself, so I ask the Minister, how can the UK be said to uphold the rule of law in the face of what is a clear breach? How will the Government explain this discrepancy to the European Union?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as London’s deputy mayor for fire and resilience. However, I am speaking in my capacity as a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I have had the privilege and pleasure of over a decade’s involvement in the fire service. Until last summer, this has included being involved with the collective bargaining referred to by my noble friend Lord Hendy, as a member of the national pay negotiating body for fire, the National Joint Council—NJC—which is made up of employers and employees, including the FBU. The NJC is a negotiating body that successfully negotiated a two-year agreement on pay last year, in stark contrast to the Government’s many failures in negotiations in other parts of the public sector. The Government’s failure to negotiate successfully is not a good enough reason to introduce unreasonably restrictive legislation. On these Benches, we are committed to repealing these measures.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I speak on this minimum service level agreement from a unique position: I spent 25 years working for British Gas and was a GMB union negotiator for 35,000 gas workers. Roll on to when I was in local government; I was on the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service for 15 years and on the NJC that dealt with the FBU on national pay negotiations. In both those exercises, as poacher and gamekeeper, even in the bitterest disputes, one thing was certain: public safety was the primary concern of the gas industry and the Fire Brigades Union.
Introducing minimum strike levels is a sign of desperation from the Government. I have seen minimum strike levels—I think they are in the railways now, are they not? The difference between railwaymen and fire- fighters is that firefighters, as has been said, are vocational; they do this from the heart, as well as doing it as a job. I have been at Euston station, where there are supposed to be minimum service levels for trains and train drivers, and seen hundreds of people trying to get home to Cardiff, Manchester and Glasgow while there are picket lines outside. With the FBU, whenever there is a fire, the fire brigade turns out and puts it out whether it be Grenfell, the Woolworth fire or Kings Cross.
As a party, the Liberal Democrats take the view that fire safety is extremely serious. We continually emphasise the ongoing importance of the victims of disasters and want to ensure the safety of the public against the risk of fire. However, the main threat to the fire and rescue service comes not from this agreement but from central government’s cuts to the fire service. It is being expected to do more and more with less and less. Having had 20% cuts in real terms since 2013 means that all fire authorities are struggling to meet their budgets. If you talk to people from Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Tyneside, Yorkshire and the West Midlands, along with London, Cleveland and Humberside, they will all say that they will receive slightly more this year but that inflation has removed all the benefits. So fire brigades are trying to do more with less, and the Government want more from that.
The Minister—he is the messenger in this place so this is nothing personal—would do well to go back to the other place and say to the Minister there, “Instead of looking at minimum strike levels, why don’t you look at rethinking some of your recent decisions like changing the legislation that says that all new schools will have sprinkler systems installed, which you have now reversed?” Think of the damage that could do when schools begin to burn down, whether people are on strike or not. What about revisiting the issue around tower blocks and the need for second staircases to ensure that people who live in those properties can get in and out safely?
Why do the Government not reconsider those sorts of legislative things, which will really save lives? No, they take the big sledgehammer to crack a small nut. That is all the Government are trying to do here. I know Matt Wrack and the unions. I have found that they always say, “At the end of the day, if we’re needed, we will turn out”. Sometimes, the Government have to step up, acknowledge that, stop messing about with these minimum levels and go to the heart of the problem with a number of industries in this country: the funding for and protection of firefighters.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and join him in paying tribute to all those who work in this area.
As the Minister said, on 8 February this year, the Government published their minimum service levels for fire and rescue services in England. These new laws will restrict the ability of firefighters and emergency control staff to take lawful strike action. We believe that the new laws are unnecessary. The FBU has always negotiated a major incidents agreement with fire employers before national strikes. Last year, collective bargaining between the FBU and fire employers meant that there were no fire strikes. An acceptable pay agreement was reached and endorsed by the firefighters.
The minimum service level regulations state that fire and rescue control rooms must function during industrial action as if it were a non-strike day. All calls have to be answered, assessed and a response mobilised. Requiring the same standards as a non-strike day is in effect a ban on control staff taking industrial action, despite repeated assurances that it is not a strike ban.
The regulations for minimum service levels of firefighting functions dictate that 73% of appliances usually deployable on a non-strike day must be deployable on days when industrial action is taking place. My noble friend Lord Hendy gave the example of his local fire station, which has three appliances, so it is in effect a strike ban on that station. How many firefighters will be forced to work if a work notice is issued? What is to stop chief fire officers abusing the work notice and forcing all firefighters to work? Ministers have failed to explain how work notices will affect retained firefighters since retained firefighters cannot be compelled to work on strike days; I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
The minimum service level regulations state that national resilience assets, such as high-volume pumps, must be capable of being deployed as if the strike were not taking place that day. This is in effect a strike ban for firefighters deployed on national resilience assets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
Ministers claim that these laws are needed because the Army no longer provides cover. The last time the Army was deployed during fire strikes was in 2003. After the coalition Government attacked firefighters’ pensions between 2010 and 2015, the FBU organised 50 separate firefighter strikes in England. The FBU has always signed a major incident agreement with fire employers before national strikes, with provisions to recall firefighters in the event of a major emergency.
Government guidance makes it clear that the liability for work notices lies with fire authorities. Fire employers in England are rightly unhappy with these regulations. Many will not impose work notices because of the impact on industrial relations. Fire Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland have refused to implement these laws. It is unclear how these regulations can or will be applied in operation. It is a risk, both legal and reputational, on fire service employers who choose to issue work notices.
The guidance is clear that it is not statutory and that, ultimately, the courts will interpret the law. This places a risk on employers that is compounded by the additional difficulties that are unique to the fire and rescue service. Failure to comply with these unworkable measures exposes individual firefighters to the risk of the sack, while the FBU could also face financial penalties.
The regulations before us today are an example of the Government’s failed approach to industrial relations. No one wishes to see the public disrupted by industrial action. We all wish to see minimum standards of service in our public services but these regulations will not achieve what the Government want them to. They will poison relations when what is needed is a constructive working agreement between management and unions. The Labour Party opposes attacks on working people’s freedoms. That is why we would repeal the 2023 Act and why we oppose the regulations before us today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this relatively short debate. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Government believe that these regulations are vital to ensure that there is sufficient cover to respond to fire and rescue-related emergencies on strike days. They will help protect the public and provide people who call 999 with reassurance that firefighters will be able to respond quickly to reduce the risk to life and property. Fires can spread quickly and present a serious threat to life and limb; it is vital that such services are available to the public during strike action. Demand for fire and rescue services fluctuates depending on the season, weather patterns and the time of day. As we saw in the tragic fire at Grenfell, without warning, fire can quickly spread, develop into a major incident and cause an unspeakable tragedy that will devastate a community.
I want to be clear that fire and rescue services perform a critical role in our society. It is only right that they respond to incidents that could pose an immediate risk to the public. I say to all noble Lords that we of course recognise the importance of the ability to strike, which is protected by law. We are striving to maintain a balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public to access the emergency services when they need them.
The noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, emphasised that we are challenging the right to strike. I stress again that we are not banning the ability to strike. These regulations focus on maintaining fire and rescue services’ capacity to respond to emergency incidents that posed an immediate risk to the public. Fire and rescue services will be able temporarily to suspend more routine duties that they would normally carry out if such action were not taking place.
Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto
That the Grand Committee do consider the Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, since their introduction through the Defence Reform Act 2014, the Single Source Contract Regulations have generally worked well and helped ensure that the prices paid for single source contracts both are reasonable and reflect good value for taxpayers’ money.
There are now some 575 contracts under the regime, with a total value of more than £90 billion. However, any set of regulations needs to adapt as the environment changes. In this case, we have found that the rules continue to work well for traditional defence procurement —for ships, submarines, aircraft and so on—but less well for sectors such as software. Moreover, the imperative to procure things more quickly means that we sometimes need to buy “off the shelf” items without running a competition, either because we need compatibility with existing systems or because we simply do not have any time.
To address this, we completed a detailed statutory review of the regime in 2022. It proposed a series of reforms in a Command Paper, Defence and Security Industrial Strategy: Reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations, which was published for consultation in April 2022. The changes made by these amendment regulations are the next stage of implementing those reforms. They will deliver improvements to the regime in three key ways.
First, they will increase flexibility around where the regime can be used to ensure that more defence contracts can be single sourced without compromising assurance on value for money and fair prices. The amendment regulations introduce a number of alternative ways of pricing a single source defence contract, most significantly by allowing prices to be set with reference to market rates rather than always having to use the bottom-up default pricing formula. Another example is where existing UK or overseas laws constrain the way prices are set in a way that is inconsistent with the single source regime. In such circumstance, the amendments will allow the disapplication of the pricing formula to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the other law.
There are also cases where it would be useful to disapply the pricing formula to part of a contract, particularly where a contract comes under the regulations significantly after it was signed. This will avoid the need to re-open the pricing of work that may have been completed and paid for years in the past, and will increase suppliers’ willingness to bring long-running contracts under the regime. The amendments will allow the pricing formula to be applied only to new elements of the contract.
Secondly, the reforms will speed up and simplify the way the regulations work in practice. The legislation currently states that, for contracts that fall under the regulations, a single profit rate needs to be applied to the entirety of the contract when it is signed. For some larger single source contracts, it makes commercial sense to use different pricing types for different elements of the contract, meaning that a single profit rate might be too high or too low for some elements.
These amendment regulations will explicitly allow contracts to be split into different components where it makes sense to do so. They will also simplify the determination of an appropriate profit rate for a contract by reducing the number of steps in the profit rate calculation from six to four. The Single Source Regulations Office funding adjustment will be abolished, and the adjustment made to ensure that profit is earned on a contract only once will be moved from a profit calculation and be considered as part of the assessment of allowable costs for contracts.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and explaining very clearly the purposes of the regulations being proposed.
Unlike so many of the statutory instruments linked to defence, this is quite a weighty document. Some of the amendments are relatively straightforward, although one wonders why nobody scrutinising the 2014 Act spotted the difference between percentages and percentage points. The Minister and I can be exonerated because I joined your Lordships’ House only in October 2014 so I was not party to any scrutiny at that point. I suspect that the Minister was not in the House at that time either and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, bears no responsibility. However, we clearly always find things that have been omitted. We have already heard that another slight error was found even when these regulations were being laid; that makes it clear how important it is that we scrutinise things properly.
First, what sort of reporting is envisaged for the single source procurements that are being talked about? The Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to
“reports to the Secretary of State”
but is there any scope for parliamentary scrutiny of the procurements that will be in place?
A second major item that I want to ask about is the substitution of Regulation 3, on the meaning of “defence purposes”, with Regulation 4, on the meaning of “defence purposes” and “substantially for defence purposes”. Something that puzzles and worries me somewhat is this statement:
“‘Defence purposes’ means the purposes of defence (whether or not of the United Kingdom), or related purposes”.
Can the Minister explain to the Committee how extensive that can be? Does it relate to the procurement of defence capabilities that we would then export as part of our defence industrial strategy and defence exports? Should we be concerned about aspects of this that could be linked to the export of arms to regimes about which Parliament might have some reservations, for example? Some clarity on that would be most welcome.
The general points that the Minister outlined on flexibility, speed and clarification in the light of the users of single source contracts are sensible, but I wonder whether we could hear more about the extent of the changes; they are to bring in not just “defence purposes” but “substantially for defence purposes”, which can mean 30% or more of a contract. What is that likely to mean for the number of contracts that might be brought within the purview of these regulations and the scale of the value that we would be looking at? Will a significant change arise from the Procurement Act?
On primary contracts and subcontractors, the changes to profitability and moving things to the cost line make a lot of sense, but could we understand a bit more about how the decisions on what should be dealt with at market rate are determined? If we look at market rates and the defence supply chain, where is the competition? Are we looking internationally? Are we looking to comparators—for example, if we buy a widget, are we looking at what it costs in Germany, the United States and South Korea—or are we looking at a wider civilian market? All these things, almost by definition, are not outlined in the regulations but it would be useful for the Grand Committee to have sight of them.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I rise with a heavy burden because I was the party spokesman in 2014 when this document was created. If you think that this document is a problem, you should compare it to the Yellow Book that preceded it. I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument, but I must confess that I am not going to say anything terribly new. He has touched on the issues already; in a sense, all I am going to do is ask for a few comments on the converse of the goodness, where we are raising problems. I am also responsible because I was a founding director of DE&S, which managed this. It is an old friend; it requires old glasses as well.
The Government recently made a Statement in which, at long last, they admitted to a number of problems in defence procurement and set out some rather vague ambitions to fix them. Although these regulations are not relevant to the whole of defence procurement—just those contracts that are awarded to a single supplier without competition—there are, as the Minister said, 575 single sources adding up to a total spend of around £90 billion. These are sizeable chunks, and it is important that they are taken in the wider context. We know that there are times when single source contracts work well, particularly for more traditional procurements such as ships, aircraft carriers and submarines. However, for less traditional contracts, such as in the digital sphere, they are less effective; in this case, I expect that the respective difficulties in establishing precise timeframes, specifications and knock-on effects are a big reason for that, but I would welcome the Minister’s further thoughts.
I will not spend too long reflecting on last week’s Statement but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in his response, it is important that we get defence procurement right not just for the sake of being careful with taxpayers’ money—although that is of course important—but because of the message that it sends to the world in terms of our sovereignty, economy and obligations to our allies. This may sound slightly ridiculous in the context of a single statutory instrument but it is an important principle.
I turn to the specific details of these regulations. As the Minister explained, they amend the Defence Reform Act 2014 and the Single Source Contract Regulations from the same year, which, in combination, provide the rules for these single source contracts to ensure a fair agreement between the taxpayer and the supplier. This instrument intends to increase the flexibility of these contracts so that more can be done without compromising that fair agreement. So far, so good.
The regulations achieve this in three ways. The first relates to pricing. Currently, there is a bottom-up formula. Reasonably simply, you determine the costs, add a profit margin and there is your price. These regulations allow for a contract to be priced in relation to market rates instead. This is where things get a bit more complicated, with seven new pricing mechanisms. This will certainly bring additional flexibility, but it is hard to see a situation where it does not come by trading off the simplicity of the previous system.
I ask the Minister: how exactly will the Government quantify this trade-off, when there is a loss of simplicity, which is in itself a rather abstract concept? How can the Government be sure that it is beneficial? This was raised during the consultation, to which the Government’s answer was that additional clarity and further explanation of how this will work in practice will follow in guidance. That is not ideal either for the suppliers that are responding to the consultation or for those of us contributing to this debate and attempting to scrutinise this instrument. What is the Government’s plan if, in practice, these new mechanisms do not work as intended? I understand that this dilemma has been shared with the industry and will be published in a few weeks, but perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to set out a bit more detail and even share any feedback received from those with whom it has been shared.
I have fewer concerns about the other two ways in which flexibility is increased. Allowing contracts to be split up into different components so that they can benefit from different profit rates may again reduce simplicity, but it certainly seems to make sense. Have the Government made any assessment of the negative impact of not allowing this in the past 10 years? Would this apply only to bottom-up pricing or to the new mechanisms too? Could different components be priced entirely differently? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the pricing is the full extent of how components are split? I ask these questions on a similar basis to my previous concerns that every layer of additional complexity could undermine the benefits of additional flexibility. To check against this, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in practice, the mechanisms work as they hoped?
The third key change is widening the definition to qualify under the 2014 Act. As I see it, this has the potential of making quite substantial differences to the significance of this instrument. Even a reasonably small adjustment in the number of contracts could be worth many millions. Given the variability of how well single sourcing contracts work, which this instrument may improve through additional flexibility, our biggest concern, which the instrument does not necessarily address, is that widening this scope could draw in contracts that have no benefit being processed in this way. Have the Government considered this? Have they made any assessment of the qualitative widening in this way and, if they accept it, are other steps being taken to prevent it, or is it also an accepted trade-off?
Finally, and more generally, it is not long at all until these regulations come into effect on 1 April. When they were considered in the other place just under two weeks ago, the Minister for Defence Procurement said that the guidance will be published in four weeks. I put it to the Minister that that is after the implementation date. Whether that is correct or otherwise, if a movement on the contract needed to be made, nothing has been taken away from the old regime, so I am sure that this would not be a critical issue, but it raises a wider question. Consultations on these changes began in 2019 and a lot has happened since then. After all that time and all that has happened, it is not exactly reassuring for things to be pushed so close to the wire. Will the Minister comment on that and perhaps reassure us that this SI will work as planned?
From what I hear, the regime that we are talking about has been a great success. It is a vast improvement on what happened before 2014, and therefore my comments are not meant to be unsupportive. To be even more supportive, I shall be entirely content with a longish letter.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in particular that this is a very complicated set of contracts and it took me some time and quite a bit of reading to understand them. But I do understand them and, with great respect, they are very effective indeed.
I think it is worth reiterating that the MoD’s preferred approach to procurement remains through open competition in the domestic and global market. But we are often limited to a single supplier to provide the capability that our Armed Forces need, particularly when we have to produce equipment quickly, as I said earlier, in the face of rapidly evolving threats.
The single source contract regulations are a fundamental part of defence procurement and are key to ensuring value for money. The statutory framework, which has been running for eight years now, sets out clear rules on pricing single source defence contracts that place the onus on suppliers to demonstrate that their costs are appropriate, attributable and reasonable, and defines the level of profit that can be applied. It is only right that we ensure that this framework continues to function effectively for all parties and adapts to changes in what we buy and how we buy it.
As mentioned at the opening of this debate, and by other noble Lords, these reforms are necessary. Adjustments to pricing methods, simplification of processes, correcting profit calculations and ensuring competitiveness with taxpayers’ money are all good reasons why we are here today.
We also need to preserve key industrial and technological capabilities within the UK for strategic reasons. The combination of these factors means that single source procurement amounts to around 50% of defence procurement spent on equipment and services—or some £13 billion per annum. Where there is a lack of competitive pressure, the MoD needs alternative ways of assuring value for money for the taxpayer, while ensuring that our suppliers are paid the fair returns required to preserve their long-term viability.
These amendment regulations, as the noble Baroness pointed out, which are primarily about pricing, will clearly require changes to reporting requirements. Those changes are in this statutory instrument. They should not be conflated with the broader changes to reporting requirements that will be made in the second set of amendment regulations in the autumn. Where it is not appropriate to set out the requirements in legislation, the SSRO is providing two sets of guidance. The first, which covers how suppliers in the MoD should meet the new pricing requirements, was made available to industry on 12 February—pretty recently. The second covers the changes to reporting contained in the statutory instrument, which includes detailed provisions on how contracts that use the new flexibilities must be reported on—including to Parliament.
I reassure noble Lords that we have consulted extensively with our suppliers on the policy underpinning these amendments—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I thank them for their contributions, which have led to some useful improvements. Overall, the amendments are designed to make the regulations easier and quicker to apply in practice—which must be the right thing to do.
To ease the initial implementation of the amendments, we will be flexible in the way we apply the reforms, particularly for the first contracts that will use them. For example, we are waiving many of the reporting requirements on componentised contracts—contracts that are cut up into different pieces—before the beginning of 2025. We will continue to work with those in industry to address their specific concerns.
The regulations currently apply only to single source defence contracts over £5 million, so their impact on SMEs is already limited. The Government are very keen not to impose unnecessary burdens on SMEs and, to this end, committed to reviewing that threshold in our response to the consultation on these amendment regulations, with a particular view to the impact on SMEs. We expect to put further regulations before Parliament in the next year.
On the question of pricing disputes, where there is a dispute about the price, either party can make a referral on the matter to the impartial Single Source Regulations Office for a legally binding decision.
On the question of whether we are trading value for money for pace, I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case. One of the key intents of these reforms is to provide the full weight of the regulatory protections under all circumstances. For example, allowing use of alternative pricing methods, such as commercial pricing, will support rapid procurement and provide protection on value for money.
If I have not answered any questions, I will write following this Committee. I thank noble Lords for their interest in the matter and I hope that the Committee will welcome these important and necessary amendment regulations. I beg to move.
Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024
Lord Harlech
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my business interests in Wales as set out in the register. The draft order we are considering will make changes to UK legislation arising from the establishment of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research in Wales under powers in the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. The 2022 Act provided for the establishment of the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, which I will hereafter refer to as the commission. The commission will be the regulatory body responsible for the funding, oversight and regulation of tertiary education and research in Wales. The 2022 Act also provides for the dissolution of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which is the existing regulatory body for higher education funding in Wales. I will hereafter refer to this body as HEFCW.
The Welsh Government have announced that the commission will become operational in August 2024, and that HEFCW will be dissolved at the same time. The amendments to various pieces of UK legislation in this order, many of which replace reference to HEFCW with “the commission”, are therefore needed in advance of this change taking effect. Article 2 of the draft order amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 so that members of the commission in receipt of remuneration will be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons in the same way that members of HEFCW are currently.
Article 3 replaces references to HEFCW and the Welsh Ministers with the commission in Section 82 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. This section makes provision about the assessment of maintaining academic standards in higher education institutions in Scotland and Wales.
Article 4 amends Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which lists public authorities for the purposes of that Act. Once it comes into force, the 2022 Senedd Act will repeal Section 62 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Section 62 is referred to in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in order to define institutions in the Welsh higher education sector within scope of the 2000 Act. Given the repeal, Article 4 replaces this cross-reference with an equivalent definition, ensuring that there is no material change to the institutions in the Welsh higher education sector subject to the 2000 Act.
Article 4 of the draft Order also amends Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by adding the commission to the list of public authorities for the purposes of that Act and removing the reference to HEFCW from the list.
Article 5 amends Section 32 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which makes provision about monitoring the performance of further and higher education bodies in discharging their duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. In line with Section 32 of the 2015 Act, the Home Secretary has delegated this monitoring function to HEFCW in relation to higher and further education in Wales. Our amendment will allow this function to be delegated to the commission in the same way once HEFCW is dissolved. The Home Office and Welsh Government are working closely together to ensure that the function is delegated to the commission from the date on which it becomes operational.
Finally, Article 6 updates the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, ensuring that the commission is able to enter into joint working arrangements with education and research bodies across the UK, including UKRI and the Office for Students, as HEFCW can currently.
I welcome the establishment of the commission and hope that it will have a positive impact on the tertiary education and research sector in Wales. I am pleased in particular that this draft Order will support collaboration and joint working between the commission and its counterparts in other UK nations, supporting the continuous improvement of the education and research sectors in Wales and more widely across the UK. I commend this draft Order to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, the Order is consequential on the Welsh Government’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 which changed the way post-16 education and training is to be funded and regulated in Wales. The Act itself dissolves the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, or HEFCW, and creates the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, the CTER—I wish we could find a little name for that—which becomes fully operational in August this year.
Currently, HEFCW has responsibility only for higher education, and the Welsh Government are responsible for the remaining areas within the sector. Under CTER, or the commission, higher education will join further education, LA-maintained school sixth forms, apprenticeships, adult community learning and research and innovation to form a new commission. It will have a budget of around £800 million, which will be one of the highest allocated budgets to an arm’s length body in Wales. The new commission will therefore be responsible for the whole of the tertiary research sector and for the funding, oversight and regulation of all post-l6 education and training.
Having worked in both the secondary and lifelong learning sectors, I am fully in favour of the Act and its intention of bringing all parts of the sector together. For too long it seems that HEFCW was required to operate at arm’s length from the rest of the sector. Its inclusion in the commission will bring the benefit of its knowledge and expertise, which will be invaluable. I understood that the commission would be operational by April this year, but it now appears that it is unlikely to be so until August. Could the noble Lord explain the delay? Perhaps it is unfair to ask that question, because it is not his responsibility, and it would be more appropriately aimed at a Welsh Minister, but perhaps he could hazard an answer.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is laid because of the passage of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 in the Senedd. It will replace references in reserved UK legislation to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales with the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research and make technical amendments in relation to provisions that are being repealed as a consequence of the Act. It forms part of the delivery of Welsh Labour’s manifesto commitment on tertiary education and renews the 30 year-old system, which predates devolution, under which tertiary education is currently organised and funded.
As noted by the Minister, the commission becomes operational on 1 August 2024 and will, for the first time, take a coherent and system-wide view of tertiary education, bringing together under one area of responsibility the funding, oversight, quality and regulation of higher and further education, local authority-maintained school sixth forms, apprenticeships, adult community learning and responsibility for research and innovation.
The Welsh Government are implementing the main recommendations of the independent Hazelkorn review, which noted the confusion and complexity of the sector in Wales, and the lack of a system-wide strategic view and collaboration, as well as incoherent learner pathways. I am pleased to confirm that the architect of much of the marketised reforms to tertiary education in England, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, when Minister for Universities, similarly backed this idea. He called it a
“joined-up system of regulation and funding for all post-16 education”
for England, deriding what he called a
“bewildering array of regulatory and funding bodies”.—[Official Report, 15/6/21; col. 1813.]
Where Welsh Labour leads, one hopes that Government Ministers will follow.
The Welsh Government have introduced the young person’s guarantee of education, training or work for all 16 to 24 year-olds. This new system will create the conditions for a highly skilled society, with equality of opportunity and a civic mission at its heart. Its strategic duties will also include contributing to a sustainable and innovative economy, crucial for a UK Labour Government to deliver their plan to make Wales a green energy superpower, investing in the industries and jobs of the future.
As it makes only minor and technical legislative amendments, we are content to support this SI. I would, however, ask the Minister to check with his officials whether the department has notified Welsh Government officials that this order has been laid.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity to record my immense thanks to our outgoing First Minister of Wales, the right honourable Mark Drakeford MS, who will submit his resignation to His Majesty the King this evening. He led Wales with distinction though some of the most difficult times in its history, and brought a calm and intelligent response to the Covid crisis that consumed so much of public life, alongside dealing with many other major and significant matters. Diolch am bopeth, Mark.
I also congratulate the incoming First Minister, Vaughan Gething MS, on winning the leadership contest, and wish him the very best for his new responsibilities. I look forward to working closely with him as the shadow spokesperson for Wales in the House of Lords in the times ahead.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their valuable contributions to this short and very interesting debate this afternoon. As has been explained, this order provides for a number of consequential changes to UK law necessary ahead of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research becoming operational in August.
I will respond to some of the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked whether the Welsh Government had been informed and consulted. Absolutely, yes—Wales Office officials notified their counterparts in the Welsh Government shortly after the order was laid. Wales Office and Welsh Government officials, as well as colleagues from other UK departments, have worked closely together throughout the preparation of this order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about the remit that the commission will have and how spending will be allocated. As she hinted, that would be a decision for the Welsh Government on how they spend their money—but it gives me an opportunity to say that a record block grant of £18 billion has been provided to the Welsh Government, and through the block grant the Welsh Government are receiving £120 of Barnett-based funding for every £100 per person of equivalent UK spending in England. The Welsh Government budget for 2024-25 for those areas in which the commission will be responsible is around £900 million, with the commission receiving the appropriate proportion of this funding in line with it becoming operational part-way through the funding year. This will ensure that the Welsh Government are well funded to improve tertiary education. However, as I said, it is for the Welsh Government to decide how to spend this funding in devolved areas, in line with their own priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about the timing of this SI. The Act was passed in the Senedd in 2022 but the provisions in it, under which the commission will become operational and HEFCW will be dissolved, do not come into force until August 2024. That is why this SI is being laid now; the key principle underlining it was to avoid as much disruption as possible in the transition from HEFCW to the commission, minimising disruption to the sector and, most importantly, to learners. August is the end of the academic year, with the new academic year starting in September, so I hope this will allay that concern.
I think I have answered the questions on funding, consultation with the Welsh Government and timing but, if I have omitted anything, I ask noble Lords to please let me know. On that basis, I commend this SI to the Committee.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument contains measures to deter Russia from continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Specifically, it targets the key sources of revenue that Mr Putin uses to execute the invasion. It was laid on 28 February 2024 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and entered into force on 1 March 2024. The instrument has been considered and not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The instrument contains trade measures developed in close co-ordination with our G7 allies. The regulations ratchet up the pressure on Russia’s war machine and economy as part of the most severe package of economic sanctions that country has ever faced.
In 2022, Russia earned an estimated $3.5 billion from the export of diamonds. The UK was among the first to address this income stream by sanctioning Alrosa, the largest state-owned Russian diamond producer—estimated to hold a 30% share in the global diamond market—and its then CEO, Sergey Ivanov. Following this, we placed an additional tariff of 35 percentage points on imports of Russian diamonds in April 2022. On 1 January this year, we acted to reduce this income stream to the Russian regime by completely banning the import of diamonds into the UK from Russia. On 24 February, among a package of 50 new sanctions to mark the second year of the invasion, we sanctioned two further Russian diamond companies and five individuals, including Pavel Alekseevich Marinychev, the new CEO of Alrosa.
Today, we go even further. As announced in December, the G7 is acting together to curtail the flow of Russian diamonds into the world’s largest consumer market of diamonds. This legislation, prepared in close co-ordination with our G7 partners, bans the import of Russian diamonds processed in third countries. Previously, a rough Russian stone could be processed elsewhere, in effect transforming the stone’s origin. It will now remain banned regardless of any intermediate destination.
This will first apply to stones equal to or larger than 1 carat or equivalent to 0.2 grams or larger from 1 March 2024. From 1 September this year, it will drop to stones equal to or larger than 0.5 carats or equivalent to 0.1 grams or larger. The legislation will also ban providing technical assistance, brokering and financial services in connection with the import of third-country processed Russian diamonds.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, obviously, from these Benches—or this Bench; it is just me—we welcome any extension of sanctions. As the noble Lord pointed out, since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, it has been necessary and appropriate to implement a wide range of sanctions, against both individuals and companies.
However, the Minister has already alluded to the fact that there is a degree of complexity with these particular sanctions. I therefore have a range of questions that are about not just sanctions with our G7 partners but looking more broadly at our European neighbours and Commonwealth countries, as well as at the impact on British companies in terms of how they deal with importing diamonds. Clearly, a sanction that says, “We’re not importing diamonds directly from Russia” is straightforward, but when diamonds have been processed in third countries, as the Minister has already suggested, it will not always be clear where they have originated from.
There is a very clear point in the regulations that says, under “Technical assistance”:
“A person who contravenes a prohibition … commits an offence, but it is a defence for a person charged with an offence of contravening paragraph (1) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the technical assistance related to an import described in that paragraph”,
and the same is replicated for financial services and brokering services. How do His Majesty’s Government think they will be able to monitor this in practice? To what extent have the G7 countries, in proposing such sanctions, also talked to third countries that might be processing diamonds? For third countries processing Russian diamonds, which Russia is trying to export as a way of circumventing the existing sanctions, it is clearly essential that it should be incumbent on businesses processing diamonds to give clarity and reassurance about where the source diamonds have come from. I am not sufficiently expert in the diamond industry to know where else they might go; I assume that Russian diamonds are not going to South Africa, for example, to be processed, but that is obviously another country that will be exporting diamonds.
What conversations have His Majesty’s Government had with countries that might need support in order that such sanctions will be effective? What conversations have they had with the jewellers’ sector? Clearly, there will be new onuses on businesses which, while understandable, could prove prohibitive. None of this is to say that we disagree with the regulations, but I ask for some clarity about how they can be implemented in practice.
Finally, the Minister mentioned a couple of times that these sanctions are in conjunction with our G7 partners. Do the EU 27 have similar proposals? What opportunities are there to work with large countries, such as China and India, which are neither G7 nor EU countries but could circumvent sanctions, rather as is done with unrefined oil?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up a number of points made in the other place, to which Anne-Marie Trevelyan responded, starting with the point about oil raised by my honourable friend Catherine West. I know that we have discussed before the reimportation and exportation of Russian-sourced oil. Anne-Marie Trevelyan described
“the challenges around the shadow and dark fleets of oil that we now see moving around the world”.
She said the Government were
“working with colleagues and allies across the G7 and more widely to continue to try to get ahead of the issue”
and to encourage our allies
“not to find themselves participating in shadow fleet activity”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/3/24; col. 6.]
Can the Minister give us a little more detail about how we are working? There have been suggestions about where this oil is going and where it is being reimported. We have talked about Commonwealth countries—the noble Baroness mentioned this—and it is really important that we get some idea of the specific discussions. Oil is the biggest element of funding Russia’s war machine, so it is really important that we get ahead of this issue and better understand what is going on.
I also have a small point to make about diamonds. Catherine West challenged the fact that we are starting with 1 carat and that the threshold will not drop until September, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan said that this was to ensure that it did not impact detrimentally on business. We have to get a better idea about the effectiveness of that and the timeframes. Again, the method of circumvention seems to be to hide this through a third country, which can then take ownership of these things, oil or diamonds, export them and raise funds that way. Anne-Marie Trevelyan was more concerned about non-Russian producer nations. Of course, we understand that, but the diamond trade is not huge in terms of the number of countries involved in it, so it would be good to have a better understanding about the timeframes.
The issue I really want to focus on—as the noble Lord knows, I have raised this before—is that it is one thing having sanctions, but it is their enforcement and the monitoring of their effectiveness that will deliver for us. Anne-Marie Trevelyan spoke about the additional funding going through, particularly in terms of the sanctions directorate in the FCDO, which produces the sanctions. Of course, we then have the Treasury with its enforcement arm and now we have the Department for Business, with the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, to ensure that the policy sets out clear guidance on this.
The last time we discussed sanctions, I asked the Minister how quickly the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation would be set up, what the timeframe would be and when we would be satisfied—because this stems from reports we have had of the number of breaches to sanctions. I would appreciate a much clearer update on that, because it is a vital issue.
On Russian diamonds, the SI also bans the provision of technical assistance, brokering and financial services in connection with the import of third country-processed Russian diamonds. Perhaps I could ask the Minister, on monitoring and enforcement, whether he is satisfied that officials will have the resources and technical knowledge needed to identify breaches in relation to the service side of this issue.
The Explanatory Memorandum also notes that the SI builds on the commitments made by the G7 leaders in May and December: the noble Lord referred to that. Another theme that he regularly repeats is that sanctions are effective only if we work in concert with others, including and especially our allies. The important thing for us is to better understand how these are being implemented by all our allies. Does the Minister have an update about the implementation of the measures by other G7 nations? Where do we rank in terms of speed of implementation? I do not wish to be critical, but it is good to have a better understanding. I am aware that the US and Canada always seem to be ahead of us in announcing sanctions; I am not so confident about their ability to monitor them or to enforce them. It would be good to have an idea of where the Minister thinks we are.
Another issue that I picked up from Sky News, but which has appeared on other channels, is something I raised in terms of how people are circumventing sanctions, in particular by moving oil through third countries. There was a report on Sky News that car exports to Azerbaijan over the past few years have gone through the roof: there has been a dramatic increase. I understand that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said that there is no connection to Russia here and that the country is a flourishing market in its own right. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether there has been any sort of checking. Are the Government satisfied with those claims? It does seem rather odd that it coincides with the implementation of sanctions.
I did mention that, when I was last in Georgia, people raised the issue with me of the number of luxury cars that were being exported from Georgia to Russia. So, again, if these things are happening, we should be aware of them and we should be challenging them and working with allies to stop this circumvention.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support of the sanctions we have announced. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government recognise the importance of consistency— notwithstanding the right to debate and challenge the Government—and, equally, the message about the importance of alignment on this is always going out.
These measures are the latest we have added to our package of sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about effectiveness. In my opening remarks, I articulated what has happened with exports and imports overall for the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned luxury cars; data indicates that we have seen some real impacts on the specific countries he mentioned. I will write to him in more specific terms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about acting in conjunction with G7 partners and asked whether that was inclusive of the EU. My answer is yes, we are working very closely with the EU, and of course the EU also attends the G7 meetings.
Overall, we are funding new activity across the Government to improve the enforcement of sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly mentioned oil, which I will come on to later. First of all, though, we have the economic deterrence initiative, which is a cross-government drive to strengthen the UK’s existing sanction regime, making it more robust and reaffirming the UK’s status as a world leader.
The EDI is providing £50 million of additional funding to bolster the UK’s sanctions framework, ensuring that we can go further to tackle circumvention and non-compliance issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised. The objective of the EDI is to improve implementation and enforcement, and prepare for future scenarios. The EDI will fund activity across government to identify, anticipate and prepare our response to future threats. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we recognise that as we impose sanctions, there will be attempts to further circumvent them.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will be aware, we have the establishment of the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and the reinforcement of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which is up and running. It has an enhanced capability to improve novel financial sanctions, including the oil price cap. We have also given additional support to HMRC to investigate and prosecute the most serious sanction breaches.
As the circumvention evolves, we have provided increased specialist capability within the Joint Maritime Security Centre and the National Crime Agency, increasing the UK’s ability to detect and respond to breaches of maritime and transport-related sanctions. Work is also under way to expand the range of penalties that can be imposed for breaches of sanctions measures, to give our sanctions additional teeth. We will discuss that in your Lordships’ House as they come on board.
Major investment is taking place in building lasting sanctions capability across government. There is also investment in our ability to manage sanctions litigation. We are expanding the network of sanctions specialists in UK diplomatic missions. There is a programme of targeted technical assistance for third countries; both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned how we work with other countries. That is also being co-ordinated with EU and US partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about effectiveness compared to other countries. In terms of the total number of sanctions across three key jurisdictions on Russia since 2022, the UK stands at 2,001, the EU at 2,144 and the US at 4,053. Over that period of time, that is the sum of individuals and entities sanctioned. Of course, we work in conjunction with them but there are processes that we go through that are different to those in the EU and the US. At the same time, in certain sectors we have taken the lead, whereas the EU may have led on others—certainly the US has done so. This has included, specifically, more than 130 oligarchs in the UK, with a net worth of £147 billion; 78 oligarchs in the EU; and 95 oligarchs in the US. That gives a flavour of how the sanctions are being worked through.
I turn to the specific issue of diamonds. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that she is not an expert on diamonds—neither am I. I have purchased diamonds on two occasions: once when I proposed and, the second time, on our 10th anniversary. For the sake of transparency, Lady Ahmad was the beneficiary of both; I am sure that she can comment on the quality of both the rings and the diamonds contained within.
The net impact that we estimate for the cost to business, which has been raised, is below £10 million per year. On the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised, referring to the debate in the House of Lords, the revenue gained by Russia from diamonds smaller than 0.5 carats is much reduced compared with larger stones. Those diamond sizes are key for other non-Russian manufacturers in the supply chain. The value of smaller stones is added at the processing stage of the diamond’s life cycle. There is a market for diamonds smaller than 0.5 carats but the measures in this instrument need to balance the needs of non-Russian producer nations and the industry, which the noble Baroness flagged, with causing the maximum possible disruption to Russian revenue and with the capacity of the relevant traceability systems, which I shall come on to.
The staggered commencement dates will also allow the industry and producer and manufacturing nations to adapt. As I said in my opening remarks, diamond supply chains are complex and involve actors of many sizes, from miners and processors to global mining companies. The sunrise period will allow for adjustment to take place in this time so that there are no unintended consequences. The diamond industry itself is regulated, with various codes for sorted diamonds; they are categorised appropriately.
The G7 import restrictions extend to processed diamonds. There is also the existing Kimberley process, which applies only to rough diamonds. These two will run in a complementary fashion. We expect that the G7 implementation systems will complement the Kimberley process certification—the first line of clarification of the diamond country of origin—and be an additional layer that is placed over the Kimberley process for G7 markets specifically.
In terms of producing nations, which the noble Baroness mentioned, we are targeting only diamonds produced in Russia. In fact, our objective is to remove Russian diamonds from the world’s largest market for diamonds. Russia’s presence in the market is affecting the whole industry by eroding the reputation of diamonds. This initiative that we are undertaking with partners will help to mitigate this.
On the issue of enforcement on diamonds, we have released detailed guidance to help importers and traders demonstrate compliance with the sanctions. Traders should also be prepared to provide specific documentation to demonstrate evidence of a good supply chain, which must be consistent with the prohibitions under the regulations. Further detail has been made available to the sector, as I have said already, but it is also available on GOV.UK. Traders need to confirm that the diamond does not originate from Russia.
This is something that we are looking at with our G7 partners: there is a further strengthening of the implementation of the sanctions, in that we will look to improve the traceability of the supply chain. We are currently working with G7 partners on a mechanism that will ensure the integrity of the diamond supply chain. The G7 is developing what is termed a certification mechanism, which is being trialled from March and will work by using and expanding on the existing tracing technologies and controls.
On the question of oil, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned circumvention. The import ban on Russian oil and oil products in our markets has substantially reduced the size of the global market for Russian oil. The current oil price cap operates globally by prohibiting UK and coalition firms from providing services such as shipping, of which the UK is a major provider, insurance and finance to facilitate the maritime transport of Russian oil and oil products to countries worldwide, unless the oil was purchased from Russia at or below the price cap.
The noble Lord also referred to the impact. As he mentioned, oil remains Russia’s single largest revenue stream, accounting for roughly a quarter of the Russian budget in 2023. Taking measures to reduce this revenue stream is therefore critical to undermining Mr Putin’s ability to fund the illegal war. The OPC is designed to constrain Putin’s ability to fund this war by restricting the revenues flowing to the regime while, at the same time, ensuring as much market stability as possible, including that of third countries, so that there is affordable energy. In restricting Russian revenues in an OPC context we have effectively required Russia to either sell its oil at a discounted price through the OPC or spend time and money that would otherwise be spent on the battlefield.
The issue of circumvention is still very much a live subject. The coalition has recently acted jointly to tighten price cap compliance rules by placing more robust, regular and detailed requirements regarding the provision of price information on actors involved in facilitating the shipping of Russian oil. We of course reserve the right to take further action alongside our international partners to ensure its effectiveness, if needed. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is also undertaking a number of investigations into suspected breaches of the OPC, using the powers under our SAMLA legislation.
I will end my comments there but will review the questions raised by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to ensure that we have answers to any questions that I have not answered. I assure noble Lords, as I have done repeatedly, that we will continue to work on a cross-party basis to ensure that there is full information. It is right that we debate these sanctions regimes. The questions raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord serve a key purpose in ensuring that we are robust in our actions and that we send a strong signal to Russia that, when the United Kingdom talks of sanctions, it is not just talk; there is real structure and focus behind it. I assure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we will continue to work in concert with our EU, US and other allies to have a maximum impact on Russia’s strategic and economic interests, including on the issue of diamonds. As the traceability mechanism comes into being I will certainly share it with noble Lords at the appropriate time.
I am sure that I speak for all in this Committee and beyond when I say that we stand firmly and resolutely with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them until they prevail. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Hannett of Everton
Introduction: Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
Advanced Modular Reactors: Criticality Tests
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance they provide to the developers of advanced modular reactors to enable them to conduct criticality tests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, advanced modular reactors hold significant potential to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. As part of the advanced modular reactor research, development and demonstration programme, the Government are exploring what further underpinning research and development is required, such as critical assembly tests for fuel, to demonstrate the abilities of high-temperature gas reactors. The Government are committed to building on our existing support for the sector and, as part of the alternative routes to market for new nuclear projects consultation, we are seeking views on how we can go further to unlock these opportunities.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Several projects aimed at developing advanced fourth-generation modular reactors are under way in the UK, but they are wilting through a lack of the support that should be forthcoming from the Government. They require licences and test facilities in order to prove their designs. All the leading projects are seeking foreign affiliations and may be lost to this nation. Would the Government be happy to rely on foreign enterprises to provide the next generation of nuclear technology, to the detriment of our own nuclear industry?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course we would not, which is why we are offering support for many of these technologies. The noble Lord’s Question asked about criticality tests—we are aware of that requirement and are in discussions with a number of companies interested in carrying them out in the UK, but these are not simple issues.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it, Great British Nuclear says that the final decision on smaller modular reactors will not be made until 2029 for the present competition, and that no smaller modular reactor will be in service until 2035—that is five years and 11 years ahead. Can my noble friend explain why it will take so incredibly long, when other countries are racing ahead?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not recognise the dates that the noble Lord cited. Great British Nuclear is obviously heavily ensconced in the design selection process at the moment, and I understand that, given a fair wind, the reactors should be online and producing electricity by the early 2030s.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. One reminder from the conflict in Ukraine is that energy security and national security are indivisible. The Government set out welcome guidance that Russian nuclear fuel imports into the UK will be banned by 2030, but it is a major national security issue to be relying on these imports for another six years. Does the Minister agree that we need to legislate to bring forward this date, as our partners and allies in the US are doing?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s concern, and I know the close interest he takes in this; I share his concerns. I know he had a very productive meeting with the Secretary of State and Minister Bowie to discuss these matters, and he has written following that. A letter on that is being drafted and will come to him shortly.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, following the transfer of the intellectual property and personnel in the U-battery project to foreign control, are the Government confident that enough action and support are being provided to UK-based projects to develop advanced modular reactors to prevent them also falling under foreign ownership?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course there is always more that we can do to support these projects, but we are supporting them with massive financial resources and research and development designs. It is always concerning if foreign companies are taking control of some of these projects, but we nevertheless have a really good scheme of projects in the UK and we are supporting them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it is very welcome to hear that the Government plan to invest in new nuclear research and development. However, after their failure to build a single nuclear power station in 14 years and with the rollout of small modular reactors proving to be a protracted process, can the Minister give us a date for the conclusion of the SMR competition?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is great to see that Labour now supports new nuclear projects, because that was not always the case for previous Governments. As I said to my noble friend Lord Howell, we want to see them in production by the early 2030s.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the acquisition of Wylfa, which is hugely significant for both the generation of nuclear power and the people of north-west Wales. But why are they supporting only high-temperature gas reactor technologies in the AMR RD&D programme?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question and her positive advocacy of Wales and the Welsh nuclear programmes. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was going to ask me something similar —he may well still do so. The Government selected HTGRs for research and development purposes in the AMR R&D programme following analysis by the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office of the responses to a call for evidence. This analysis suggested that HTGRs are the most promising AMR technology for decarbonisation due to their ability to generate high-temperature heat and their high technology readiness levels.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the plea made by the noble Viscount in introducing this Question. I reiterate my support for Trawsfynydd and Wylfa and welcome the steps being taken there. Over the past four years Ministers have repeatedly stressed the role that the Government see for nuclear energy in the challenges of climate change, yet here we are again failing to put resources where they matter, particularly for enhanced safety and disposing of nuclear waste. Will the Government either come clean and admit that they are not fully committed to this next generation of nuclear technology or commit the necessary money to make this happen?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am delighted to see the support from across the House for the contribution that Wales makes to our nuclear technologies, but I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord. We are putting in substantial sums of money: £385 million into the advanced nuclear fund, £210 million to support the development of Rolls-Royce SMR design and up to £170 million for an AMR research, development and demonstration programme across three phases. I could go on with the levels of support; we are supporting most of these technologies.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very good point. Can my noble friend the Minister explain why Japan’s high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, endorsed by my right honourable friend Greg Hands in 2021—which is inherently safe, internationally licensed and has been operating for more than 10 years—has been consigned to the back burner as part of the AMR research, development and demonstration programme? This technology needs to be brought forward into the GDA process now, or it will be too late to make its much-needed contribution to the decarbonisation of industry.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer my noble friend to the answer I gave to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield. We have selected high-temperature gas reactors for research and development purposes in the AMR R&D and demonstration programme.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, do the Government give any assistance to these developers in terms of the environmental impact of the entire life cycle of their systems, or is that completely disregarded?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course it is not disregarded. The safety of the UK’s nuclear programme—the disposal of waste nuclear fuels, et cetera—is one of our highest priorities. We have an excellent record when it comes to nuclear in this country.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, while we are on nuclear, what do the Government make of the reports last week of a major breakthrough in fusion technology, and what support are they giving to British technology in this field?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is indeed lots of exciting talk and articles about developments in fusion, and there are a number of British companies at the forefront of that—we are supporting them. The note of caution I give is that fusion has been the coming technology for about the last 30 years; every year it is 10 years away. To not be cynical about it, there are some great breakthroughs and we are now finally getting more energy out of the system than we put into it, which is very encouraging. But it is a long way away yet.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say something about winning the support of local communities? Obviously, the crucial aspect in all this is getting local buy-in for these small nuclear reactors. Can he say what the Government are doing to win this argument and to change the narrative from where it is at the moment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very powerful point; it is really important to take communities along with us. The interesting thing about nuclear technology is that it is very well supported in the communities where it already exists, but I suspect that if you applied to put it in a different community, you might run into different levels of opposition. It is really important that we explain to people what the technology is, what it does, how safe it is and how it is crucial to the UK’s energy mix in the future.
Schools: Special Needs Pupils
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government how often they review the level of support given in schools to special needs pupils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, provision is reviewed regularly through school and local area inspections. Schools must demonstrate that children with SEND achieve good outcomes in order to be judged good or outstanding. We also strengthened local area inspections in January 2023. Annually, we collect and review data on education, health and care plans, including timeliness and volumes. We have also started collecting data from local authorities on capacity in special schools, SEND units and resourced provision. We also plan to introduce new local inclusion dashboards to improve local accountability.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
That is most helpful indeed; I am grateful. The Children and Families Act defines a child as having special educational needs if he or she has a
“learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made”.
Some 69% of teachers surveyed by the Pearson school report said that our education system is ineffective in supporting these special needs pupils. They said that we need more teaching assistants, better teacher training, more resources, and most importantly, easier access to diagnostic testing. Do the Government agree?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are acting on a number of those issues. On diagnostic testing, as the noble Lord well knows, our approach is that the child should not need a diagnosis to be eligible for support. Early identification is incredibly important, and the Government are doing a great deal to train up the early years workforce and provide more specialist educational psychologists. More broadly, the shape of special educational needs has changed a bit over the last five years, with a much greater prevalence of social, emotional and mental health needs and of children with an autism spectrum disorder, and we are working closely to address that.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, 96% of education, health and care plan appeals are successful, but in less-affluent areas parents are less likely to appeal an EHCP decision, which must contribute to the current inequalities in provision. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to achieve greater equality in the support offered to all children with special educational needs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right about the success of appeals, but I point out that just over 2.3% of all decisions went to appeal. Although the success rate is very high, the level of appeals is perhaps lower than the House might believe from the media. We are currently trying to test a range of measures that will mean that the quality of decisions—and, crucially, the confidence that parents can take in those decisions—is improved. That includes testing a single national education, health and care plan template and guidance, testing multiagency panels to improve the quality of and parental confidence in decision-making, and resolving disagreements quicker by strengthening mediation.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I declare my interest as a parent who had to fight hard for an EHCP for his child. It is not only in deprived areas that it is very hard to be awarded an EHCP; it is certainly true in Worcestershire, where a large proportion of applications are turned down. As I was fighting through mediation, I was told by a health professional, “Remember, John, only pushy parents get EHCPs”, and that seemed to be the case. Does the Minister agree that this is shameful? Does she also agree with the LSE that the basic problem is that more money needs to be put into the system?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I tried to address some of the points that the right reverend Prelate raised in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. We definitely do not want a world where only pushy parents get an EHCP; we want a world where the children who need an EHCP get one. On funding, this Government have massively increased the high-needs budget; it will be worth over £10.5 billion by 2024-25, a 60% increase on 2019-20. We are also committing significant capital to expand the number of special needs places.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. Does the Minister share my concern that, despite the significant increase in children with special needs, almost a third are people with an EHCP identifying autistic spectrum disorder as their primary need? A diagnosis in itself is not the be-all and end-all, particularly for umbrella terms such as autism or cerebral palsy. Can she reassure me that her department understands the importance of considering individual impairment levels to successfully sustain long-term improvements in participation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the work she does as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. She raised an important point and is absolutely right. In our schools and colleges, support should be in place to address the identified need, barriers and level of impairment, as she described it, so that children and young people can not just participate but thrive in their education and preparation for adulthood. That should not be dependent on the nature of the diagnosis.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister comment on a meeting I had earlier today, in which representatives of different ethnic groups were saying that it is much more difficult for them to get diagnosed with dyslexia? This is because the teachers do not know how to pick out dyslexia from things such as second-language problems, and the fact that those parent groups do not know that diagnosis and assessment is for them and not just for white boys.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very relevant point—the wider issue of how parents can be aware of how our special educational needs system works, feel confident in it and understand how to have conversations with their children’s teachers about any concerns they might have. That is why we have altered the initial teacher training and early career framework for teachers, as well as introducing a new national professional qualification for special educational needs co-ordinators. This is to make sure that schools can be really proactive with parents and give them the confidence to address their children’s concerns.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has outlined a range of measures, but the truth is that there is insufficient capacity in the system. I spoke to one parent—I do not think she would mind me referring to her as a pushy parent—who has waited for 18 months and has still not had her child assessed. Given the social and the ethnic disparities mentioned by noble Lords, is the noble Baroness 100% confident that government policy and what is on track at the moment will actually meet the growing demand?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have made a huge amount of progress, and a very significant financial commitment working closely with those on the ground. As I said, we have announced £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to fund new special educational needs and alternative provision places. Together with the new free schools we have already announced, it will add 60,000 new specialist places to the system. I know the noble Baroness will appreciate that this is a very significant increase.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I have a grandson with ADHD who has had little or no support from his school throughout his education. He was sitting his A-level mocks recently. He has time blindness, among many other problems, and spent the whole exam doing one question. Can the Minister take any action to make sure that children with ADHD actually receive the support they need? ADHD makes a complete havoc of a child’s education, however bright they seem to be.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry to hear about the struggles of the noble Baroness’s grandson. Of course we want our schools to be well equipped to respond to a range of special educational needs and disabilities, but we also know that often those will have knock-on effects in other aspects of a child’s life. It is not just the response within the school that is crucial, but also the partnership with local health services in particular.
Electronic Payment Devices
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with providers of electronic point-of-sale payment devices to make them accessible for those with a visual impairment, such as via tactile keypad.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are unequivocally supportive of all efforts by the financial services industry, the card machine operators and charities such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind to make card machines fully accessible for those with visual impairments. In November 2023, UK Finance published a list of vendors which produce approved devices, to assist merchants with purchasing a device that is sufficiently accessible.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, someone with low or no vision can access a smartphone because there is a Siri or voice-over function, and you can have several goes if you hit the wrong buttons the first time. If you are spending over £100 in hospitality and you are faced with a flat screen and you get it wrong, you lose access to your card. The providers are pretending that there is accessibility when there are markings down the left-hand side of a flatscreen. It is a major challenge for those without sight. It is, in my view, in complete breach of the Equality Act 2010. The providers do not provide the necessary covers that can be available to make at least a stab—I mean literally a stab—at hitting the right buttons, and it is time we acted.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise the issues raised by the noble Lord, and the financial services industry also recognises these challenges. As I have already said, UK Finance publishes a list of vendors, recognising that it is not just financial services companies that use these machines; it may be the merchants themselves. This builds on work by UK Finance and the RNIB in publishing accessibility guidance, which only happened in 2022. Today, the third in a series of three forums is happening involving UK financial services groups and charities, and each of the three forums is focusing on specific interventions—whether it be technology or training to help improve the accessibility of all sorts of banking services.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my financial services interest as set out in the register, and I congratulate my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on his timely Question. There are two issues involved here: access to, and the accessibility of, financial services and products. Both have serious impacts, if not got right, not just for the blind and visually impaired but for all people in our communities. For example, bank notes have never been more accessible, and yet have never been more difficult to access. What further conversations will the Government have with UK Finance and with all financial services organisations to ensure that there is both access to and accessibility of all financial services and products? Without this work, the Government cannot really stand up any claims to financial inclusion.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises a wide suite of issues. Underpinning all the work the financial services industry is doing is the Financial Conduct Authority, which is responsible for regulating the sector. Principle 6 of its principles for business says that the sector must take particular care in the treatment of vulnerable customers. The FCA is reviewing the needs of vulnerable customers and may update its guidance shortly.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister and other noble Lords have mentioned the FCA, and I would like to continue that conversation. When we left the EU, the credit card companies seized the opportunity of the loss of regulation to increase credit card interchange fees in the UK fivefold—a Brexit dividend for the card companies of some £200 million a year, the cost of which effectively falls on the consumer. Why have neither the Government nor the FCA as regulator acted to reverse what could be called the Brexit penalty?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Unfortunately, it goes slightly beyond my briefing today, but I will write.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their work to improve accessibility in financial services for blind and partially sighted people. As ever more transactions become cashless, every customer must have confidence in the payment systems used. Can the Minister outline what, if any, regulations assist for the manufacturers and providers of touch-screen payment devices? Why does regulation not seem to have kept pace with this move towards touch-screen technology?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Regulations that were introduced at any particular point in time have become out of date very quickly. Underpinning the work we are doing is the Equality Act 2010. The whole point about having an independent regulator in the FCA is that its rules can change quickly. The FCA issues guidance which sets out how financial services organisations need to ensure that people with disabilities, who may be more vulnerable, get the support they need. That is better than regulation: having the FCA as an independent regulator is more agile than having straight government regulation.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s regulators fail to protect the public. Virtually every regulator is failing to do its duty, while the Government stand by and do nothing. We need a regulator for the regulators.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I am here to speak for all regulators. However, the consumer duty was introduced, whereby the FCA must ensure that the financial services sector is delivering good outcomes to prevent harm. That was introduced only in July 2023 and will take a little while to bed in. We will monitor the outcomes of that consumer duty to ensure that it is having the impact on disabled and other vulnerable customers that we need to see.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to invite the Minister out to dinner, and I promise to pay if there is a flat screen that I can access.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Now that is a first at the Dispatch Box—I have been invited on to buses and trains but never out to dinner. I do not know what to say to that, but I will try to find a restaurant that has an appropriate touch screen and I would be happy to continue the conversation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the concept of “inclusive by design” was thoroughly understood, we would never have had these inaccessible touch-screen devices? Will she go back to the department and ensure that HM Treasury works to ensure that all financial services and products are inclusive designed at every stage?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. That is something that the FCA should take from this, and it needs to feed back into the work that we know that EY, in conjunction with UK Finance, is doing on accessibility at the moment. If they are not talking about “inclusive by design”, then I think they are going wrong.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on one of her rare visits to London, my wife had her credit card stolen? I monitored the use of the card and did not report it to the police because the thief was spending less than she was.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
One should always report these matters to the police.
Home Insulation: Health and Mortality Rates
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the impact of current levels of home insulation on health and mortality rates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, evidence of the health benefits of government insulation schemes is gathered as part of those schemes’ evaluations. Recent evaluations show that schemes had a positive impact on general health. For example, improvements in the health of someone in the household were reported after the installations from our government energy efficiency schemes. Of course, the health impacts are higher for those with pre-existing health conditions.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Recent reports, including by Sir Michael Marmot, have made a clear link between poor home insulation—coupled with the cost of living crisis and high energy costs—and devastating impacts on the health outcomes of thousands of the most vulnerable people across the country, young and old. What cross-cutting analysis are the Government undertaking to reassess fully the impact of their performance in delivering home insulation in the light of the chronic health outcomes highlighted?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I just explained in the Answer to the noble Baroness that as part of all our energy efficiency schemes, we do evaluations afterwards of the effect on people’s bills and health. We are spending over £12 billion over this Parliament and the next on insulation schemes, because we know they make a crucial difference.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it feels as if energy conservation is still the last thought and never the first. We have some of the highest domestic energy bills in Europe and some of the worst-insulated homes, yet we fail adequately to improve home insulation. Meanwhile, we continue to import gas from countries such as Russia. When will the Government do the right thing for bill payers and the environment and set more ambitious home installation targets, particularly for social rented homes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I disagree with the noble Earl; the figures he quoted are not correct, and we are improving home insulation standards. To give one figure, in 2010, 17% of homes in the UK were EPCC or above; now the figure is almost 50%, so we are making progress. We have a lot more to do. We have the oldest housing stock in Europe, but we are making progress.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, have the Government given any thought to older houses, particularly ones in conservation areas or that are listed? If you want to replace sash windows with double-glazed ones, there is not only that expense but the need to obtain planning consent or listed building consent. It is a very expensive enterprise. What do the Government propose to do to help in this situation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, and I suspect that she speaks from personal experience. Improvements in energy conservation for homes in listed or conservation areas is a difficult issue. We recently carried out a joint study with DLUHC and Historic Houses, and provided guidance for home owners wanting to do that. She will be delighted to know that you can get well-insulated, double-glazed sash windows to replace the originals.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, those with respiratory conditions face life-limiting risks from fuel poverty and poor insulation, and those risks are obviously triggered by weather factors. Is the Minister aware of the potential of AI-based weather models to predict and manage the risks faced by those with health conditions, including prioritising those who would benefit most from the insulation programmes? Will he engage with partners such as the Alan Turing Institute and the Met Office to explore the opportunities to harness these technologies for public benefit?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. There are some great technologies coming forward now and, of course, we are always interested to explore how government investment can be better targeted on those who need it the most.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are problems with cavity wall insulation in various older houses, in that the cavities are not large enough to qualify for government assistance? Will he look into that and see if anything can be done to move it forward?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am certainly aware of some technical challenges with different technologies. We have a multiplicity of different housing types. Of course, if the cavities are too small, those properties can benefit from internal or external wall insulation. I would be happy to have a look at that for the noble Lord.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, has any thought been given to our mortgage providers—banks and others—enabling people who move home to get their home insulated by providing a slightly lower interest rate or some other benefit? That would mean that, every time anyone moves, the house would be insulated, for the betterment of all.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend asks a really good question. We have a number of innovative pilots with lenders, such as green mortgages and different ways of structuring finance that can help people to upgrade their homes. There are some potential tax changes —which, of course, are a matter for the Chancellor—that could help, but we will continue to make the case.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister referred to the amount of money being put into insulation schemes, but does he accept that over the last 10 years a rota of schemes has been introduced, and that they have failed and been closed down? Does he accept that the industry needs consistent, clear policy, so that it can invest in training in particular, so that the money the Government put in is actually value for money?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not accept that. There has not been a rota of schemes. The most successful scheme, the ECO scheme, has been going since the early part of the previous decade and we have committed funding for a number of years to come. The more successful schemes, such as the social housing decarbonisation fund and others, are also multi-year programmes precisely to provide the long-term certainty to industry that so many contractors say they desire. We have already announced the funding for 2025-28—another £6 billion—and we have set out the schemes on which it will be spent. So, no, I am afraid I do not accept the noble Baroness’s analysis.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, 20 years ago, when I had some responsibility for the insulation programme, health issues were just as important, if not more so, than fuel poverty as such, or climate change. I made some attempt to get the Department of Health to recognise the preventive nature of this programme. I failed totally, but would the Minister care to comment on his ability to persuade the current Department of Health that a preventive insulation programme is very much in its interests and the long-term interests of the health service?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have not had any discussions with the Department of Health on this. I am not sure of my ability to persuade it of anything, but I would have thought it relatively self-evident that spending money on insulation schemes saves people money and has long-term health benefits. I do not think we need any studies to show us that.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, to follow up on the issue of failed government schemes, would the noble Lord care to comment on the green homes grant scheme, which failed in 2021? As I understand it, it failed on account of the lack of trained and skilled people to pick up the grant scheme. What focus do the Government have on essential training in these skills?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Earl asks a very good question, and there have been a number of studies into why that scheme was not as successful as we would have liked. The fact that it was instituted at the end of the pandemic was one reason; poor choice of delivery contractor was another. I readily concede that there is a general problem in the sector with lack of suppliers and installers, and that is due to the amount of work going on through government schemes and the private sector. We all need to work, together with the installers and the contractors, to build up capacity in the sector. One of the ways we can do that, going back to an earlier question, is to provide long-term certainty of funding.
Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Procedure and Privileges Committee: Third Report
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Amending stages of public bills (3rd Report, HL Paper 73) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the third report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee recommends various changes that are designed to make the amending stages of public Bills more effective and to enhance the quality of our debates within the context of safeguarding the self-regulating nature of the House. The contribution by noble Lords to the scrutiny of legislation by tabling amendments and speaking in debates goes to the very essence of our work here. It is one that the committee had full regard to when discussing the proposals contained in the report.
The proposals today arise from the concerns expressed quite widely by noble Lords that some contributions at amending stages have been unduly lengthy and that this interrupts the proper flow of debate. The Companion sets out that brevity is desirable, and so often the most persuasive arguments are made through succinct and clear speeches. The report’s purpose is to add guidance to that effect. The committee’s report proposes changes to existing practice and to guidance in the Companion in six areas. I will speak briefly about each in turn.
The first two proposals relate to speaking times on groups of amendments. We recommend that during amending stages of public Bills Members opening or winding up, other than the Minister, should keep within 15 minutes. In a similar vein, the committee proposes that Back-Bench speakers should keep within 10 minutes, rather than the current 15 minutes, when speaking on an amendment. These times remain, I would suggest, generous, and would allow those taking part to make detailed and useful contributions. The Minister, who the House will want to have time to respond to all points raised and who is more likely to be intervened upon, should still keep to 20 minutes.
Our third and fourth proposals recommend new guidance on the content of speeches. The third provides that Members other than a Minister who are withdrawing or pressing their amendment should normally be brief when doing so. Members will have had the opportunity to make a detailed speech when moving the amendment and the House will have heard the arguments for and against the amendment during the debate. Your committee felt it unnecessary for the mover to respond to or repeat points already made. At this stage in the debate, the House normally wants to know whether the mover intends to press or withdraw their amendment. This can be communicated to the House in a succinct manner.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the committee’s report and I hope it is successful in its implementation, but—there is always a “but” at this point—I do not know quite who is responsible for ensuring that the proposed recommendations are actually enforced. I have a suggestion, which is not a novel one, although it enables me to emit one of my favourite parliamentary phrases: I told you so.
At every stage of the enhancement of the responsibilities of the Lord Speaker, powerful objections have been presented. Fortunately, the House has accepted the recommendations to enhance the role of the Lord Speaker. Today, for example, it is the Lord Speaker’s responsibility to stick to 10 minutes for Questions, to cue in people who wish to contribute remotely, and to signpost our proceedings during the day. All these proposals were strongly opposed at the time, and often came into implementation as a result of quite a narrow vote. I submit that no one is suggesting that any of them should now be rescinded. All of them have improved the way the House operates; they have made our proceedings more intelligible to people watching in the Public Gallery or on television, and no one wants to see us going back on them.
Therefore, I have a suggestion for the committee, or a request, really; I could have put down an amendment, but I would rather that the committee just considered this. The proposed 10-minute and 15-minute limits should be policed—that is probably an offensive word to use in this context—or administered under the responsibility of the Lord Speaker. By all means, we can have flashing lights when the 10 minutes are up, but at the moment it tends to fall to some poor Whip occasionally to stand up to call time on someone’s speech. It would be immediately respected if it was the Lord Speaker. The Lord Speaker stands up and, one hopes, the speaker shuts up—whoever it is. I have not consulted the Lord Speaker, but I do not think he would request any increase in his allowance to take on this extra responsibility, which would be for the benefit of the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a more general point. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward the proposals. He said that this was guidance, and not hard and fast. In comparison to procedures in the Commons for Committee stages of a Bill, we save time at later stages, particularly on Report, by being able to almost fly a kite, if I can put it very loosely, in Committee to see whether there is any support for a particular theme on a particular Bill. If we restricted speeches as a matter of course to 10 minutes —albeit my noble friend said that he felt that was quite generous—we could store up problems for later stages if those arguments had not been properly debated in Committee. I ask my noble friend to reflect with the committee on that point—that having more flexibility in this House in Committee has saved time at later stages of a Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is an excellent report—and I do not often say that about reports from the committee. Like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I am worried about enforcement. The guidance says that, at Question Time, questions “should not be read”. How many times have we been here at Question Time and questions have been read word for word, as provided by the researchers? I am not just mentioning the Liberal Democrats—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Yes, there are some on our side as well—I accept that. It also says in the guidance that speeches should not be read but that you can refer to notes. But how many times have we had speeches read word for word? It does not constitute a decent debate. To their credit, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip have pointed this out from time to time. The guidance also says that, at Questions, only one point should be made and then you go straight to the question. How many times have we had point after point made, and we have had to shout “Question!”? Who is going to enforce it if it is guidance? As I say, I have great respect for the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, but it is not their job to keep us in order. It is our job, or it is the Lord Speaker’s job.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the committee has got the length of speeches correct. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I have been a junior Government Whip, and one day in Grand Committee, I got the advice that I gave to the Committee slightly wrong and was challenged on it by the Opposition Whip. I said, “My Lords, this is a self-regulating House and a self-regulating Committee. If the Committee wants to hear more from the noble Lord, the noble Lord should carry on”, but if you have a Speaker, he has to maintain authority. He has no flexibility.
I have one worry about the proposals. In this House, groupings are voluntary. We do not have our amendments grouped and selected by the Lord Speaker. I worry that noble Lords who are unable to confine themselves to 10 minutes of speaking would have their amendments degrouped to be able to lead the amendment and then have 15 minutes to speak, but I support the noble Lord’s proposals.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, following on from the noble Earl, the only time I have found it very difficult to keep within the self-restraining ordinance is when there have been very large groups of amendments, which have come through the process of the Government Whips Office or whatever, so I suggest that making sure that we have reasonably tight groups will help us manage ourselves. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I feel it is up to us to manage ourselves when it comes to this process.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise as a Member without notes. I want to make one point to the Senior Deputy Speaker about this report, which I understand and support. It is not so much about enforcement, mentioned by my noble friend, as about how it is going to be monitored. Will the Procedure and Privileges Committee conduct a review of how it seems to be working out in practice so that if any further amendments need to be made, they can be brought back to the House?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I fully support the recommendation as a member of the Procedure Committee. In my 14 years in the House, I have heard many wonderful speeches from across the House and one or two that have tested the patience of the House. We all have people on our Benches who have done that, I am afraid. I am very much of the view that if we stick to the rules and procedures, it helps the House. I note the point that colleagues have made about going further. I am sure the committee will keep those things under review because this is something that never stops. Things will change and improve. This is a good report that makes welcome changes, and I fully endorse it.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken because the committee spent some considerable time reflecting on this. On enforcement, the point that I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said it—is that it is for us. If one remembers, there have been brave Peers, not from either Front Bench, who have referred to the Companion. It is a symbol of what we can do in this place to be self-regulating and to have the maturity of self-restraint, so there are good reasons why we should try to help enforce this ourselves for the good order and reputation of the House.
On one detail, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I am very mindful of the Lord Speaker. We would be asking the Lord Speaker to be present at all amending stages in this Chamber. That would simply not be possible, obviously. There are wonderful deputies who would therefore have to have that responsibility as well, and I am not convinced that all of us would necessarily want to be put in that position.
We have evolved as a House. We have done many things, and there have been changes. On the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, of course your Lordships’ committee keeps all these matters under review, because our purpose is to ensure that the House runs as effectively as possible.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2024
Lord Gascoigne
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 22 January and 7 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 12th and 15th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the fifth instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 March.
North East Mayoral Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2024
Lord Gascoigne
That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 March.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 February be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2024 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 19th March 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 March 2024 - (13 Mar 2024)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now report the Bill to the House without amendment, and the House will now resume.
Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (IAC Report)
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That this House takes note of the Report from the International Agreements Committee Scrutiny of international agreements: UK accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (6th Report, HL Paper 70).
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, although no longer a member, I chaired the International Agreements Committee for the start of its work on the accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, before handing back the hard work and the drafting to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I am moving the Motion on his behalf as he is unable to stay for the duration of the debate, although he is here now and, I trust, will be here for much of it. He did the hard work.
I am delighted that we will hear shortly from a number of past and present members of the committee: the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Lansley, Lord Marland and Lord Udny-Lister.
The UK’s entrance into the Indo-Pacific free trade agreement is important both for the partnership—as we are the first member to join the founding 11 and will be the second largest, after Japan—and for the UK, as the Government claim this as a flagship of their post-Brexit policy. For the 11, our accession renders it a global, rather than regional, agreement, and it will then represent 15% of global GDP. For the UK, the CPTPP might be more than simply a trade agreement as it is part of the Government’s strategy to deepen our engagement with the Indo-Pacific region. The report before your Lordships considers its importance in this light.
I will highlight two themes in the report. The first is the value of the trade bloc for British businesses, and how the Government can help the utilisation of the agreement. The second is the strategic implications of CPTPP membership for the UK’s engagement in the region.
On the first point, the economic value of CPTPP membership is likely to be modest. The impact assessment and the OBR suggest a 0.04% to 0.08% boost to GDP over 15 years, partly as we already have free trade agreements with nine of the 11 countries. While the Government claim that these low figures fail to capture the rapid growth in the region or future expansion of membership, the committee found it difficult to quantify that, while any expansion of the membership remains somewhat speculative.
The CPTPP affords market access to Brunei and Malaysia, with some limited export opportunities in agri-food and certainly greater legal certainty for services. Its rules of origin provisions could offer opportunities for manufacturers to develop and integrate supply chains into their business models and expand into new and growing markets. However, the evidence we received is that these rules of origin are very difficult to cut through and that there are insufficient measures to help businesses to take advantage of any new opportunities. Indeed, it is possible that, without additional help, only those businesses already exporting to the region will be able to take advantage of any such openings.
It is therefore vital that the Government provide effective ongoing support, particularly for SMEs. A key recommendation is for a new task force to run for two to three years, focusing on regional roadshows. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that suggestion, especially as we heard that the Government’s online guidance about CPTPP and trade agreements is inadequate and hard to find or navigate, with GOV.UK described as “woeful”, “almost impossible to use” and in need of “a complete overhaul”. We heard that businesses often turn to other countries’ websites for advice and information; that is surely unacceptable. Ministers must improve online guidance if any trade agreement is to be worth more than the paper it is written on.
The CPTPP is also about imports, particularly agriculture and food. The NFU welcomed the fact that farmers have been shielded from CPTPP imports in most vulnerable areas—an improvement on the deals with Australia and New Zealand—but has
“serious concerns about the cumulative impact of trade deals on British food production, especially … beef, poultry and pork”.
That is a reminder to consider the cumulative effects of successive deals on farmers and food production, not just the impact of each individual deal.
The Government have assured us that the UK’s right to regulate to protect human, animal and plant life is secure under the CPTPP. However, some academics remain concerned about the threat to our precautionary approach to sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, regulation. The precautionary principle permits regulation to protect the environment where there is a plausible risk of serious or irreversible damage, even in the absence of complete scientific proof. The CPTPP’s dispute settlement mechanism, as it affects the environment, means that future SPS measures might be challenged via the state-to-state dispute mechanism. The committee therefore asks Ministers to set out how they intend to address these challenges to our regulatory approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.
I turn to the second consideration, the strategic value of joining the CPTPP. It has been something of a challenge to judge this in the continued absence of a cross-government foreign, defence and diplomatic vision into which a sustainable, long-term trade policy might fit. The committee therefore reiterates its call—we hope with a better response this time—for the Government to publish an overall trade strategy with clearly defined objectives. Such a framework would surely help to clarify and guide the Government’s priorities by spelling out their objectives for trade, but it would also facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s aims as set against their achievements.
In assessing CPTPP membership, witnesses to the committee made three arguments in support of it. First, while wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the risk of reduced US commitment to NATO, create new uncertainties closer to home, CPTPP membership, given the Indo-Pacific’s geopolitical significance, sends an important political signal about the UK’s commitment to that region. The committee views engagement with the Indo-Pacific as positive. However, there is a lack of detail as to how the Government intend to utilise our membership as the trade strand of their so-called Indo-Pacific tilt. Ministers should spell out how they expect membership to contribute to their strategic aims in the region.
Your Lordships’ House does not need reminding that the international landscape for trade is rapidly changing and increasingly uncertain, which brings me to the second argument: that the CPTPP provides membership of a group of like-minded countries committed to free and open trade, high regulatory standards and adherence to the rule of law, together with the ability for member countries to align their standards and governance to promote fair and free trade. The committee agrees that the CPTPP can be seen as a rallying point for a rules-based liberal order, but this objective might be limited in an increasingly protectionist world. We should not forget that the CPTPP’s primary function is to liberalise trade among its members, rather than act as a political or strategic forum, so while we acknowledge value in using the CPTPP to engage with partners in the Indo-Pacific, we should be wary of overstating that potential.
Thirdly, the CPTPP could act as an incubator for new trading initiatives, particularly in emerging sectors such as digital and environmental trade, where the UK has a valuable opportunity to contribute. This possibility is particularly attractive as we grapple with a struggling WTO. We thus welcome this but acknowledge that plurilateral agreements cannot replace co-operation at the multilateral level. In the words of one witness, the WTO is
“really important. We need to keep trying … there is no real substitute”.
Innovation within the CPTPP should be viewed as complementary to, rather than a replacement for, multilateral efforts.
Accession is nevertheless welcome, and it will be important for the UK to take full advantage of its new seat at the CPTPP table. The committee considered potential avenues for UK input to the partnership’s future development and welcomed the invitation, prior to our full accession, for the UK to contribute to the first general review, which is taking place this year. It is aimed at consolidating the trade text and considering how to update and enhance it.
The report in front of your Lordships welcomes the stakeholder consultation and calls on the Government to publish their own priorities, both for this current review and for their longer-term future priorities for CPTPP development, hopefully prioritising areas of UK strength such as innovation in climate and trade in environmental goods and services, together with digital and other services. The House will not be surprised by my—and, in this case, the committee’s—regret at the absence of a consumer chapter, so we hope that its future inclusion could secure consumer protection within the agreement.
The partnership aspires to be a “living agreement”, although in the absence of a standing secretariat the rotating chair carries a heavy burden in marshalling the group. The UK should therefore respond favourably to any move towards a standing—although lean, I hope —secretariat.
There has been much debate on the possible future expansion of the CPTPP, with a number of countries already having applied to join, including China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Taiwan, Ukraine and Uruguay, with other countries likely to follow suit. The process for any applicant is, first, for the country to demonstrate adherence to the required regulatory standards and a track record of adhering to the letter and spirit of existing international trade commitments. The second part of the process is for all current members to agree the new accession—a high bar, as our own application demonstrated. The IAC would welcome any country that meets these rigorous tests of entry, although, given the evidence received, it is unlikely that China will meet the necessary requirements any time soon.
The committee welcomed the Minister’s commitment that any new joiner would be subject to CRaG, but it calls on the Government to ensure that new accession processes go through the same consultation and impact evaluation as with any FTA partner—I see the Minister nodding. I note that, in the Commons at this very moment, they are trying to get such an amendment to the Bill currently going through. More seriously, it is vital that the Government start complying with the spirit, not just the wording, of CRaG.
Thanks to our Chief Whip, we are having this debate in this House, but the reality is that only the Commons has the power to delay ratification. We learned last week that the Leader of the Commons has denied that House the ability to debate or vote on the accession treaty within the CRaG period, making a mockery of the legislative power included in the 2010 Act. I note that the overwhelming vote of this House on 22 January—that the Rwanda treaty should not be ratified until all the promised safeguards are in place—has, to date, received no response from the Government, as required under the Act.
In addition to CRaG, there are other demands on the Government to ensure that successful trade deals will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, including all its countries and regions. We acknowledge the improved consultation with the devolved Administrations, and we call on the Government to continue to share information and engage with them in a timely and transparent manner.
In summary, the committee welcomes the UK’s accession to the CPTPP and looks forward to the Government’s efforts to support businesses and consolidate their strategy to maximise the opportunities arising out of our new membership. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to express our thanks to the committee, its chair and its former chair for the work in preparing this report. I am glad we have the opportunity to debate it now, in good time in relation to the CRaG process. Noble Lords will recall that, in previous discussions on trade Bills, we secured what we regarded as agreement from the Government that, where any committee makes a report for debate in either Chamber, it should be facilitated before the conclusion of the CRaG process and moving to ratification.
That said, I do not want to understate the degree of scrutiny that has been given to our accession to the CPTPP. When I was a member of the committee some time ago, we looked in detail at the mandate for the negotiations, and we looked at the issues arising from the treaty, because of course we were looking at an existing treaty and could consider what the implications of the provisions of the CPTPP might be, were we to accede to them. The Government responded very positively to some of the points we made at that time, not least on behalf of the witnesses we received. In addition, we have had the opportunity to debate the Bill, in so far as legislation was required. I do not want to understate the scrutiny of this House, which has been nothing other than thorough, demonstrating the importance that should be attached to the continuing work of the International Agreements Committee and the scrutiny we give treaties in this place.
It is really important to recognise that this is an accession, not a negotiation. Occasionally, some of the witnesses’ evidence submissions to the committee and some of the wider CPTPP debate suggested that it was open to us to negotiate an agreement as we are doing with other countries on a bilateral basis to conclude an FTA. This is an accession, and I will come back to that in a moment.
Investor-state dispute settlement is a very good example of this. I remind the House of my registered interest as the UK co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. Japan was a very early supporter of our accession to the CPTPP, and we should not underestimate the significance of that in our being able to be the first to join this regional plurilateral grouping. Some expressed the view that we could join the CPTPP but that we do not like investor-state dispute settlement. I am not quite sure why we do not like it; some do not because they think we will be challenged, although we never have been. As outward investment and our reliance on foreign direct investment is unusually important to this country, we should be in favour of giving investors confidence. I am therefore in favour of our agreeing to appropriate ISDS provisions. Had we tried to join the CPTPP while having side letters with everybody, and tried to exempt ourselves from all the effects of ISDS, including with Japan, we would not have been able to accede. Let us not get into arguments that pretend that we could have had a negotiation that we could not have had.
I want to talk about one main element from the latter part of the general themes that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about: the strategic context—not the Indo-Pacific tilt but the question of whether the Government should have a trade policy White Paper and a trade strategy document. When we as a committee asked for one over a year ago, we were right to do so, but it is now late in the Parliament to do that. However, anyone who wants to—not least from these Benches—can look at the Government’s activity in trade policy and deduce what we are trying to achieve. I think one would make a very positive deduction, not least from the fact that we wanted to join the CPTPP in the first place. It was very easy for people to say, “What has that to do with us? We’re not a Pacific country and we weren’t involved in the negotiations that led to the CPTPP, so why would we want to join it?” The short answer is because our trade policy is to support a rules-based system that obtains at high standards and is a broad-ranging and flexible, but also progressive, system of agreement for trade.
At the time that it was negotiated, the CPTPP was cutting edge in terms of digital trade and was quite forward in terms of services trade. A number of years have gone by, and there is now scope in the 2024 general review to remedy that. When they started this process, the Government were demonstrating their commitment to trade liberalisation, open trade, a rules-based trading system and not simply to bilateral agreements but to plurilateral agreements that would bring others into a broader world trading system. In the years to come, CPTPP may well demonstrate itself in that way as by no means confined to the Pacific Rim. We are leading the way, and I hope there will be others that follow. Let us not discount completely —happily, sometimes things change, and they do not always change in the wrong direction—that there might be the day when the United States once again thinks about joining a plurilateral, open trading system in ways that it has not done in the recent past. When it does so, the fact that two of its leading strategic allies, the United Kingdom and Japan, are in the CPTPP and were involved in the early stages of negotiating the agreement may give it greater confidence that this would be the proper step for the United States to take, if it really wants to rejoin a rules-based trading system, and greater confidence on how to go about it.
The only other point that I want to make is that I agree with the noble Baroness and the committee report—I think it is in paragraphs 74 to 76—that the CPTPP is not an alternative to the WTO, but in the recent WTO ministerial conference we have seen that plurilateral agreements in that context have made some progress, on things like the regulation of services, investment facilitation and so on. However, the WTO was not able to get agreement on things like food security and fisheries, or, sadly, on dispute settlement. I do not think that we can rely upon the WTO to make the progress that we need. If we are not careful, in the absence of WTO agreements, everything will be done by way of bilateral agreements, which lead one into a more mercantilist system, whereas what we want is an open, plurilateral trading system.
From my point of view, that means that things like the CPTPP and other plurilateral agreements—which are not just regional but may, as we can see, develop in relation to services, investment facilitation or, very importantly, trade in environmental goods—are all ways in which we can promote a wider, positive, open trading system. If we do not do that, protectionism will increase, and in so far as people are not simply protectionist, they will be mercantilist, expecting—as President Trump was wont to do and China is wont to do—that they can negotiate the outcome of trade, rather than create a system which enables the outcome of trade to be the result of markets and competition. That is what we are looking for, and that is why we are looking for an open trading system.
In that context, our accession to the CPTPP is a wholly positive step. I do not think that we should in the slightest diminish it by reference to some of the current statistics about what the prospective economic impact might look like. By the time we have made changes in terms of digital and services trade, and by the time one takes into account the confidence that is given to investors, the beneficial impacts resulting from our membership of the CPTPP will be considerably in excess of what has presently been predicted. I very much support it, but I am also very grateful to and support the committee in the report that it has given us.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter on her helpful introduction to the debate on the report. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, only in that he was a member of the committee, heard the evidence and is now contributing to the debate; I was not a member of the committee at the time and did not hear the evidence and therefore have to rely largely on the helpful report which the committee has produced. I will therefore be somewhat brief.
I accept that the accession is welcome and, more importantly, has potential for growth in directions that are relevant to our own interests, both in relation to the internal developments within the agreement—as insiders, we can now make contributions in a way that we could not if we were not members—and because of the possibility of new members coming to join. China and Taiwan have been mentioned, but both, for different reasons, are unlikely to join. It is uncertain how many other countries will join. Indeed, if there were a large number of members, the agreement would be approximate to the now failing WTO. Although both previous speakers said that the WTO is important, there is clearly a deadlock, not least because of the Trump policy on appeals and so on. As insiders, this is important, but we join having to accept the existing rules—rules over which we have had no part in drafting. It would therefore be unwise for us to throw our weight around at the beginning, although we are the second-most important economy in the group.
The context is clear. The accession is possible because we are now outside the European Union. Obviously, within the European Union, our weight in trade negotiations would have been substantially enhanced. Yet such bilateral or plurilateral agreements should be put in perspective: the best trade agreement that we had was inside the European Union. Any other deals, such as with Australia or this current deal, are, in essence, damage limitation: doing the best that we can outside the European Union. The European Union remains the UK’s primary trading partner and the largest single export market for our services. The European Union provides a basis for an improved service sector among member states and within the single market. I was present at a recent Brand Finance conference, where John Major, as a principal speaker, said how much he favoured joining the single market.
It is a temptation for the Government—as the Minister said yesterday at Question Time—to hype the importance of such deals, and although we welcome the accession, the report is careful to avoid such exaggeration. The report summary says:
“Despite projections that CPTPP will bring limited economic benefits to the UK in the medium to long-term, the accession of the UK could be of strategic importance, especially in shaping the future development of CPTPP and geopolitical influence in the region. However, the effective implementation of CPTPP is key to maximising any potential benefits and building capacity for the future”.
I emphasise the words “could” and “potential”. We already have free trade agreements with nine existing members, although I accept that it is important that Brunei and Malaysia are now within the fold. Therefore, it means that the opportunity for growth is somewhat constrained, and two witnesses described the benefits as “marginal”. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, for example, stated that the
“potential benefits … should not be overstated”,
and we should generally be alert to the fact that the agreement is only a small part of UK trade. Yesterday I mentioned the Government’s estimate of 0.08% of GDP over the relevant period and the 0.04% estimate of another relevant group.
My second point is that there needs to be a new focus on services in our trade policy, particularly as, from 2021, services have overtaken goods as a share of UK exports. In 2023 services accounted for 54.3% of the total UK exports of £859.2 billion. These figures do not include services provided through our commercial presence in third countries. Our strength is in the service sector and yet the current agreement offers little, if any, liberalisation of services and no effective enforcement mechanism. We can only hope that, as insiders, we can help over time to move the agreement to have a more robust policy on the service sector. In the Government’s judgment, what prospects are there of helping to move the agreement more to the service sector? Have there already been any soundings in that direction?
My final point, already made in part by my noble friend, relates to the devolved Administrations. The Government have acknowledged the failure of consultation in this respect. The committee calls for information to be shared in a timely and transparent manner in and outside the relevant areas of devolved competence. I note that in the Australia deal, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, Welsh farmers suffered substantially over Welsh lamb. I hope that the lesson of listening more to the concerns of the devolved Administrations has been learned. We should not sacrifice their interests on the altar of greater deals. The information-sharing protocol, which was made early last year, indicates that the Government have learned some of the lessons. But we should watch this space to see whether there are any real improvements. We must understand that the devolution settlement is now only 25 years old. There needs to be a total culture change in Whitehall to consult on and listen to the interests of the devolved Administrations. The Government have acknowledged that this was not the case in respect of this agreement. Let us hope that the lessons have now been fully learned.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade out of Poverty. I thank the Minister for the advanced information through correspondence regarding the treaty. He is unfailingly accessible, as is his office; I appreciate that. He and I are enthusiastic free traders. He has a skill of finding greater enthusiasm for certain agreements than I do, but nevertheless we are both free traders. He must have erred in some other policy areas for him to be on those Benches and not these. Nevertheless, we share an ambition for the growth of UK exports and trade.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the committee for their work. The IAC report is another excellent publication, building on its first report, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated. It is especially important given that not only has the House of Commons not been debating the CPTPP but it no longer has a committee that specifically looks at international trade policy—so the service that this committee does for this House is even more important. The report’s opening probably gave the most succinct post-Brexit summary I have ever read. It said that
“it remains to be seen whether the Government’s intended trade and geopolitical benefits will materialise”.
We are still waiting with anticipation.
We understand from the Government that this component of that ambition will amount to a contribution to the UK’s GDP of between £1.8 billion and £2 billion a year after the 15th year—0.08% of GDP, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, believes that will be the floor, not the ceiling, of the ambition. Sophisticated modelling by the civil servants takes all the optimism into consideration, but optimism bias is not unique to policy areas other than trade. There has always been a trade agreement that we hoped would do better than the one we were replacing. We also know that the OBR has suggested a lower figure, equating the likely growth to 0.04% of GDP.
The Financial Times humorously said that if the impact of the CPTPP was described in decibel terms, it would be the equivalent of
“a cat sneezing three rooms away”.
Now, it seems as if next door’s cat has the sniffles. Nevertheless, any growth is welcome, given the state of the UK economy. As the committee says, the Government have indicated that it is not just about economic growth. Indeed, that might not even be the primary aim. It is about greater integration with those economies. This is news to many of the nine countries with which we already have an FTA with the purpose of integrating our economy with theirs. What extra integration will the agreement to which we have acceded allow us? It may well be there.
I want to put into context what the level of growth activity would be after the 15th year. The £1.8 billion for the British economy is the equivalent of five and a half days’ trade with Holland. When we put up barriers to our nearest trading neighbours, we do much greater harm than any anticipated long-term benefit we gain from agreements such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that we can perhaps deduce the direction of travel from the Government’s activity. In the foreign affairs debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said we should never confuse activity with action. Therefore, we have to see not what the Government’s good intentions are but what their resulting actions realise.
In February the Sussex University trade observatory highlighted that
“the UK’s trade in goods with the world has underperformed compared to other comparable countries over the last few years”.
This anticipated growth with the rest of the world, other than the EU, is eluding us so far. Nevertheless, it may come about.
This is where the narrative starts to be challenged. Later in the debate, I suspect we will hear about how we need to be part of the fastest-growing part of the world’s trading economy within the Indo-Pacific area and how this agreement will allow the UK the increased growth benefit that those countries have seen. But the growth in the economies of the countries we are joining in the CPTPP has been almost exclusively because of the growth of the Chinese economy. Strip out the growth of China’s economy and its trade with Vietnam, Malaysia and the other countries in the CPTPP, and the figures look very different. In fact, their growth looks almost static. Now, with the slower growth in the Chinese economy, we will see what that level of trajectory looks like. Are we putting a lot of tariff-free eggs in this CPTPP basket when we are being very shoogly with our European Union neighbours?
This also has to be seen in the context in which the UK, more than any other European country, is now dependent on goods imports from China. The House has heard me say time and again that we have a trade deficit in goods with China of £40 billion. Germany has a trade surplus.
What also frequently goes unnoticed is that the world’s largest trading deal is not the CPTPP but the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership of 15 Asia-Pacific countries, including China, Australia and New Zealand. That represents 30.5% of global GDP, compared with the US-Mexico-Canada agreement at 28% and the EU at 18%. The RCEP’s growth is estimated to be far beyond that of any other agreement that we are acceding to. As much as this is a strategic debate about trade with the CPTPP, it is actually about the UK’s relations with China. The Government have said that this is an Indo-Pacific tilt towards those countries as an alternative to China. But there have been many rounds of negotiation between China, Japan and South Korea for an FTA between those countries. Whatever we do with our trade in the Indo-Pacific, we will be impacting on our relationship with China. We support an industrial and trade strategy because what our trading relationship with China will look like needs to be clear.
Finally, where we have seen bureaucracy, costs and paperwork added is in our trading relationship with the European Union. Yes, we will see a marginal, minimal decrease in bureaucracy with CPTPP countries, but we are seeing it actively increase for our nearest trading bloc—£100,000 of extra costs per typical UK business. That far outweighs even the most optimistic benefits mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that we would see for UK businesses in the CPTPP.
However, as I have said to the Minister, when we tilt towards one area, we are tilting away from another. Our trading partners in the Caribbean in CARIFORUM and in Africa in the African Continental Free Trade Area are seeing and hearing mixed messages from the UK. Therefore, I have called out the Government, time and again. For example, when we have signed an FTA with a Commonwealth country, not a single one has had a Commonwealth chapter for trade facilitation for the Commonwealth, allowed for under the WTO, which I have called for.
There may be one further final aspect. I close with a question to the Minister. It is likely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, that our relationship with China will come into more context if it wishes to join and accede. But we have a friendly, free, democratic nation within the region, Taiwan, with which we can see the expansion of UK trade. I have been on a number of occasions. It is a reliable and trusted trading partner which has demonstrated that it can be a stable, democratic and rule of law-based country. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is time for a UK Cabinet Minister—a Cabinet Trade Minister—to visit Taipei, sending very clear signals. If we are seeking to tilt to the region and sending signals that it is not towards China, then a Cabinet-level official visiting Taipei would probably be the strongest signal of all.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements Committee, chaired magnificently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I like to big him up because it is good to be kind to the headmaster. You never know, you might catch the selector’s eye every now and then. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for—
Lord Marland (Con)
—giving us the opportunity to have this debate. Yes, she is absolutely marvellous. This could be a Morecambe and Wise show in a minute if my noble friend Lord Vaizey does not shut up—and I know who is wise.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said to us earlier that brevity is to everyone’s advantage. Therefore, I shall try to be brief and let the report itself do the talking. It has been incredibly well constructed by the team and has had a lot of the committee’s time. I am delighted to see so many members and former members here.
I congratulate the Government on this treaty—it is a good step forward. I pay tribute particularly, if he is listening, to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, who travels the world with huge energy. I often find myself following in his wake as I go round in my role as chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. I pay tribute to him because he has been the driving force behind this great treaty.
However, let us not kid ourselves—this is not the greatest agreement that has ever been signed. The noble Baroness made the remark that it is a very small amount of balance of trades to affect the United Kingdom. Therefore, we should not get too overexcited. But it is a starting place, and the real prize is, of course, services and financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned. This is the key to the prosperity of this country and will be the real prize for businesses in this country. I want to know what steps the Minister will take to opening up those doors, because that becomes transformative.
It is also a great treaty because there is no doubt that the alignment of free trading nations is incredibly good for diplomatic relations and cordial relationships, and therefore a terrific building block.
There is always some embarrassment for the UK Government about taking the lead on things, but this is a golden opportunity to take a lead and become a key member of this trans-Pacific partnership. I am clear that that is what the other countries want—in the UK being embraced into this arrangement, their desire is to have the UK taking a forefront lead. This will be important, as was referenced earlier, with the inclusion of potential new members, and with the desire of China to become a member—which will have to be scrutinised incredibly carefully. I therefore urge the Government and my noble friend the Minister to tell us in what way the UK Government are going to take the lead. This is an opportunity, a post-Brexit opportunity bar none, if we can take it.
Finally, noble Lords would not expect me to not mention the Commonwealth. Two-thirds of the countries that have signed up to this agreement are Commonwealth countries. Why has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not taken the initiative and used this as a spring- board for a Commonwealth trade arrangement? That is the second prize that this Government, in a post-Brexit era, should take.
I thank the Minister for everything he has done in achieving what we have done so far.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marland. I shall be slightly less concise, but I bear the earlier discussion in mind.
On my tombstone will be the words: “He was an inaugural member of the International Agreements Committee”. No more need be said: it is the peak of my career. I was lucky enough to be on that sub-committee of the EU Committee which preceded and then became it, under the inventive chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and then the skilful Socratic reasoning of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. From the word go, I thought it was a good idea that we should accede to what I am going to call the Pacific partnership treaty—because I do not believe that any sane human being can say “CPTPP”.
Our work in the IAC on the treaty was helped hugely by the constructive approach taken by successive Ministers: the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who is not in his place today, now a poacher, then a gamekeeper; and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, who was extremely forthcoming to the committee. I am glad that the committee has produced such a positive report. It is much more supportive than we were able to be about some of the Government’s bilateral trade agreements earlier on.
It is easier to be supportive because the Government did not oversell the deal, and they did tend to oversell some of the previous simple rollover deals. Back then, of course, we had a Trade Secretary and a Prime Minister who were determined to declare total victories—black-and-white, total triumphs. The Trade Secretary pronounced it a “disgrace” that we sell so little cheese to countries where cheese is not eaten, and the Prime Minister proudly proclaimed that his trade treaty with the European Union contained “no non-tariff barriers”. I cannot recall any trade treaty that does contain non- tariff barriers. Most good trade treaties remove or limit them; his ignored them and so legitimised them and introduced them, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has explained.
In the case of the Pacific partnership, on the other hand, I recall no photo ops, no soundbites. We were spared the obvious soundbites about the merits of selling Bovril to Borneo, and the economic benefits were not exaggerated. The OBR says they are perhaps rather less than the Government had previously suggested, but the Government were putting the figure at under 0.1% of GDP, and the various upside possibilities that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned had been taken into account in their calculations.
The deal was not oversold; it was sold on the potential of the partnership to develop. That was quite right, and I believe the partnership will develop. The digital economy deal between Chile, New Zealand and Singapore is a harbinger and a signpost. I hope that is the way it will develop, and I commend the call on the Government, in paragraph 118 of the IAC’s report,
“to set out and publish its priorities”
for this year’s quinquennial review of the partnership.
The Canadians, who are leading on the review, want to see a deepening of the deal, particularly in the area of digital trade. I hope we will row in behind them and help them on that. I also attach importance to the various recommendations to make British business better aware of the new opportunities the partnership opens and how to access them. The task force is a good idea; the roadshow is a good idea; the website clearly needs reform. Other than for command economies, trade treaties only enable: the greater part of their job is making sure that the opportunities for actual and potential exporters are used, and our Government need to do better. Explaining the partnership’s complex rules of origin has hardly begun.
With the indulgence of the House, I would like to offer one more general point—a coda to my time on the IAC, drawing on my experience of it. It serves the House well within the confines imposed on it by the CRaG Act, but I very much hope that the next Government, of whatever political complexion, will be readier than this one have been to look again at these constraints. When CRaG was passed, no one foresaw Brexit. Trade agreements back then were negotiated for us by the European Commission’s experts, most of them British, and overseen by the Council in Brussels and the European Parliament in Strasbourg. It was all very transparent. So the EU Committee, when I served on it, looking at trade agreements, was far better informed back then, pre-Brexit, than the IAC is now.
Brexit meant that Whitehall took back control but Westminster was shut out. Although my past was in Whitehall, I believe that the reduction in Westminster’s scrutiny is actually bad for Whitehall and for the country. Let me explain.
The principal reason why the EU drives harder trade bargains than we do—the contrast between our deal with Australia and its was striking—is that it is holding the keys to a larger market so it can extract greater concessions for handing over the keys. The EU is also more practised, but we may be getting better. It sounds as if we have been more resolute with the Canadians and Mexicans, whose agricultural exporters pricked up their ears at seeing how the Australians and New Zealanders had taken us to the cleaners. Wiser counsels have prevailed on India; I was concerned by the Johnson press for an agreement—any agreement—soon.
However, I believe that the Commission’s hand on trade negotiations is greatly strengthened by the effective scrutiny of its work that the Council in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg hold. American negotiators can and do point to their separation of powers, and congressional oversight and veto rights. When American negotiators reject a proposed concession or a trade-off, they can and do say, “Sorry, Congress wouldn’t wear it. It wouldn’t fly on the Hill”. EU negotiators can and frequently do play the same card. Ours cannot because the world knows that, in London, parliamentary oversight is pro forma and perfunctory. Trade policy in London is a black box and Parliament is put in the picture about treaties only once it is too late to change them.
It is different in Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington, so our weakness is not a function of a parliamentary system; in other parliamentary systems there is far closer scrutiny than we are allowed here. When the IAC tried to find out what was happening in the negotiation with New Zealand, our principal source was the New Zealand Government’s website, which gave a very full account of each negotiating round. In London, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—was allowed to send us a regular letter saying that there had been a round, a chapter had been opened, a chapter had been closed and there would be another round. He was allowed to give agendas and dates, but not information on substance, issues or trade-offs. There was nothing remotely useful, although it was all available on the New Zealand government website and so available to the committee. This is all a great pity, because greater transparency elsewhere means greater public understanding elsewhere. It means that exporters elsewhere are better prepared for new opportunities when they arise as a consequence of trade deals.
Reform of the CRaG Act, allowing for a real parliamentary role in approving mandates, following negotiations and ratifying trade treaties, would produce better outcomes for the United Kingdom. It is not a zero-sum game, with Westminster’s gain meaning Whitehall’s loss. It honestly is not; it would be a win-win. The IAC does its best for House and country, but I am quite sure that it would be better for everyone if the Government could be more grown-up and trust the country to be more grown-up about trade. We still need a clear trade strategy to be agreed and published. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Grown-up countries do this: the Americans do it, the EU does it, France and Germany do it. Most countries publish their trade strategy, promulgate it, defend it and act on it. We should do so too. Real parliamentary association with the negotiating process would be in everybody’s interest.
Since I have disagreed with him on one point, I end by saying that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on another. I am afraid I cannot share his optimism about the possibility that a Trump Administration would look again at participation in the Pacific partnership treaty. I am afraid that that ship has definitively sailed.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, from whose speeches I always have much to learn. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, on securing this timely debate today. I declare my interests as an adviser to several Japanese companies, and to some British companies in connection with their businesses in the Indo-Pacific region, as stated in the register.
It is very good that your Lordships’ House has an opportunity to debate a report within one month of publication—very much earlier than has been the rule in recent years. I congratulate the members of the International Agreements Committee on producing what I think is, in the main, a fair and balanced report. I note that it “broadly” welcomes the UK’s accession to the CPTPP; this implies to me that there are areas in which it has reservations.
Are the members of the committee not, on balance, a little less enthusiastic about the significance and the future economic potential of the UK’s accession to the CPTPP than they should be, and is there not at least some evidence that supports that? The report’s summary suggests that accession to the CPTPP will have only
“limited economic benefits to the UK in the medium to long-term”,
and that
“it remains to be seen whether the Government’s intended trade and geopolitical benefits will materialise”.
Professor David Collins, of City, University of London, correctly recognised that, in the longer term, the economic benefits of the CPTPP are likely to be significant, as the world’s economic activity shifts towards the Asia-Pacific region. The trend growth rate for the GDP of the 11 members is around 2%, roughly double the 1% by which the EU economies are expected to grow. The CPTPP accounts for roughly 15% of global GDP, around the same as the EU today.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made the case that the RCEP is a more important agreement than the CPTPP. I am not sure he is right there, because it is much shallower. He also said that the CPTPP’s growth was much greater than the EU’s only because of trade with China, but he then said that UK trade with China was massively significant, so he rather contradicted his point.
The committee’s members acknowledged the “potential advantage” of the partnership as part of a British
“‘tilt’ to the Indo-Pacific”,
and
“think there is some, albeit limited, value in CPTPP membership providing access to a forum for members committed to a free, open trade order”.
I think they might have been a bit more enthusiastic about this enormously important and highly significant development. The geopolitical significance of the UK’s accession is already enormous, both for the UK and the CPTPP itself. For the UK, it shows our strong commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, reinforcing the AUKUS pact, the continuing importance of the Five Eyes intelligence pact and the reciprocal access agreement with Japan. For the partnership itself, the UK’s accession goes some way to replacing the intended participation of the United States, and makes the perception of the bloc a bit more global.
Since President Trump turned against US membership, Japan has been strongly encouraging the UK to join, a point which may not be sufficiently appreciated in this country. My noble friend Lord Lansley also drew your Lordships’ attention to this point in his impressive speech. Our Japanese friends recognise that six of the 11 members of the CPTPP are Commonwealth countries —now, with the UK, that is seven out of 12. There has been an active group within the Japanese Government’s Cabinet Office working on the CPTPP for more than six years. It recognises that the UK could become, with Japan, the de facto joint leaders of the partnership and that the UK’s contribution to the way the partnership operates, and to its rules and methods, would be highly valuable. It has also played an invaluable role behind the scenes, in encouraging the other members of the CPTPP to welcome UK accession and in helping us overcome the small number of reservations about our accession that appeared in a few members of the partnership.
Having lived and worked in Japan for 11 years, and with continued parliamentary and business involvement in that country ever since I returned to the UK, I am very pleased that UK accession to the CPTPP has made an important contribution to our excellent relationship with Japan. Indeed, together with our growing bilateral collaboration in defence and security, exemplified by the trilateral GCAP programme with Italy, it can be said that we have entered the age of the second Anglo-Japanese alliance.
More specifically, the report identifies some issues with the rules of origin provisions provided by the CPTPP. I understand that these are working well in some areas, such as the seafood sector, but could my noble friend the Minister comment on how they are working for the automotive sector?
Paragraph 28 of the report celebrates the fact that there is a
“good balance between new market access for food exporters and access to the UK market”.
Are the Government doing enough to encourage farmers to exploit opportunities in those sectors where they have an advantage?
It is interesting that the report suggests at paragraph 29 that the UK can retain its current precautionary approach to SPS controls, consistent with CPTPP rules. Is that the case even where our current standards, inherited from the EU, do not comply with WTO rules? Is it not the case that we may have given too much weight to the precautionary principle as an EU member? Where the evidence suggests that there are no significant risks to human health, does not accession to the CPTPP provide us with an opportunity to permit, in certain circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the introduction of hormone-fed beef, chlorine-washed chicken and some GM crops, which could significantly lower food costs for hard-pressed consumers? I think that our membership of the CPTPP gives us a good platform on which to work with like-minded partners to restore the reputation and influence of the WTO.
The members of the committee struck me as being a bit sceptical about the significance of our role in the CPTPP and its contribution to the achievement of the Government’s strategic aims in the region. In paragraph 72, the report asks for more detail on this. From my interactions with contacts in Japan, Australia and South Korea, which I hope may soon become an accession candidate, I believe it is already very clear how significant it is, and I hope my noble friend will set out his view on this in his winding-up speech.
Finally, I welcome the proposal that, following the current general review, the Government should set out their priorities in the context of a longer-term plan for the development of the CPTPP. Does my noble friend think this should include a small standing secretariat to assist businesses in maximising the trade benefits offered by the UK’s membership? I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords and to my noble friend’s response to the debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will return in some detail to food safety and food standards, referred to by noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but I point out now that it is the standards of production that give rise to the need for the chlorine-washing of chicken. The dreadful US food safety standards, which are the main issue, are surely not something we want to import into the UK.
Like other noble Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her clear introduction, and the committee for a comprehensive report. It expresses many of the concerns I have about the trans-Pacific partnership—I will use that phrase, rather than the acronym—although I would express them in much stronger terms than the committee has. However, we know that our committees operate on a consensus basis.
Much of what I might have said about it making much more sense to trade with our neighbours has been said already by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, so I will not repeat that. I will cite one economics textbook, which notes that the negative correlation between geographic distance and bilateral trade volumes is considered to be one of the most robust findings in economics. I do not often quote mainstream economics, but there is some obvious common sense there. I hope that the cat belonging to the neighbours of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, gets better soon. It is a very useful metaphor. I also agree with what the noble Lord said about a visit to Taiwan. That was a very useful comment.
With the trans-Pacific partnership, we are talking about decisions that have significant implications for climate action and inaction, environmental standards, human rights, labour rights, international development, food standards—as has already been referred to—animal welfare and public health. One of the areas that has rightly received the most attention has been the conclusion of the deal with Malaysia on palm oil. This is a major issue for environmental standards and indigenous rights in Malaysia, and—as your Lordships’ House knows, given that we are increasingly debating the issue of ultra-processed food—for public health in the UK. It could be very difficult for some of the rising, innovative UK producers of alternative oilseed crops to compete against palm oil produced from felled rain forests under very dubious labour conditions. The Minister may say, “Oh, but it is all going to be sustainable”, but I am afraid that the registration standards simply do not stack up for much of Malaysian palm oil.
I would also like to receive a direct response from the Minister, either now or in writing, about pesticides that are banned in the UK but are used across the trans-Pacific partnership. What are the Government doing to ensure that products that are treated with those pesticides are not brought into the UK? Disagreeing again with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the precautionary principle, the EU is bringing in stronger and stronger rules because it did not apply the precautionary principle. More and more research is showing more and more dangers, particularly from pesticides and other chemicals in use. The EU is getting far ahead of us in terms of banning chemicals. We are trailing far behind. There is a real risk that we will become a dumping ground for products that cannot be sold in the EU under tightened regulations. What are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen?
I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the UK’s democratic deficit—the giant democratic deficit—with regard to trade deals, as the committee’s report also makes clear. All we have today is a take-note Motion: the definition of not doing anything, which is exactly what we are doing now. All we can do is express concerns, with no substantive impact.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as I have many times before and probably will again, on the issue of ISDS. There is substantial evidence that, in some cases, it forces governments to reverse measures taken for the public good; it also has a chilling effect on democratic decision-making for the public good. According to the most recent figures I have from the UN Conference on Trade and Development, 175 cases have been brought on environmental issues under the ISDS procedure, half of which were under the energy charter treaty. I praise the Government for their direction of travel on that treaty. That is indeed progress, so I can say “Well done”—but that still leaves the other half of the cases. There is no doubt about the impact of reducing government action, but also the adverse effects on the UK’s agri-food sector, which I shall come to.
I turn to some specific recent issues that mostly relate to the Australian trade deal, but which tie in, of course, with the trans-Pacific partnership as well. The Government have promised that no hormone-treated Canadian beef will come in under this partnership. I would be interested to hear the latest on what the Government are doing on that.
It is interesting to look at some recent developments with Australian beef. Farmers Weekly recently reported the first attempt under the new deal to export British beef to Australia. It was stopped by Australian trade regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, as a Green, I am not at all in any favour of us producing beef here and shipping it to Australia, or Australia producing beef there and shipping it here. None the less, there is a profound inequality between Australian farmers and British farmers in the trade arena.
There is also, of course, a profound imbalance in production costs and systems between Australian beef and British beef. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this, but a recent article published in Animal Production Science, a CSIRO Publishing journal, looks at greenhouse gas emissions. It makes a well defended case, published in a peer-reviewed journal, that is quite astonishing when you think about it: there are 10 million more head of cattle in Australia than official counts provide for. Interestingly, the head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics said that the official figures were never designed to measure the total cattle population, and that it is clear that that is a much lower estimate. That is worth noting. I have regularly tried to explain to your Lordships’ House how different Australian production standards are. Perhaps the following sentence, which is a direct quote from Rob Walter, ABS head of agricultural statistics, will help:
“Some of those properties in northern Australia are the size of small European countries. For them to know how many cattle they have … can be very difficult”.
I invite noble Lords to think about a local small farmer they know with a few head of cattle on 100 or 200 acres, to contrast those two production systems and imagine what it is like when they try to compete against each other.
I will wrap up by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it is probably too late for this Government to produce a trade policy. It would not be a very meaningful piece of paper to produce at this point. But this issue very much needs to be part of the debate in the run-up to our next general election. We need to think about what kind of trade we want—what volumes of trade will benefit our food security, our environmental security and all of our futures.
I was at the meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fairtrade this morning. This year is the 30th anniversary of the fair trade movement. It has made some limited progress, but we still have profound inequality in global trade. Global trade is still not providing us with food security in this age of shocks, and we need to think about the level of trade that is useful to us—trade that is for the public good, rather than a simple maximisation of private profit that comes with a cost to us all.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the committee for holding the inquiry. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the committee for getting this report to us today, and I congratulate them on that. I am grateful for the stimulating analysis that it gives. I will restrict myself today to commenting on its rather tentative approach to the benefits of the CPTPP, particularly in paragraphs 12, 49 and 79. There is a reference to the “limited economic gains” in current projections, in paragraph 12; to the benefits of the services provisions perhaps being “more limited” than suggested, in paragraph 49; and to the CPTPP representing only
“a small part of UK trade as a whole”,
in paragraph 79.
I am also grateful for the even more cautious approach of noble Lords on the Benches opposite towards the potential benefits of the CPTPP; the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson; and the warnings from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, with whom on many matters I agree about the importance of free trade globally, and I have very much welcomed his interventions on other Bills.
We are in uncharted territory so it does not surprise me that there is no definitive map of post-CPTPP benefits for us, or indeed the other parties, as a result of our joining. Though not normally an optimist, I understand why some of the committee’s witnesses, and indeed members, are more tentative in assessing the benefits of the trade agreement, which has not yet come into force for our country. However, in my view, there are good reasons to be not just mildly optimistic but enthusiastic. I am perhaps more so than my noble friend Lord Lansley, with whose analysis on every point I found myself in agreement. I also agree, from conversations that I have had with other parties, that it is, if not likely, at least possible that, not immediately but in the future, the US will once again become a member of this trading partnership.
As my noble friend Lord Trenchard has mentioned, the CPTPP will represent a growing share of global GDP. Today it accounts for around 12% of global GDP, covering 11 countries. The UK will be the 12th, bringing the expected share of global GDP to 15%. By comparison, the US accounts for around 15%, as does the EU, but their shares are declining, whereas those of this region are growing. The projected proportions by 2050 are estimated at 25% for the CPTPP and 10% for the EU.
There are other reasons beyond the economic to be particularly welcoming to this protocol of accession and CPTPP membership. As other noble Lords have noted, it brings us into the Asia-Pacific region to trade under our own laws. In this trading partnership, we accept base arrangements on conformity assessment, rules of origin, performance rights and GIs. Indeed, I am delighted that the UK’s enabling measure, introduced in this House, is now on Report in the Commons. This is, in the best sense, a post-Brexit trade agreement that has been developed to take advantage of our freedoms. We are no longer bound by the EU legal arrangements and trading system. That is a different sort of law. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, particularly because EU law is not suited to the way in which UK trade and entrepreneurship have developed over centuries.
Our commercial law is an enabling law—a free law. I know that many noble Lords will disagree but let us look at the successes of the City of London from the 17th and 18th centuries onwards. The City overtook Amsterdam as the main trading centre for financial services, and then Paris in the 18th century, to be rivalled only by New York. We must put much of that success down to its ability to attract entrepreneurs and businesspeople setting up in coffee shops, which is where Lloyd’s of London started. They were doing trade across the world and coming to London to have their deals recognised and executed under our law, which was reliable and non-political. It also had the advantage of the reforms initiated by Lord Mansfield, who may be better known to noble Lords as the person who led the abolition of slavery.
There are very good reasons for being delighted that we can trade under our own laws and bring those laws to the rest of the world—indeed, to countries which may want to embrace common-law arrangements for trading. That in itself would be a very good reason to welcome the CPTPP.
Apart from that, if we look at the arrangements for services, the report notes in paragraph 49 that
“the benefits may be more limited than the Government has suggested … in particular the lack of … mutual recognition of professional qualifications”.
Here I welcome paragraph 47, where the evidence of witnesses is summarised as indicating that the CPTPP will bring greater certainty for services and legal protection:
“Witnesses noted that financial, legal and professional services would … benefit from ‘an extra layer of legal protection … a degree of regulatory harmonisation’ and digital … provisions ensuring the flow of data. There were also advantages from the ‘no less favourable treatment’ rule … [which] provides additional certainty and protection”.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard referred to some work by Professor David Collins, who holds the chair of international economic law at City University. Professor Collins has drawn attention to the more comprehensive coverage for digital services and data flows in the CPTPP than in the UK’s existing FTAs that are currently in force with its members. He draws a particular example of the CPTPP’s restrictions on data localisation, which could become more important should countries begin imposing these requirements, but he also points to the most noteworthy benefits being those which relate to the movement of professionals. This arrangement offers greater legal certainty on temporary entry routes for UK businesspeople conducting “fly in, fly out” commercial activities, transfers to branches or subsidiaries, and supplying services as part of contracts or as self- employed entrepreneurs. The schedules of specific commitments in this field are broader than under GATS and cover more categories of personnel.
I conclude by welcoming the report, which has stimulated a very interesting debate in your Lordships’ House. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I am delighted that we can keep our own laws, trade on our own terms, and promote free markets, competition and the ties that come with trading. Yes, we have bilateral arrangements with most of the existing parties, but I point out to the committee that that is not to say that these cannot be bettered under the new CPTPP. These are baseline rollover FTAs that we have inherited from the EU, but this is the next phase of trade. As noble Lords have noted, this is a dynamic, forward-looking trade treaty and for us to join it and help to shape it in the years to come is not only great for this country but will be great for other developing economies.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, like every other speaker, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the chair of the International Agreements Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for enabling it. I also thank them for enabling us to talk about the importance of the CPTPP and the way in which it will deliver for the entire United Kingdom, including all the devolved authorities.
I want to address specifically the geographical context of the UK’s accession and the future role of the CPTPP, as well as how to ensure that British business is fully engaged with it. Before doing so, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests, particularly my work for the bank, HSBC.
On the geographical situation at play, I do not think I need to remind anyone in this Chamber that we live in the most uncertain of times—times in which the security of the UK, the values we stand for, and the peace more generally are constantly threatened and eroded. We must therefore always be conscious of the fact that trade is a powerful tool at our disposal, not only for holding back rogue states but for enabling us to play an active role in the geographical landscape of the future. It is right to point out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that we are now at a stage where world free trade is under attack like it has never been before. Therefore, organisations such as the CPTPP help to ensure that free trade continues to be at the forefront.
We have entered the CPTPP from a position of strength. As the report before your Lordships’ House explains, the UK is now the second-largest economy within the CPTPP after Japan, and the sixth-largest economy globally. This provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to shape the future of the trading alliance. Therefore, as we contemplate the expansion of the CPTPP, it is of vital importance to the UK that we play a significant role in confronting the future challenges of the trading bloc and standing up for the values that we protected and promoted in our accession last year.
As I have said in the House before, the CPTPP represents a significant milestone in the UK’s ambitious plan to promote free trade and economic co-operation in the post-Brexit world and the post-Covid landscape that we find ourselves in. It is also an important ingredient in the Indo-Pacific tilt policy of the UK—that has been talked about quite a bit today, but it is always worth reminding ourselves that this group of countries represents large populations, growing economies and growing middle classes. All the ingredients of growth in the 21st century lie within the countries in the CPTPP.
I believe that the CPTPP is a true deliverer and a meaningful benefit to UK trade. We should generally be supportive of allowing other nations to join the bloc and to do so in a way similar to that in which we recently have done. That said, expanding membership of the CPTPP poses unique and complex hurdles and, against the changing geographical landscape, the situation demands that the Government provide careful consideration that allocates greater risk analysis when considering the UK’s support for any nation wishing to join in the future.
That has become even more difficult and complex. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, drew our attention to the fact that there is no standing secretariat, as there is in the EU, for example. It is very much left to the rotating chairmanship to lead on these issues, and therefore it is important that the UK thinks carefully about the negotiating team that we already have and that has taken us this far. We should think about whether we continue to keep that negotiating team as a live operational part of DBT, or whether it is just to be disbanded so that, next year, when we start thinking about another country, we have to scrabble around trying to find the right officials to do the work. This is a serious issue to which serious thought has to be given.
A primary challenge and concern is the mechanism that the Government will use to ensure alignment among new members with our existing principles and standards, which we fought for in this agreement. The CPTPP embodies a commitment to high standards in areas such as labour rights, environmental protection, intellectual property rights and market access. Protecting and enhancing these rights is fundamental to the UK’s accession, and I would therefore be keen to understand from my noble friend the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that any potential new member state can demonstrate a genuine commitment to upholding these standards.
I note that several of the countries cited as potential new members would surely be required to undertake significant domestic reforms and adjustments to be able to meet our standards. I therefore seek assurances from the Government that we have in place the necessary resources to ensure that the future accession of any state would never leave the United Kingdom in a situation in which our standards could be inadvertently weakened. The UK could utilise and leverage our not insignificant soft power in helping some of the nations mentioned in the report to undergo the transformative domestic reforms needed to aid their accession to the CPTPP. I hope that the Government actively get engaged in this area. Apart from anything else, there are also enormous commercial opportunities for companies in that space.
As we navigate the complex landscape of international trade, especially at a time when the established world trade order is being actively ignored by some actors, it is important that we uphold the core values that define us as a nation and that our trade policy upholds and safeguards our security interests. We must therefore ensure that the accession of other nations is always considered under the magnifying lens of our values and approached with careful consideration of protecting our national security interest. History has demonstrated that trading blocs such as the CPTPP have a vital role to play in providing stability. In a world which is sadly characterised by shifting power dynamics, regional tensions and emerging security threats, we cannot afford to forget that it is through agreements such as this that we will foster stability.
I am also keen to receive assurances from my noble friend that, when considering potential accession applications of other states in future, this Government stand ready and are sufficiently resourced to ensure that no country will be allowed to join the bloc if it runs the risk of undermining our values. As other nations seek to join, we must make sure that the United Kingdom plays an active and early role in weighing up their compatibility with our stake in the agreement. It is important that any country wishing to join the bloc demonstrates how its participation is fully aligned with our values of individual liberty and respect for human rights. By staying true to these principles, we can ensure that the CPTPP remains a force for good and a testament to the values that we hold dear. These values should be non-negotiable.
Following our accession to the CPTPP, it is not good enough simply to rest on our laurels. We have already heard some of the criticism made by witnesses of the ability to get information. We must work and shape this agreement to meet the demands of the changing world. I put it to noble Lords that, in engaging in the expansion and evolution of the CPTPP, we can assert our influence on shaping the rules and norms governing international trade more widely. It is integral to the protection and safeguarding of our national interests that we not only take up this role but do so quickly.
I turn to UK business. As I and others in your Lordships’ House and the committee have mentioned before, it is imperative that UK SMEs remain fully engaged in the process of shaping our future relations because it is through their active involvement that this relationship will be able to return benefit to the UK. I therefore welcome the update in the report which highlights how the
“Department for Business and Trade has started to engage with business through a number of online initiatives to address these issues”.
However, I concur with the committee’s view that online initiatives alone are not enough and that we have to be proactive and have an in-person approach. On that point, I thank the Minister for his work, because people often underestimate just how important visiting Ministers are for British trade. Unless British Ministers go to those countries, banging the drum and creating opportunity, we will not get the benefits that we so deserve from this. I thank him, because I know that he goes out and does that a lot.
Free trade must be protected and the CPTPP helps us with that. I am sure that, by navigating the challenges ahead, making sure that future partners align with our values and getting out there and showing that we can be a major player in this, we can have an even stronger relationship.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will speak in the gap. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the committee on an excellent and timely report and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on presenting it. I will focus on points made by the noble Baroness and others on the parts relating to sanitary and phytosanitary agreements—or, as I would call them, food safety measures. This follows neatly on from what my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister said.
While I welcome this agreement, it is important to realise that the loss of trade since leaving the European Union will have an ongoing cost to our GDP of 4% per annum. That is the background against which we must judge every free trade agreement that we consider.
I will raise with the Minister the implications of this agreement for farming and food security. Clearly, it is in the interests of the UK to accede to this partnership agreement given the current insecurity to food supplies due to hostilities in Ukraine and the Middle East. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements; it is extremely important to say again, as we did when the original international trade arrangements were put in place when we left the European Union, that it is incumbent on our farmers to produce agricultural goods and food to the highest possible levels of animal welfare and food hygiene standards.
There have been recent reports of a pause in the discussions with Canada, which were pulled for reasons which all of us, particularly the farming community, can understand. What is the current position of our relationship with Canada in the context of the CPTPP? I understand that the agreement on our massive exports of cheese to Canada, which is so important to cheese producers in this country, is coming to an end. Can my noble friend outline what will happen when that occurs?
Finally, what is the position on the dispute-resolution mechanism that is available under the agreement? In the circumstances to which my noble friend Lord Udny- Lister referred, where there are differentials between food safety standards in this country, which we are imposing on our producers, and imports from partners under the CPTPP, what can our producers do if there is an eventual conflict? Otherwise, I support this agreement.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, as this debate has moved rather faster than I anticipated, I beg leave to speak very briefly on one point in the gap. I thank noble Lords who have commented on this report and my noble friend Lady Hayter for introducing it. She raised the interest that Parliament has in treaties—not just trade treaties but all treaties—which I want to underline.
My noble friend made the point, and I entirely agree, that Parliament has limited levers to deal with treaties which the Government have entered into. The CRaG process provides some of those levers but they are limited, and if, for example, the Government do not play ball, they do not work. For example, only the House of Commons has the ability actually to delay the ratification of the treaty, but in order to do that it needs a debate, and to have a debate it needs to have the leave of business managers in the Commons to find the time for that. A debate has been refused in the Commons in relation to the Rwanda treaty, so that is not taking place.
For our own part, we were fortunate to have a debate on Rwanda—and everyone knows what result that reached—but we have not had a response to the resolution from this House during the time that is required. I got a letter from the Home Secretary, plainly written by his officials, who put it in terms that it was my expectation that he would respond to that report by 17 March. It was not my expectation; it is the rule of this House that, when committees make reports, they are responded to by the Government in a certain amount of time. It is unfortunate that that still has not happened. I have written to him again and asked for a response. I do not think there is going to be one; the Rwanda treaty will obviously now be swept up with the Bill.
I believe it is important that Parliament has an interest in treaties, expresses its view and scrutinises those treaties. To do that, it needs to be allowed to use the levers which Parliament itself has created. That is the only point I wanted to make, and I thank the House for listening to me.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great and unexpected pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whose points I very much reinforce from these Benches. This has been a great debate, with some excellent speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, should once again be congratulated on stepping back up to the plate and giving an excellent summary of the committee’s report.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, entreated us to be more enthusiastic. Happily, the overall average level of enthusiasm was raised massively by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which leaves me to be my normal self.
I am a member of this committee, as were several of today’s speakers, so it is not sensible for me to reiterate the entire debate. I will focus on a few points. As we heard, the committee broadly welcomes the accession of the UK to the CPTPP and any additional economic benefits that might result from new market access to Malaysia and Brunei. However, the committee also acknowledges the limited economic gains suggested by current projections, and indeed by the Government’s own impact assessment.
There are opportunities for UK manufacturers, but, equally, member countries that are geographically closer to each other might find it easier to develop those integrated supply chains that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, hinted at. When I talk to businesses, I certainly find that they absolutely prefer closer customers when making and exporting things. Clearly, when a market is 60 miles away, it is a heck of a lot easier than when it is several thousand miles away.
I have a couple of specific points. I should note that I am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Motor Group. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned the automotive industry. The industry has welcomed the side letter signed with Malaysia, which essentially allows for 25% reciprocal regional content for products under a particular heading. That means there is a very high chance that content from these products, particularly engines or batteries, will originate from somewhere else—probably China. This is applicable in both directions between Malaysia and the UK, but it is something that your Lordships and the Government should keep an eye on. I suggest that there are other issues, such as non-tariff issues, around those particular products coming from somewhere outside, including future carbon border regulations and existing issues such as environmental impact and forced labour. A door has been opened and we should police that door quite carefully.
The committee was concerned about Northern Ireland’s direct trade with CPTPP countries, taking the view that it is likely to face restrictions that will not affect the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, as a committee, we have requested further information on the Government’s view of what they expect those restrictions to be and ways in which they may be avoided.
The committee welcomes the CPTPP’s provisions on services, while acknowledging that the benefits may be even more limited than the Government have suggested. In particular, it notes the lack of provision on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which is a key issue on services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned.
It remains to be seen whether the Government’s intended trade benefits will materialise, and here the noble Lord, Lord Marland, hit the nail on the head. The future development of this treaty will be key to how much benefit the United Kingdom can have. Going forward, we should focus on digital services, professional services, and environmental goods and services, because these are the things from which we can benefit. I too join in asking the Government for their analysis of how committed the other partners are to making these substantive changes to the treaty, and how they will go about driving those changes which would so benefit the upside of this treaty.
The committee welcomes the provisions of the accession protocol which avoid threatening the European Patent Convention. It was very important that this was done; it was good work, and it remains an important part.
It also welcomes the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the joint statement on the environment. These respectively state that UK food and drink rules, as well as environmental protections, do not have to change as a result of CPTPP accession. However, the committee notes the concerns raised by witnesses regarding the UK import of palm oil.
Building on a point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Bennett, I draw attention to the evidence of LSE assistant professor of law, Dr Leonelli, who argued that the CPTPP chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—measures could see UK regulators pressured into recognising other countries’ less stringent food safety standards, or other SPS standards, as equivalent to our own. This is a point that has been made. Unlike the UK’s trade arrangements with Australia and New Zealand, the CPTPP’s arrangement does not specify that the final judgment on SPS equivalence rests with the importing party. Instead, further state-to-state dispute settlement does not apply to the SPS chapters with Australia and New Zealand but does apply to the CPTPP. Again, this raises the point about how the Government intend to address the potential risk of equivalence provisions leading to regulatory chill, as we have heard. It would really help our understanding of that to know the Government’s approach to ISDS, which appears to flip and flop depending on which trade deal is being negotiated.
The committee raised the importance of workers’ terms and conditions and called on the Government to monitor closely the employment practices of our CPTPP partners and to be prepared to act should they identify issues. Can the Minister please confirm that this will indeed be done?
How will this best benefit UK plc? Our evidence suggests that the Government do not currently have an adequate plan for promoting CPTPP opportunities. We heard from a number of your Lordships concerns about the extent to which businesses in general and SMEs in particular will take advantage of what the treaty has to offer. The report sets out many recommendations as to how the Minister’s department should go about helping business, especially SMEs, to tap into the potential that there is. I believe that the Minister has taken note of this, and it will be important for him to suggest that he did.
I am very pleased that the Minister is here today. As I have suggested, he sometimes takes the hyperbolic end of the enthusiasm scale, so I entreat him to adopt—which I think he will—a realistic approach to the treaty. Even if UK business is effectively activated and increases its trading with CPTPP partners, the actual economic effect on UK GDP is vanishingly small, as we heard from many, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. We know that the Pacific bloc has been growing quickly and faster than other blocs; I agree with my noble friend Lord Purvis that that is most likely on the back of Chinese growth, so we will see what happens going forward. But we also know that we all expect—as do the Government—to have a very tiny share of that growth. We will have only a tiny proportion of what has already been lost by leaving the EU’s huge single market. It is close to two orders of magnitude smaller: 1% of what we have lost.
In truth, if joining the CPTPP is anything, it could be seen as a statement of intent, rather than an actual deal that creates significant trade. What is that statement? A phrase that has come up on a number of occasions and is laced throughout government comments is “a tilt to the Pacific”. What does that mean? There is little supporting material beyond that soundbite to help us to understand the consequences of that tilt and whether it is beneficial to the United Kingdom. It has been said that there is potential for the CPTPP to be a forum for engagement with partners in the Indo-Pacific—despite its primary function being a free trade agreement with no secretariat and little structure. If that is the case, how will that work? Would not something such as the RCEP be a better version of that?
The integrated review and the integrated review refresh are no help, as they lack any detail on how the Government intend to utilise the CPTPP in a geostrategic manner. Therefore, the committee asks for further detail on how the Government expect membership of the CPTPP to contribute to the delivery of their geopolitical strategic aims for the region. I add: what are those aims? Several of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, have mentioned the accession of new countries to the group. On the issue of China, to date, Ministers have ducked and dived to avoid answering questions on the Government’s position. At some point soon, it will be time for the Government to spell out their approach to the accession of other countries, including China and Taiwan, which my noble friend mentioned, and to confirm a role for Parliament in any negotiations for new countries to accede to the treaty.
Perhaps one question that the Minister can tackle, without breaching others, is whether it is the department’s understanding that the current applicants may be tackled in any order, irrespective of the order in which they lodged their application to join, or whether there is a first-in, first-considered understanding with partners. For Parliament, the Government should at least offer the same process of consultation that they would for a new, stand-alone FTA partner—that is a CraG-related process.
Overall, as we have heard, the committee reiterates the need for the Government to publish a trade policy that sets out defined priorities in areas of benefit to the UK. The UK needs to have a coherently formulated trade and investment policy that is recognised as an integral part of a wider industrial and trade strategy focused on competitiveness and productivity. That wider policy must shape trade policy, as the two work together.
In conclusion, I return to the phrase, “a tilt to the Pacific”. Fellow members of the committee will recall that I have a problem—quite a big problem—with it. We all know that a tilt—or, indeed, “a pivot”, which is used interchangeably—is a zero-sum game. Any tilt towards something is accompanied by a tilt away from something else. In geostrategy terms, is that really the message that the Government intend to communicate? If it is, and if the CPTPP is indeed a tilt towards the Pacific, can the Minister explain which regions and countries we are tilting away from and why?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, like many others who have spoken, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and to the International Agreements Committee for its contribution to this debate and its members’ tireless work on this matter and so many others. On these Benches, we support the accession to the CPTPP. I echo the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, about the energy, the exuberance, the drive and the openness of the Minister, Lord Johnson of Lainston, in these discussions.
In our debates on CPTPP accession over the last year, we have made our concerns clear—at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—about the threats of ISDS provisions and the need to safeguard our own food standards and environmental protections while also ensuring that other nations comply with international labour laws and other best practices. The committee’s report echoes our opinion on the limited financial impact of the CPTPP, noting that it was “underwhelmed” by the specific trade benefits. As my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town said, we have sought to ensure that what is, in reality, a modest change in our ability to do trade does not come at the expense of our ability to regulate and maintain our own high standards. I am glad that, throughout our debates, the Minister was able to make several assurances to this House and in Grand Committee. He said in one reply that such amendments were
“unnecessary because we are doing this anyway”
and that he
“would be surprised—that is the language I wish to use—if the evaluation and monitoring reports did not cover information on … ISDS cases”
and other relevant issues. He went on to say that
“an overview of the work of the committees under the agreement to facilitate co-operation and implementation … is particularly relevant when it comes to labour standards, environmental standards, reduction of the risk of deforestation and many other areas”.—[Official Report, 16/1/24; cols. 362-63.]
Those are the Minister’s words, and we will come back to them when we look through the evaluation and monitoring reports and the areas they cover. I sincerely hope that the effects will be positive, as the Minister has repeatedly assured us.
The report raises a number of important issues, a few of which I will reiterate and drill down on. The Federation of Small Businesses rightly makes the point that a significant barrier to the UK taking full advantage of new free trade agreements remains a lack of knowledge and capacity among small and medium-sized enterprises. I echo its and the committee’s recommendation that the department engage a CPTPP taskforce with undertaking a regional roadshow aimed at engaging businesses, demystifying aspects such as rules of origin provisions, and raising awareness of how companies and businesses might take advantage of this new trade deal when it is finally acceded to at the end of this year after the last country accepts us in.
The current system, which effectively requires businesses to seek out information from government, does not do enough in itself to stimulate trade. Although, in his oral evidence to the committee, the Minister said he was “agnostic” about how best to approach cutting through to business, I hope he becomes a believer in the recommendations from the FSB and the committee. Small businesses face far too many barriers to trade. That is why I was glad when the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced in November that Labour will be working in collaboration with the Federation of Small Businesses, the FSB, as part of a small business export task force to find practical ways in which we can best support SMEs in their desire to access foreign markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, touched on Dr Leonelli of the LSE and I want to echo the concerns she raised giving evidence to the committee on sanitary and phytosanitary controls. She spoke of the possibility that the threat of dispute settlement provisions may lead to our high standards not being enforced due to fears of legal action. This was raised many times both in Committee and on Report. Like the IA committee, I would like to see the Government set out how they intend to address the threat, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, of regulatory chill, where our Government or companies make decisions not to push forward for fear of being challenged by other Governments.
I was glad that the report echoes the point that I and many others have made in the House about ISDS and the threats to the environment, such as deforestation in Malaysia as a result of palm oil production. In particular, it echoes the points on labour standards and the fact that arbitration does not concern itself with breaches of any workers’ rights, but only focuses very narrowly on where a breach has impacted trade and the effect that that had on workers’ rights. That is just wrong. The focus on pure trade over labour standards is something that we on these Benches find deeply unsettling.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, touched on CRaG. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, specifically talked about the other place not having a Rwanda debate. I understand that, in the Commons, the Secretary of State previously promised a CRaG debate and the Minister of State in the other place promised one in the Bill Committee, but the leader in the Commons has just confirmed that there will be no such debate on the CPTPP. Time, through the managers down the other end, has not been made available. If we are going to properly debate and deal with these issues, time needs to be available, both in this House and in the Commons for the debates to take place.
I also wish to raise concerns made by my colleagues in the other place about the vote on the substantive Motion. At each stage of the debates in this House and in debates on other agreements, there has been a call from across the political Benches—from Cross-Benchers, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens—for proper substantive debates on trade deals. The words the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, used about scrutiny, being able to shine a light and actually giving the department itself a greater ability to push back in negotiations, are wise words. This is something that we should look to enhance and deal with, rather than leaving—we all understand why the finer details of the negotiations need to take place behind closed doors—the setting of the parameters. Whether this is at the start of the discussions or monitoring them as we follow through the discussions, it should be before we are given a fait accompli, as we have been in so many cases. It is so important.
I will finish by again thanking the IAC and the seven members of the committee who have spoken today, for their time, consideration and hard work in dealing with the points that were raised in Committee and on Report, and for their deliberations and the report. I look forward to the Minister's response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for the extraordinary, high-quality debate that we have enjoyed today. I hope people at home are watching this discussion, because it is great proof of the value of this House and its contributions.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
They are hopefully crowded around their iPads; the noble Lord should know that we have updated from the old-fashioned wireless—which, of course, we have in my household.
I want to say thank you, genuinely, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I thank the International Agreements Committee for its report. I have a draft set of responses to the report, which will be formulated appropriately and given to the noble Lords as soon as possible. It really was excellent, and I think all the points that the Government have been challenged on are worthy of a response. I am extremely grateful for the mature approach the report took to the value of this trade deal and seeing the optimistic benefits of the CPTPP, within the reasonable framework that we will operate to.
It is possible that noble Lords may hear cheering if they listen carefully, because a few moments ago the Bill was passed in the House of Commons. I am sure we all feel the ripple—the Mexican wave, which is appropriate as it is a CPTPP member—coming down the Corridor to us. Before I go further and answer many noble Lords’ points, I refer Members to my register of interest. I do not believe there are specific conflicts, but I do have interests in CPTPP countries.
I have tried to group the comments made in this important debate and so, if I may, I will go through them. I will try to refer specifically to noble Lords themselves. I will highlight a few individuals, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I congratulate her for giving a succinct and powerful description of the benefits of free trade, which often we forget. It is right that, in a scrutiny environment such as this House, we look at the problems, issues or challenges that might present themselves with a piece of legislation or a new treaty. To have the truly positive case for free trade made so clearly and powerfully is something that I welcome, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his words. Again, he has been a passenger on the free trade express over the last year and a half since I have taken this position. I am extremely grateful for his advice and expert opinion on Japan, and the very positive case that Japan makes in terms of our trade relationship with the CPTPP and the associated benefits we have, both through having a trade agreement and an association with it through this process.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marland, for his very generous comments about our joint efforts to spread the benefits of UK trade around the world. If anyone has the most air miles on these red Benches, it must be a close competition between the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Marland. Both noble Lords are doing such important work, whether in spreading democracy and helping complex situations be resolved, or in pushing the Commonwealth. While this is not a debate about the Commonwealth, it is important to note how many countries that make up CPTPP are Commonwealth members. It is absolutely right that we should use this as further leverage to work with our Commonwealth peers. I will certainly take to my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Marland.
I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his comments as to how we can better manage our trade process. If I may, I will just draw his attention, as someone so distinguished and who lauded the EU’s FTA negotiation process, to the fact that I do not think the EU has done a trade deal in my political lifetime. The most recent one was after a culmination of 17 years of negotiation, and the current ones are all live after many years. We have managed to close this deal in an extremely effective time period.
I turn to the process of CRaG which has been well raised by noble Lords. We made a clear commitment under the Grimstone convention that, if there was time, we would have a debate, and this is exactly what we are doing today. My colleagues and I have made ourselves totally and freely available to engage on every issue. Officials have been extremely open in responding to questions and challenges and I am glad to see some of them here today. I am particular aware of issues, such as SPS protection which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, or agriculture, raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, as well as points made by other speakers on the Front Bench from all parties. I think we have exceeded expectations in the work we have done in order to project that necessary element of debate.
I am not trying to avoid the point, but it is not for me to comment on the activities of the other place. I will leave that to them. It is right to be very comfortable in knowing that any new accession will be equally bound by the CRaG process. This is extremely important. It would be completely unreasonable if that were not the case. The Government have committed to that and I am very comfortable in making a further Front Bench commitment to it.
It is worth touching on some of the sub-issues that have come up in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, wisely raised SPS measures, and comments were made about ISDS. I believe we had a discussion earlier in this Chamber about the brevity of speeches and the importance of avoiding repetition, but I am going to have to repeat myself, if I may, and test the patience of noble Lords. There is no derogation. It says so in Hansard. It has been in Hansard before. There should be a collected, bound edition of my repeated statements in Hansard about free trade agreements that do not derogate from the security of our sanitary and phytosanitary provisions. It is very important to be comfortable about this. Hormone- injected beef, chlorinated chicken or dangerous pesticides which are banned here are not allowed into the UK on account of the FTA. This is a matter under our own control. It is important that consumers hear this.
When I talk to people about free trade deals, a lot of them worry that, somehow, this will result in a tidal wave of deadly products. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the UK becoming a dumping ground for dangerous products. Any decision to allow so-called dangerous products into the UK is a matter for the UK Border Agency, the food safety authorities and the Government. If that is the case, it has nothing to do with this FTA, which is important in the sense that it changes our position on tariffs and how we trade with each of the different countries. I just want to reassure noble Lords and the public that nothing will change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To respond briefly to the Minister, of course, there is “allowing”, and there is also what checking is being done to make sure that it does not happen anyway. That is the kind of checking I was referring to.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The checking is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. We have made a number of assertions. It believes that this FTA will not result in additional risk for it. I do not wish to be contentious. I always listen very closely to the noble Baroness’s comment about free trade. We do not share the same views on its benefits. I listened to her very carefully and I noticed that at no point did she mention the principle of the consumer. I am particularly focused on making sure that the consumer benefits from these free trade deals—that they see prices come down and the range of products broaden.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the concept of proximity being at the core of trade. For many goods, it is right and in fact efficient to have a proximous concept of trade. I think of the idea of swapping beef herds, in terms of practicality—although I think we sell better beef than the Australians, and certainly more specialist types—so there is a market in that sense. However, if we look at investment, which is an important element of the CPTPP, our two biggest investment partners in terms of growth and current value are the United States and now India. They are clearly not the most proximous countries to the UK, so it is important to understand that, in modern trade, in services, the digital provision of services and financial investment, the world truly is our oyster.
Speaking of investment: the ISDS concern is raised continually. As Investment Minister, I believe that strong investment protections for investors into the UK are at the core of our offering. If, at any point, investors felt that their investment rights would be derogated, it would be much harder for all of us—and whoever stands in my place as Investment Minister—to get the vital money that we need for our infrastructure into this country. These ISDS provisions are enormously beneficial for us. I feel totally safe in offering them to other countries. I do not believe that there is any derogation of our ability to manage our economy, our ambitions for net zero, how we treat our workforce or any other measure. Investing in these CPTPP countries protects our businesses, particularly in countries such as Malaysia where we now have these protections.
That brings me briefly to the services point—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I entirely agree with the Minister about ISDS. Will he confirm that ISDS will be in any trade deal we sign with India?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
This is not in my notes. I cannot confirm what will be in our trade deal with India. I stress the importance of protecting our investor base when we invest internationally. It is right that the services principle has been raised. One of the most effective elements of the CPTPP treaty revolves around our agricultural access, where there is a high degree of compatibility between what we produce and what these markets want, as there is with goods. Noble Lords have raised this on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised the point about the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which particularly welcomes the relationship with Malaysia, where there is a different tariff approach. The rules of origin will simplify a lot of activity when we come to work with these countries. We do a lot of manufacturing trade with countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and other CPTPP countries.
Services are the future. Some 80% of our economy and its growth are structured around services. The services chapters in the CPTPP can go further. This is a living agreement. We will build on the chapters, particularly on digital, that allow us to expand our services access. There are important basic building blocks around professional qualification recognition and plans to develop this effectively, to promote collaboration between professional qualification providers. It promotes collaboration between regulators. It allows for more effective business mobility, which is important. Someone who is posted to Canada on a work contract can take their spouse. There is first-time access and security for business mobility in countries such as Malaysia and Brunei, as well as other opportunities, such as transportation in Chile, and a number of other key points relating to digital provision and preventing data localisation. These all sound quite technical but are very important in firing the starting gun on further discussions.
A number of Peers, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Kerr and Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have mentioned that these further discussions are encapsulated around a general review. This is a useful mechanism for us to participate in before we become a full member, as we are doing. This conversation will certainly include how to build on the services offering that is in the CPTPP. We welcome it. Our teams will be fully dedicated to it.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Marland, looked at the secretariat which will help us in these negotiations. I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I have missed any who also made this point. We have 14 full- time personnel who are part of the negotiating team and who now make up the CPTPP unit within the Department for Business and Trade. As I understand it, they are permanent and will not be moved to negotiate another deal. They will stay, I hope, to focus on making sure that we have a close relationship with the CPTPP countries. If a permanent secretariat is developed in the coming years, they would feed into that.
We want this organisation to grow, have deep roots and be strong for the future. I do not know what the plans are relating to the secretariat, but these are always live conversations, and of course we will feed in where appropriate. Once we become a full member, we will be able to put our platform forward with more vigour.
A question which is oft raised is how the department promotes the CPTPP to small businesses. I am very pleased that there is an SME chapter in the CPTPP; it is important, because it helps all economies focus on how they can help small and medium-sized enterprises to make the most of the CPTPP. This is at the core of all the economies that are participating in the treaty.
I am aware of the difficulty in promoting quite a complex treaty principle—there are rules of origin and comparable treaties, as we have treaties with many of these countries already, so it is not necessarily clear sometimes which treaty you should use, and you have to pick which of the two. We have done a great deal of work to ensure that our online access is powerful enough to enable people to make these decisions. We have a unit which specialises in promoting our free trade agenda and the treaties that we have signed up to. It has run a number of workshops. We need to work with the Chambers of Commerce to make sure that we get the message out.
I am totally aware of the need to ensure that this is a success, and I welcome the challenge. Crucially, the department sees it as part of its conceptual and fundamental mission. This Government want to be proud of their post-Brexit vision of Britain. Therefore, it is up to us to ensure that we deliver, by making the necessary noise to get as many businesses involved, both in exporting and in taking advantage of this treaty.
I hope I have covered the majority of the points raised. I am always comfortable coming back to noble Lords and the committee. Again, I congratulate the committee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work they do and the high degree of collaboration that they have with me.
On the question of our trade policy, people hunt for a matrix or template of what tomorrow holds. Looking back on our accession to the CPTPP, I am reminded that it has been likened to the next-door neighbour’s cat with a cough—I cannot remember quite what the quote was from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. But I think this is a lion that will roar. Think of the rather extraordinary counterintuitive decision to say that we are going to pivot—that we had a relationship with the European Union and are now going to look for bigger and better relationships around the rest of the world. That is exactly the sort of economic decision that a good businessperson would take. Unquestionably, there is no derogation in the need to have the highest-quality trading relationship with our European neighbours, but where is the future? That is the point.
If you asked any of the next generation coming through—some of them are in this Chamber today—they would say that we should look to Asia and the growing populations. My noble friend Lady Lawlor rightly pointed to the astonishing levels of growth coming from those economies. In this country, for a politician, Cabinet Minister or Prime Minister—the leadership in this great nation of ours—to decide to go for the Pacific in this way and join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is an astounding jump of the mind that I am sure previous senior mandarins of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be aghast at—such out-of-the-box thinking.
I am enormously proud to have been party to bringing this legislation through this House and promoting it with all noble Lords in this place. If I can repeat them, the countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Peru, Singapore, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia and Mexico. We are proud to join that phenomenal cohort. I am excited about the future and very positive about the opportunities that this trade treaty will bring. In my view, it will far outstrip the predictions made by everyone in this House, and even the Government themselves. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the speakers. It has been an excellent debate. The Minister referred to people watching it at home—I do not know whether he was referring just to my husband and his wife, but there may be others as well.
There has been in the debate a broad welcome for our membership, whether because it is a post-Brexit use of our freedoms or because of its real potential, particularly in services. Some talked about there being a very positive welcome, and some were wholly enthusiastic—but that has all now been trumped by a roar from the Minister, who calls it “astounding”. We will see. Some others have raised questions and wanted reassurances over ISDS or the need for a secretariat. What is sure is that trade deals are only enablers; they are not engines of growth. Businesses will have to be helped and assisted if they are to make those hopes into a reality. We will look to the Government for their role in that.
The partnership’s very future will be important, including its membership, scope and implementation. Noble Lords talked about the UK helping to shape that development—one of them even said lead that development. Whatever happens, I hope that Parliament can be involved in the direction of travel, including on the question of expansion of membership. As my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said, if the Government do not play ball, even the current CRaG will not work. Some of us want it to go further and be improved, to give Parliament real grip over international agreements.
I cannot mention everyone who has spoken, but I would like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Marland. He urged the House to let the report do the speaking. I thank the committee chair, the members who did the work and the secretariat, led by Rhiannon Williams, and assisted on this by Bruce Sinclair and Sophie Andrews-McCarroll. I think all of us know that, when we get a good report, it is mostly their pens that have done it, rather than our brain power. I thank the House for its attention today and commend the report to the House.
Extremism Definition and Community Engagement
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, hateful extremism threatens the safety of our communities and the unity of our country. It is a serious problem demanding a serious response. When it comes to national security, the threat of radicalisation and the scourge of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism or any other corrosive hatred, the whole House can and should stand together. I welcome that the Statement addresses concerns about the dangers facing our elected representatives. We can all agree that nobody who has stepped up to take on a role as an act of public service should find themselves facing threats or harassment as a result, either to themselves or to their families and staff.
However, I have some questions. As far back as 7 June 2011, the then Conservative Home Secretary told the other place:
“If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, participation in society … we will not work with them and we will not fund them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/11; col. 53.]
What has been happening between 2011 and now? Have Ministers been engaging with groups that they now regard as extremist?
I welcome that the Statement says strongly and clearly that the diversity of our country makes us stronger. I agree wholeheartedly with that. We all need to show that we mean it. The way in which the Government do this work matters and the language that we all use is important. At a time when we face the risk of real division in our communities, it is crucial that all of us in politics avoid fanning the flames of division any further.
Labour will want to scrutinise the Government’s plans in this area, as in any other, but if Ministers behave responsibly then we will engage in good faith. However, given the sensitivities of these issues, it was unhelpful that, before the Statement was finally made to Parliament, we had to endure days of briefing, and inevitably speculation, about the scope of the new definition and who might be covered by it.
There was a longer debate on this Statement when Michael Gove made it in another place, and I do not propose to revisit all the arguments made there, but I think this House would like to understand more about exactly what the Government propose to do. If the means by which it is decided that an organisation meets the criteria in the new definition is to be truly evidence-led, the process must be robust and be allowed to take its course. The nature of that process is, at least to me, still rather opaque.
I have some questions about how the definition will work in practice. How will the new centre of excellence operate and how it will be resourced? Who will take the decision to declare that an organisation meets the definition of extremism, and is that decision subject to appeal? Can the Minister confirm that this will apply only to central government and not to local or regional government or devolved Administrations? Is it intended that it will apply, now or at any later stage, to other public bodies or to services such as the police or universities? What is happening with the appointment of a new Islamophobia adviser?
I have talked to people from a number of groups from different faith communities, many of whom are worried that they may find themselves caught by this new definition. The Statement says that the definition
“will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups or those exercising their proper right to free speech”.
Can the Minister say any more about which groups it will affect, and on what basis the Government have chosen to draw the line?
I have a few more questions. We all know there has been a huge surge in online extremism. What action is being taken across government to assess and confront online hate? Will the Government be publishing a new cross-government counter-extremism strategy, given that the last one is now very out of date? Will it include action to rebuild the resilience and cohesion of our communities? What new funding will there be in this area and what will be done to invest in multi-faith dialogue? Given the appalling surge in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in recent months, will we soon see an updated hate crime action plan?
To tackle extremism we need to work with people of good will at all levels. The Statement says that DLUHC has been working with faith groups, civil society and local councils. All of those have a crucial role to play in tackling extremism, but as shadow Faith Minister, I talk to a lot of faith groups and I have no idea which were consulted or what the results of that consultation were. Can the Minster tell us more about the consultation and its findings?
We all agree that we need strong action to tackle the corrosive forms of hatred that devastate lives and damage our communities. This is a moment when politicians must take firm action, but it is also a moment when we need to be statesmen and stateswomen. We should remember the words of the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who warned that, against the backdrop of growing divisions, it is for political leaders to provide “a conciliatory tone” and to
“pursue policies that bring us together, not risk driving us apart”.
Keir Starmer has made it clear that if Ministers behave responsibly, if they reach out to other parties to seek to build consensus, rather than using the issue for party gain in a pre-election period, we will engage in good faith. I hope the Minister can give us good assurances on this front. I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, most of whose wise words I agree with. I am grateful to the Minister for our meeting earlier.
The majority of us agree that hateful extremism and hate crimes threaten society and the safety of our communities and undermine social cohesion. I will speak quite plainly today. The Government’s new non-statutory definition of extremism has not been universally welcomed or embraced, and it has created concerns that it will be used disproportionately to target British Muslim communities and organisations that the Government of the day may disagree with.
Singling out a number of mainstream law-abiding British Muslim organisations that have contributed to society over many years sets a dangerous precedent, undermining democracy, religious freedoms and free speech. I echo the words of the noble Baroness about the leaking and briefing that has been taking place over the last few weeks. It was briefed that, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain could be the sort of extremist organisation that the Government must have nothing to do with. The MCB is the UK’s largest Muslim umbrella group. Many of us know and respect its first female secretary-general, the dynamic Zara Mohammed. It is an umbrella group with more than 500 affiliated members, including mosques, schools and charitable organisations. Are the Government saying that they are to be labelled as possible extremists? This can serve only to smear groups and individuals. How will the Government address these concerns, in order to counter fear and division? As we have heard, online extremism is on the rise, but surely, smearing organisations and all those who work within them or benefit from them is not the way to bring about social cohesion.
Michael Gove says that his department will establish a civil service centre of excellence. Who will these people be and where will they be drawn from? Will there be transparency? Will they include people who already have displayed intolerant views, such as William Shawcross, whom the Secretary of State describes as the author of the “brilliant” review of Prevent. In 2012, he was quoted as saying:
“Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future”.
It is no wonder that over 400 organisations refused to engage with him on that Prevent review.
What evidence-based threshold will be applied by this new centre of excellence, especially when compiling lists of organisations and guidance? Will any of these organisations have the right to appeal any decision? It is disappointing that the Secretary of State seems to have ignored civil liberties groups. As we have heard, three former Home Secretaries are against politicising such an important issue. I would also like to know who was consulted in drawing up this definition of extremism.
In the past few years, the Government have refused to recognise or accept a definition of Islamophobia, despite it now being widely adopted across civil society and by all other political parties. They said that they would come up with their own definition. In the past week, they have had problems in condemning racism and misogyny in respect of Diane Abbott. There was even a debate on whether making such hateful remarks constituted racism. Yet they are promoting this new definition of extremism with apparently little reference to minority communities, who have seen a massive increase in racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other hate crimes.
The respected race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust, described the definition as an “attack on civil society”. It went on to say that it has
“bypassed parliamentary scrutiny and will likely shut down organisations supporting people of colour, who are critical of the government of the day … This definition governs what people are thinking, rather than doing, and will likely silence those who oppose the govt’s position, for example on pro-Palestinian marches and critical race theory. Muslim groups and orgs supporting people of colour will be targeted as a result”.
This is the perception outside, and I have been contacted by numerous faith groups and other community groups who are concerned that, instead of people being brought together, the seeds of division are being sown.
Can the Minister please respond to the concerns I have raised? Does she agree that we need a commitment to bring unity and not division to our society? We certainly need more inter-faith dialogue, not less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, and I appreciate the co-operation being shown here today. But as the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said in his Oral Statement in the other place last week, the UK is facing a rising threat of extremism. The 7 October terrorist attacks in Israel, the aftermath in Gaza and the domestic implications have sharpened our focus on countering radicalisation.
My department has announced that it is publishing a new definition of extremism, which we are discussing today, and a set of cross-government engagement standards to be housed in a new centre of excellence on counter-extremism. To date, the Government’s approach to countering radicalisation has focused on preventing people being drawn into terrorism. However, we have not yet taken a comprehensive and strategic approach to preventing a wider cohort of people being radicalised into extremism. Hence, these are vital interventions at this challenging time, and the Government must ensure that they have the tools they need to tackle this ever-evolving threat. I really am grateful for that cross-party support.
I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hussein-Ece, that the announcement is the culmination of a concerted cross-government endeavour, bolstered by the expertise of external agencies and practitioners. The ways in which extremist agendas are pursued have evolved since extremism was first defined by government in 2011. As such, government’s approach must evolve, too.
The new definition of extremism seeks to limit the advancement of extreme ideologies and ensure that open debate can take place unfettered by those who seek to exploit our freedoms—or, indeed, overturn them. The new definition is more specific, allowing us to better target extremists in this changing landscape while avoiding unnecessary overstep into public debate and the freedom of expression. This has always been a tricky balance but, with clear thresholds and thorough guidance, I hope that we can support the first duty of government to keep citizens safe and the country secure.
The definition will capture only those individuals, organisations and groups that are driven by ideologies of hatred, violence or intolerance and intend to negate or destroy our fundamental rights, overturn or undermine our democracy, or intentionally provide a platform for those that do. I appreciate that the speakers agree with that premise. Importantly, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, the definition does not capture those who advocate for democratic change to rights and freedoms and does not seek to restrict lawful protest or debate.
Community engagement is a fundamental part of the work of UK ministerial government departments. We are proud to engage with groups and individuals from across the country, with charities and community organisations and directly with local people. Our external engagement can strengthen our democracy, our policy-making and our society, and we agree with the Benches opposite that nothing should weaken this legitimate engagement with our communities. However, through the independent review of Prevent, we know that, if best practice is not followed, the UK Government’s engagement with communities and external groups can inadvertently provide a platform, funding or legitimacy for individuals, organisations or groups that oppose our shared values. If we do not tackle this, this allows extremists of all ideologies—this is not aimed at one part of society—to exert greater influence and be legitimised and publicly emboldened.
To ensure that we maximise the many benefits of engagement and minimise the risks, the definition is being published alongside a set of community engagement principles that central government departments will be expected to consider when undertaking external engagement or providing funding. These will enable officials to make carefully considered, risk-based judgments about the individuals and groups with which they could or should engage. Their implementation across government will ultimately enhance and, I hope, broaden our external engagement practices.
I can respond to concerns raised by the noble Baronesses about scope. It is focused on central government and does not apply to local authorities or public bodies. However, all local authorities have a duty to ensure that public money is being spent effectively and not wasted or misused and, as such, are expected to undertake their own community engagement and due diligence appropriately and responsibly. The extremism definition is not a statutory definition and does not create new powers but instead helps the Government and our partners to target existing powers better. The definition and principles will apply to engagement, including funding undertaken in England, Scotland and Wales by UK Government ministerial departments. Engagement undertaken in Northern Ireland is exempt due to the unique political and historical circumstances, and the definition of principles does not apply to the engagement undertaken by the devolved Administrations themselves.
I turn to the processes that I was asked about with regard to the centre of excellence. It is important that we tackle the threat of domestic extremism, and we are setting up a counterextremism centre of excellence, which will become a world-leading authority on best practice, data and research in this field. The new centre of excellence will be housed in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and will provide leadership for departments’ operations and implementation of the definition. The cross-government engagement principles and extremism-related due diligence process will in time be the home to new counterextremism assessment and analytical functions and capabilities, as and when the budget and the staff are employed. Since its inception, the team, many members of which have moved over from the Home Office, has been undertaking community engagement in each local authority to get to the heart of the issues our country faces today and explore how we can support these local authorities holistically. In response to the question of who ultimately decides: as joint leader for countering extremism, the DLUHC Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will make the final decision on who will be added to the list. This will be based on the recommendations made using the evidence gathered and analysed by the subject experts.
I was asked whether there would be a right to appeal. During the process of identifying these groups, they will have the opportunity, before things are made public, to provide mitigating evidence, which will then be analysed before a decision is taken. Following publication on a list, if anyone believes our judgment is wrong, as in any case where it is believed that the Government have acted unreasonably, the option of judicial review is always available. Indeed, DLUHC is finalising the process for reviewing the inclusion of names of extremist organisations and groups on the list so that they can come off it in appropriate circumstances. For example, this could be based on a change of position, such as an individual’s, an organisation’s or a group’s efforts to refute or rescind any previously extremist behaviours. We plan to appoint a new, independent anti-Muslim hatred adviser. It is important to get this appointment right, and it is currently going through due process. I hope to update your Lordships very soon. I can confirm that an investigation has been launched into the leaked information as of last week.
While the Government and their partners have worked tirelessly to combat extremism through the updated Prevent and Contest counterterrorism strategies, the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the integrated review, the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks has brought the need for further action into sharper focus. We are trying to put that in place as part of, and accompanying, our broader counterextremism strategy. I hope the Secretary of State will make further announcements regarding this in the coming weeks. I look forward to coming back to this Dispatch Box to update your Lordships’ House imminently on what that strategy will be.
On the hate crime action plan, the Government do not intend to publish a hate crime strategy. We keep our approach to tackling hate crime under constant review, and we remain committed to protecting all our communities from crime. We fund the national online hate crime hub, a central capability designed to support local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. As to whether this will apply to online extremism more broadly, assessing that online activity will be in scope of the definition where the law allows.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hussein-Ece, for their comments and questions on this sensitive issue. I look forward to continued co-operation as we implement this across government and further develop the counterextremism strategy over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this new definition, in particular its focus on protecting our parliamentary democracy. I was pleased to be consulted on it in my role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. It was helpful to hear the Minister set out the process for ensuring that organisations deemed to be extreme and included on the list which emerges have sufficient chance to engage and put their case.
It is worth reminding the House that it was a Labour Communities Secretary who made the decision on non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which has stayed in place for much of the previous 14 to 15 years, on the basis that the then deputy general secretary of that organisation endorsed a call by Hamas for attacks on foreign troops, including British troops, so this has not come out of the blue. Nevertheless, the process of who ends up on the list is really important. Does the Minister have an update on how long the Government anticipate that process taking before a list can be published?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
We are just finalising the criteria regarding how this will be measured, what the metrics are, and how the evidence will be compiled and then decided. As and when that happens, we would expect to complete this within weeks and certainly as quickly as we possibly can.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the proposition that my enemy’s enemy is my friend is probably one of the most wrong-headed and dangerous in politics. I am proud that over the past few years, when the Jewish community marched first against Mr Corbyn and more recently in favour of and to support Israel, we have absolutely rejected the far-right extremists trying to hijack our demonstrations because they think we have a common opponent. That is a completely wrong-headed and dangerous thing to do, because we all know that, ultimately, all extremists want to take us to the same place: to divide communities and to undermine our democratic process. Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that what fundamentally underpins this definition of extremism is a distinction between those who want to work within our democratic process, albeit perhaps to change it, and those who seek to undermine the democratic process, which is the foundation of all civilised debate and safe living for all communities in this country?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Absolutely. I totally agree with my noble friend; I am sure most people in this House do as well. We are in a period of heightened tensions. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate crime levels are at an all-time high. Flags, symbols and graffiti are all causing division and stoking fear locally, and now is the time to tackle this issue head on. The definition tries to ensure that it focuses on extremism that is founded in hatred, violence or intolerance, and which poses a threat to our rights and our freedoms. It does not matter where it comes from: we need to tackle it and try our best to stop it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too believe that this is very important. Clearly it is right that the Government look fully at the risk of extremism. I worry about the definition and some potential unintended consequences. I note the Minister said that organisations that felt they were unfairly affected had recourse to judicial review. Given that this Government have been chuntering about use of judicial review, I am glad to see that they now think that it has a positive benefit.
I want to ask the Minister about one point in the Statement issued by her department, which talks about this work complementing the Government’s updated Prevent guidance. I am puzzled by the guidance issued last year, which lists socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on the Prevent list of terrorism warning signs. A section on the left wing goes on to say:
“Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause”.
I am not sure whether I call myself a socialist. Members of the Labour Party probably would not describe me as a socialist and my local branch definitely would not—it would find other ways to describe me. However, that seems to show some of the risks of Prevent making these quite alarming statements and, because of what Mr Gove has said, their maybe being translated into the extremism definition. I would be grateful if the Minister would at least look at how this relationship will operate.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I certainly will undertake to do that. The sole purpose of bringing this under one umbrella is to ensure that all departments treat this with the same lens. They will have the same evidence- based methodology and the same basis for making decisions, and we will then ensure that that is across all departments. This is the method by which we will bring all that together so that all departments say the same thing and treat people equally.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The New British Union describes itself as the fastest-growing far right organisation. What criteria were used to determine that it should not be included on the list? For those organisations that are included on the list, if an individual says publicly that they have left such an organisation, will the Government engage with them immediately, or after a year or in five years’ time? What timescale will the Government use after someone has been directly connected with one of the five current organisations, or however many it ends up being, for non-engagement? Is there a specific timescale in which the Government will choose not to meet, associate with and recognise individuals from those organisations?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can answer part of the question, but the other part is yet to be worked out in terms of the detailed processes. The Secretary of State referred in the other House to the types of groups and extremism that we are concerned about. This was not in any way an exhaustive list and it certainly was not “the” list. The process of making those assessments, following the evidence and collecting all the data is ongoing. It has not been completed and therefore there is no list. I will be able to share that with the House as and when that work is completed.
On someone who has left an organisation, rejected the ideology and now wants to be considered in a different light, I suspect that will need to be on a case-by-case basis, and the evidence and data will need to follow it. There will be experts in the group who will be able to make that judgment. I suspect they have not yet got far enough down the processes to determine the timeline.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, there have been examples, recently and in the past, of Conservative politicians making unfounded allegations, particularly against Muslims, that have resulted in the paying of damages. Words have consequences, such as death threats, damage to reputation, loss of livelihood and mental ill-health. This new extremism definition could be abused to make false allegations that inflict lasting damage. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that power and position are not abused?
I am also very worried about the safety of Muslim women. Last Wednesday, a Muslim woman came to see me. On the eve of the definition being released, she was subjected to hate crime on the Tube on her way home. She has reported it to the police but most Muslim women do not do so. I am really worried about the safety of Muslim women. When will the Government start to engage with Muslim women’s groups? How many have the Government engaged with? I run the only national Muslim women’s organisation, so I declare that interest. To date, we have had no engagement.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I will commit to replying in writing on how many of those groups the department has engaged with. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is responsible for that engagement with those faith groups so I will ensure that we collate the information and write to the noble Baroness.
If anybody uses inappropriate language it should be condemned and called out immediately. I personally would feel comfortable doing that. However, I will confirm that anybody who is an elected representative will not be on the list.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will make two points. First, I think there was an overlap between some of the work that the Intelligence and Security Committee has been doing about foreign interference in British politics and the dangers this is trying to address. We all know that internal politics in Pakistan spills over into British cities, with Tehreek and others. There are close links between some of our communities and political parties in Pakistan; we need to watch that. I have done all my politics in West Yorkshire, and I am certainly concerned at the extent to which the growth of Hindu nationalism within India may also spill over into British communities. We certainly need to be very concerned about that; we have seen one or two instances already.
I am even more concerned about the extent to which the rise of extremely well-funded anti-democratic right-wing groups within the United States might spill over into this country, with money from those right-wing organisations trying to influence British politics. We have just seen a former leader of the Conservative Party attending a very right-wing conference in Washington, standing with people whose loyalty to democratic principles is extremely doubtful, and not being sent into suspension by the Conservative Party. That worries me considerably, and we all need to think about it. On a cross-party basis, we need to think about how we conduct our democratic debate.
That leads to my second point, which is that if one looks at opinion surveys, one sees that we face a public in Britain who are now more disillusioned with our parliamentary democracy than we have seen in our lifetimes. That breeds extremism, particularly among those who are unskilled or unemployed, or who have done badly in school. That is not entirely new; in the first election I fought, in Huddersfield in 1970, I had a National Front candidate against me, and it made for a very nasty campaign on occasions. We are well aware that unless we as democratic politicians make sure that we mind our language as we compete with each other in the forthcoming election, and do something to improve the quality of our democracy and encourage greater participation in it—membership of all political parties has gone down over the last 20 years—we will leave the bed out of which extremism grows there for it to grow. That is a problem which, before and after the election, all of us in all parties need to address.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s comments and recognise many of them. For me, there is no boundary as to where this goes. If somebody is practising extremism that matches the definition—that it is founded in “violence, hatred or intolerance” and poses that threat to our “rights or freedoms”, or our liberal democratic positions that uphold them—they need to be called out. It does not matter whether they are far left or far right, or another other colour or description you would give in between. DLUHC has worked with the Home Office and other government departments, including arm’s-length bodies, agencies and practitioners confronting extremism in our country, as part of this review, so anybody who has had any role in doing this has come together to try to get this definition across the line and to now support the strategy, which will be made public in the next few weeks.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that we will always protect in this country, but obviously there are limitations to that if it does damage to others. The definition does not single out single subjects as inherently extremist, but calls for that careful assessment of evidence in relation to any individual organisation or group. In each case, the question is whether they are taking action to advance or promote that ideology with the “violence, hatred or intolerance” in mind. It is very specific, but it is likely to cover a broad swathe from all different parts of the spectrum. I reassure the noble Lord that the expert group will look at this in detail, and will apply the same metrics across the board.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reassurances she has given. In our time in the European Parliament, when we served together, I admired my noble friend for her moderate and well-balanced views. But the overwhelming perception of Muslim communities at the moment is that this latest statement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is a way to silence them—to stop public discourse. It is extremely worrying. I cannot stress enough just how upset people are; there has to be a way to allay those fears.
Organisations have been named publicly; what evidence has there been to deem them extremist? Would that evidence stand up in a court of law? Where does it all end? If I stand here one day and say, “I believe that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem should be lifted, in a process towards peace and mutual recognition”, and if some people feel that to be extremist in some way, how does that impact any kind of public discourse? I have grave concerns about the way this has been put out and articulated, and the communities that it will impact the most.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that those documents being leaked is really unfortunate, and has had some damaging effects. I assure the House that the list does not currently exist; the evidence and data are being compiled, and therefore an assessment will be made in due course. There is no list at this point in time. As and when it is appropriate, I will come back and present that context to your Lordships’ House.
I have heard the messaging that the Muslim community is finding this difficult. The way in which it has come out in the media has caused some issues. But it is really important for me to say at the Dispatch Box that the Muslim community makes an enormous contribution to British society, and has done so for centuries. Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people worldwide; we need to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between those who practise Islam and Islamist extremists. Therefore, we need to differentiate between them.
Rightly, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we stand for British Muslim communities; we maybe need to accelerate and emphasise that a little more. Some of that will be by working with those Muslim communities and, indeed, in the support we give to some of those Muslim groups. We certainly need to encourage most of those groups to come forward to work with us to counter extremism. I think this gives us the ability to work with a broader, more diverse group of individuals, to try to see whether we can make a bigger difference. I thank the noble Baroness for the question.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I just think it is important that the record is straight; I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said about the length of time. An organisation that in the past had somebody associated with it, who is no longer there, continues to be smeared. I mention this because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned a name—
Lord Walney (CB)
No, I did not, and I did not smear anyone. I ask the noble Baroness to please be careful with the language she uses.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am on my feet speaking; I would like to finish, if the noble Lord does not mind. An organisation is smeared if it is continually associated with somebody who has not been involved for over a decade. It is really important we have that distinction. I urge the Minister to look into that closely. That is being said; it was said here about somebody who was involved, who supported Hamas 10 years ago, and it is not fair to continue that in the present day, to keep that on the record.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I confirm that the list has not yet been generated. As and when it is, I expect it to be on current, up-to-date data and evidence. I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness that that is what I will be looking for.
Representation of the People (Variation of Election Expenses and Exclusions) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, if approved and made, these draft regulations will uprate the maximum campaign spending limits at the Greater London Authority and local authority mayoral elections in England to reflect changes to the value of money. This instrument also provides an exclusion for reasonable security expenses from the various election campaign spending limits. Finally, the draft regulations make some technical amendments to remove drafting that is now redundant from the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012.
Elections rely upon the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views so that voters can make an informed decision at the ballot box. If approved by Parliament, this statutory instrument completes the package of reforms the Government announced in July 2023 to uprate reserved and excepted party and candidate spending limits and donations thresholds. This is a necessary action, as many of these statutory limits, which were set in absolute terms, have not been uprated in recent times. If we do not uprate them in line with inflation, it means that they continue to be lower in real terms, which has real impacts on campaigning.
Furthermore, no one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy. As noble Lords will be aware, in the past eight years we have witnessed the horrific murders of two parliamentarians, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. The safety of parliamentarians and candidates is important, and in recent years the Government have introduced numerous measures to tackle intimidation in public life. It is of the utmost importance that candidates feel safe to campaign. Therefore, the Government are explicitly exempting reasonable security expenses from contributing to spending limits for political parties, candidates and other campaigners at reserved and excepted UK elections. I am pleased to confirm that this fulfils a recommendation made by the Jo Cox Civility Commission in its recent report No Place in Politics: Tackling Abuse and Intimidation.
I turn to the specifics. The draft regulations will uprate the spending limits for candidates at Greater London Authority elections and local authority mayoral elections. The various spending limits for Greater London Authority elections have remained unchanged since they were set in 2000. Due to this significant gap, the regulations will uprate the spending limits by 81.05%. This means that the limit for a candidate at an election of the Mayor of London will increase from £420,000 to £760,410, the limit for a candidate at an election of a constituency member of the London Assembly will increase from £35,000 to £63,360, and for an individual or party list candidate at the London-wide assembly election the limit will change from £330,000 to £597,460.
The draft regulations will uprate the spending limits for local authority mayoral elections in England by 29.09%. The uprating is done from 2017, to align with the new spending limits for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections recently approved by Parliament in the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024. This is to ensure parity between mayoralties and means that the limits for local authority mayoral elections in England will change from £2,362 and 5.9p per elector to £3,040 and 8p per elector.
Lord Rennard
At end insert “but this House regrets the Government’s decision to lay the draft Regulations, given the large scale of the proposed increases, the proximity of elections on 2 May, the lack of evidence of parties and candidates being constrained in their ability to reach voters by current expense limits, and the effect of increasing reporting thresholds on reducing transparency of funding for elections.”
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the clarification in election law that necessary security costs for candidates must not be constrained by being included as part of their campaign spending that is set against election expense limits. On 28 January 2000, a friend of mine, Andrew Pennington, was working for an MP when he was murdered by an attacker who came to the advice centre of my late friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham when he serving as the town’s MP. In the 1980s, well before there were any funds for security at MPs’ offices, I used to run the campaign HQ for my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, which was where he held many advice centres as an MP. Anyone could walk in at any time. It was not safe. We need to protect Members of Parliament and all their staff, in this place and wherever they work, and we are thankful to all those who help to protect us in these dangerous times.
I also acknowledge that there is a case for uprating the mayoral election expense limits, and those for candidates for the Greater London Authority. But no case has been made for doing so by 81%, thereby increasing the unhealthy influence of big donors that has caused such problems and been so clearly exposed in recent weeks. Inflation, as measured by CPI, in the three years since the last London mayoral election has been about 18%. If we go back to the last London mayoral election in 2021, the three leading candidates each spent around £400,000, or 95% of the available election expense limit at the time. An increase now from £420,000 to £760,000 must be considered to be excessive. This is especially so when it means that the candidates are suddenly being allowed to spend an additional £340,000 in just the last six weeks of the campaign. Many of us here have experience of election planning and will know that parties will have budgeted perhaps a year ago to spend no more than the £420,000 limit in place until now.
It is not, however, just an extra £340,000 that is suddenly being pumped in for each of the London mayoral candidates. There are 14 constituency members of the Greater London Authority and, as the Minister said, the expense limit for each of those 14 candidates is suddenly being increased by the sum of £28,360. This means that each party with 14 candidates can now legally spend an extra £397,000 supporting them.
Then there are the party list candidates. A party will now be able to spend an extra £267,000 supporting its list. What does this mean for a party with a mayoral candidate and a full slate of candidates for the Greater London Assembly? It means that the total permitted expenditure for those parties will rise, at the drop of a hat, from £1,240,000 to £2,244,080. In London alone, a party will now be able to spend more than £1million extra in just six weeks before polling day on 2 May.
The expense limits are being raised not just for the London elections but for 11 more metro mayor elections across England covering almost half the country. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what the combined increase will be in election expense limits for a party with a candidate in each of these 11 metro mayoral elections. What is the combined total of permitted election expenditure for these candidates under the present rules, and what will it be under these new ones? Perhaps the combined increase may be more than £1million, and this comes in all of a sudden, long after campaign budgets will have been set. A party with sufficient funds will be able to spend an extra £1million in London, and, if the figure is £1 million elsewhere, it will be spending over the next six weeks at the rate of a third of a million pounds per week, over and above existing plans. To be able to spend to the maximum of these new limits, it appears that the Conservative Party needs the donations of its disgraced donor, Frank Hester. Or are these increases simply being made because it has his donations? I think we should be told.
Last December, the Times reported that the Conservative Party is well on track to raise £50 million in a year. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in the very same month the Conservatives dramatically raised the expenditure limit for national parties in general elections from around £19.5 million to around £36 million. Is it not the truth of all these huge increases in election expense limits that the Conservative Party is feeling desperate? It lacks support, but it has money. It thinks that it needs to spend the £15 million believed to have been given by Frank Hester, the £5 million from Mohamed Mansour and all of the money from billionaire tax exiles whom it has just allowed to donate, and with as little scrutiny as possible, even if they have not lived here for several decades?
This is all about desperate spending to seek re-election, and not about the democratic principle of a level playing field in politics, which was established in law during Gladstone’s time. This principle was also agreed by all the parties in the legislation governing party expenditure in 2000. More recently, it has been supported by the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, in our debates on the Elections Act. However, action speaks louder than words, as they say, and it seems a very long time since the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, became Prime Minister, and pledged to “take the big money out of politics”.
It is most regrettable that the excellent report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life of 2011, when my noble friend Lord Alderdice served on the CSPL, was not implemented by the coalition Government. This report proposed a cap of £10,000 on all donations. These new, extremely high election expense limits mean that, more than ever, all parties must go begging to major donors.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer the strongest possible Green Party support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. This is indeed a great cause for regret, although I follow the noble Lord in saying that I entirely accept and agree with the security clarification that, unfortunately, is clearly necessary; I have absolutely no problems with that.
On social media, you know you are catching the zeitgeist, and that people are recognising what you are saying, when it gets repeated back to you. A couple of phrases that I use often on social media are increasingly repeated back to me. One is:
“#democracy - it would be a good idea”.
The other is:
“We get the politics that the few pay for”.
The second is simply and undoubtedly a statement of fact. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, set out such figures as £10 million, but even a donation of £1 million or—in the context of the elections we are talking about —£100,000 are potentially election changing. As the noble Lord said, this is happening at the last minute. The only way that this money will come in is through a few rich people.
We have to ask this question, and I would love the Minister to answer it: why does she think people give a donation of £10 million or £1 million or £100,000? Surely they do not give it for nothing. What do they get in return?
I should perhaps make a declaration of non-interest here since, as far as Green Party election spending is concerned, this is all entirely irrelevant. We were never going to spend up to the old limits, so this does not matter to us at all except that we will face a deluge of paper and social media posts, which will attempt to flood out our modest attempts to reach and speak to the electorate. That is the practical reality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, likes to ask where people will say the money should come from. I very much accept the figure from 2011 of a maximum donation of £10,000. I could set it lower, but that will do for starters. I will say what is often considered the unsayable: we need state funding of political parties and election campaigning. Instead of the few paying for the politics we get, that would mean we get the politics that everyone has chosen.
That is effectively how the Green Party funds things, how we are funding these elections and how we will fund the coming general election: by crowdfunding—people putting in their £10 or £20 and making the choice to support a local candidate. But we have a cost of living crisis. The people who would have put in £20 can now put in only perhaps £10 or £5. Yet the millionaires and billionaires are getting richer, so their donations get bigger and bigger.
I have one final point to make. The security element of this really made me think of things that can get in the way and stop candidates running, and this deserves to be raised in this context and every electoral context. I refer to the access to elected office fund for disabled people, which was closed in March 2020 because of the Covid pandemic. We can discuss the continuation of the pandemic, but I do not think we are in an emergency situation any longer. The Government have failed to reinstate this fund despite its inclusion in the Disability Action Plan. There was an open letter written to the Government in the November by a whole coalition of disability groups calling for this small, modest measure to find a little bit of money to enable disabled people to compete on a level playing field in elections. So my question to the Minister is: will the Government reinstate the access to elected office fund? It is probably too late for these elections—not too late for billionaires, but for disabled people to start to run —but we could at least do it for the next set of elections, which will be the general election.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I add to what my noble friend Lord Rennard said just a few brief comments. First, on the timing, I note that when the committee considered this, the Minister in the Commons said:
“I will be perfectly frank … we could have delayed this until after the elections in May”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/3/24; col. 6]
The Government should at least have asked themselves: how does this looks to a cynical public? Why rush it in just after it has been announced that they have received some huge donations? It looks like last-minute changing of the rules in favour of the Government.
I declare an interest as a Liberal Democrat. I recall the Electoral Commission commenting some years ago that we had a much larger number of donors to our party than the Conservative Party but, of course, a much smaller total of what had been given, because our donations tend to come, at best, in £5,000 or £10,000 chunks, rather than in chunks of £1 million or £2 million or more. It looks bad.
Secondly, as my noble friend has said, the Committee on Standards in Public Life report has been on the table for some time now. It is clear that the political parties ought to be coming to a consensus on what to do about that and what to set as a limit. I am sorry that the Government have not moved in that direction. I very much hope that, immediately after the next election, whatever Government come in will move on that.
Thirdly, we have a severe problem with public confidence in our democratic politics and it is a shame that the Government are not addressing this. The sense that money counts in political campaigns is part of the worry. The whiff of corruption that comes with donors being seen to be close to the Prime Minister, with big donations coming from companies that have made their money out of public contracts given by the Government—all of those things add to disillusionment with our politics, which is fundamentally corrosive of our democratic system.
I add that we now have a right-wing television station that made a loss last year of £31 million but, in spite of making a loss, is paying over £1 million to Conservative and right-wing politicians. The £340,000 increase that my noble friend mentioned is almost exactly the sum that Jacob Rees-Mogg is receiving for the few hours a week that he puts in as a television presenter. That is all corrosive of public confidence in public life, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life is correct to say so.
This SI, coming now, adds to the sense that money is what counts in British politics. We look across the Atlantic and see what has happened in American politics as big money has taken over. We do not want that to happen here, and I deeply regret that this Government are moving in that direction.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument. I offer my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his eloquent speech and detailed analysis before the House today.
The Minister will be glad to know that these Benches support the implementation of Regulation 4 of the instrument. It would be wrong for expenses incurred to protect candidates, their families and supporters to be seen as part of the cost of campaigning, and it would set a dangerous precedent if candidates requiring extra security had to forgo elements of their campaign simply to feel safe. I say that as a Member of your Lordships’ House who has unfortunately faced death threats to me and my family in recent months. I totally understand the need for parliamentarians to exercise all security measures in order to do their job and serve.
This instrument stops an obvious injustice in our electoral expense law, but our response to candidates feeling unsafe cannot simply be to tell them to open their pockets and hire security. The Government must make sure that adequate resources are in place to ensure that candidates feel secure without needing to spend their own money.
I turn to another significant part of the instrument relating to the increase to election expenses in Greater London Authority elections and local authority mayoral elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, dissected the issue using percentages and statistics to a profound effect. The point that election expenses have remained the same since the introduction of mayoral elections in the year 2000 has rightly been made loud and clear by noble Lords. Sadly, that figure has failed to be updated in line with inflation. It was used during the last mayoral election, 21 years after it was introduced. I understand that a significant increase is expected, given that the limit has been untouched for 24 years.
I hope that the Minister recognises why we need to ask questions about why we are raising the limit by over 80% less than two months out from the elections. The real reason why we are seeing this rise in the proposed figures is the compound failure by successive Tory Chancellors to get inflation under control. The reality is that we have seen a huge rise in inflation under this Government.
We do not intend to oppose this instrument outright, but I hope the Minister agrees that this rise does not reflect the reality that people are seeing in their day-to-day expenses. I hope she also agrees with me that future Governments should not wait until six weeks before an election to carry out an increase that is 24 years late.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made an interesting point about election spending across the Atlantic. In 2018, after the midterm elections, I visited Capitol Hill and spoke to a Congressman. As I was congratulating him on winning his election, he said, “Well, I can’t take too many congratulations because I have to start fundraising for my next election”. This increase in the region of £19 million to £36 million is bringing money into our politics like never before. That means a lot of people are spending time fundraising when they should be serving their communities.
I hope the Minister reflects on those points and tells us when the periodic review will be for the next uplift in expenses. Will we have to wait another 24 years for a decision, or will we get told six weeks before the next set of mayoral elections? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. They have made a number of points and I will try to respond to all of them. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that I remember Andrew Pennington; I remember the case and I am really sorry. To the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I say that nothing changes, does it? The noble Lord and his family are still getting death threats, which is totally unacceptable in a country as democratic as ours.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister used the term “strayed into” the issue of donations, as if we were going off the subject. Will she acknowledge that the question of where the money is coming from is just as central to this statutory instrument as what the limit is?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is, but we already have the Elections Act, which looked at donations and the rules behind them. That part of election law is already being dealt with.
Fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process; we cannot get away from that. I am sorry, but the Government do not agree with the noble Baroness opposite that we should have political parties funded by government. That is not a policy of this Government, and I am not sure that it is a policy of the parties opposite.
Within our current system, while there are no caps on donations received, there are limits on what can be spent in order to maintain the level playing field—and the level playing field is the same now as it was in 2000. All reportable donations over the relevant thresholds will continue, as always, to be published online. This allows anyone to see who funds a political party and ensures that a transparent and accountable system is in place for those donations, so nothing has changed in that way.
It is important that people have the opportunity to know about their political parties’ policies. We cannot get away from the fact that that takes money. All we are doing is to ensure that the money agreed in 2000 has the same spending power this year as it had then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, brought up an issue relating to disabled people. I am sorry that I do not have an answer to that, but I will make sure I get one tomorrow. It is an important issue and I thank her for bringing that up.
I think that I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. This is about necessity within democracy; there has to be money to communicate one’s policies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister has used the phrase “level playing field” several times. Does she think that there ought to be something about a financial level playing field in political campaigns if we are to regain the trust of the public? If one party is able to raise such large sums—much larger than the others—then the playing field is tipped heavily in one direction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
At different times, different parties have raised large sums of money from different places over many years. I look at the party opposite, which has been funded by the unions over the years; I believe that I have seen quite large donations given to the Liberal Democrats too. On party donors, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who asked why anybody would want to give money. Some people feel very strongly and passionately about the policies of some parties—I am not talking about just ours—and that is how politics works. The level playing field is the fact that no party can spend more on one candidate in any election than the other party.
Asking why we have waited so long, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did, is a reasonable question. As intended by Parliament, it is for the Government of the day to review the limits and update them when they consider that to be necessary. The fact that we had low inflation for so many years probably meant that there was no real necessity to change them as quickly as perhaps we should have done. But, as we have heard, inflation has increased in recent years and the Government decided that uprating these sums was now necessary to ensure that we get that communication out to our electorate.
I think that I have answered everything, unless anybody has something that they want to repeat. I will look at Hansard to make sure, but I think the only thing that I need to respond on is the disabled allowance question.
These regulations are essential to ensure that campaigners can continue to communicate their views to voters and, importantly, that candidates and other campaigners can feel confident in procuring the security they need at any UK elections. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting this instrument.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before us. We have shown in this short debate that it was worthy of greater consideration than the 16 minutes which it attracted in a committee in the House of Commons. There are many important issues here and I congratulate her on single-handedly defending the Government’s position in the face of all the opposition parties this evening, which suggests that the arguments are not quite so straightforward as she might suggest.
The principal argument which the Minister made, that this instrument had to be brought forward now with such huge increases in election expenses, was not about election expenses at all. The argument here and in the other place was on the urgency of clarifying election law about security arrangements for candidates and their teams. As an experienced election agent, I would never have allowed security considerations to be part of the election expense return which I was making.
If this was necessary, it could of course be done simply on its own and with all-party agreement, but there is not all-party agreement on such huge increases and on them being made at the last minute. No satisfactory explanation is given as to why they are so large or have been made so suddenly before polling day. On all these issues where the Government are clearly changing the rules in their favour, they are abandoning the principles of the level playing field. A level playing field requires not just the same maximum limit for everyone but equal resources on each side. An army with 100 tanks against an army with one tank is not an even competition, so we do not have a level playing field of the kind which the law provided for in the 1880s and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act tried to provide for in 2000.
I do not feel the need to test the opinion of the House again, when I feel that its opinion on all these issues was well tested when the noble Lord, Lord Khan, did so a few weeks ago. I note that 90% of the Cross- Bench Peers voted in support of his Motion and against the Government, so as we know the opinion of the House on this issue, I will not test it further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 November 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves these regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 8 November 2023. The regulations seek to add Georgia and India to the list of safe countries of origin at Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as inserted by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, once commenced.
The declaration of inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals has been a long-standing process in the UK, also employed by EU states. Under Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a national of an EU member inadmissible unless there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the Secretary of State ought to consider the claim. These provisions reduce pressure on our asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of protection, but EU states are not the only countries that are safe countries.
Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, these provisions will be expanded to include the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from other states considered generally safe. The Section 80AA(1) list of safe countries of origin comprises the EU states as now and adds the other EEA states of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland and Albania. Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, asylum and human rights claims from nationals of these countries will be declared inadmissible, unless it is accepted that there are exceptional circumstances that mean a claim ought to be considered in the UK.
Lord German
At end insert “but this House regrets that His Majesty’s Government have not provided a clear explanation of why or how they have determined that India and Georgia are safe states for the purposes of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and that it is unclear how this policy change will work in practice.”
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register—I am supported by the RAMP Project. This regret amendment is not about whether Georgia and India are safe countries for trade or tourism, but safe from a serious risk of persecution of nationals of these countries, and where removal to India or Georgia of nationals of those countries would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the human rights convention. It may well be that, for certain groups of people, a return to these countries would fail these tests.
There are two main issues at fault with this legislation: one of process and one of policy. I will deal with process first. Currently, as the Minister said, the list of safe countries is all those in the EEA—the European Economic Area—plus Switzerland and Albania. Being included in the list of safe states means that an asylum or human rights claim from an Indian or Georgian national must not be considered unless exceptional circumstances apply.
It is very unusual for the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House to lay such an extensive report before us, but its conclusion is:
“These draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
My supposition is that the Government are adding some countries to the safe list because more people can be returned to their home countries without their asylum claim being even considered; and that this legislation was produced in haste, without the necessary conditions for scrutiny being fully considered.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that consideration of
“the operation of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is critical to understanding and scrutinising the policy”.
In reply, the Government said they would issue guidance in—those famous words—“due course”. Given that this statutory instrument was laid on 8 November 2023, and that we are now discussing it more than four months later, I submit that “due course” has run out, as no such document has appeared.
In response, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:
“At a minimum”—
I use that word carefully—
“the guidance describing how it will operate in practice should have been published alongside the instrument. However, we have also consistently taken the view that factors that will influence critical decisions about a person’s life or benefits should be included in the legislation considered by Parliament, not left to guidance”.
It adds that
“proper scrutiny is not possible if the guidance is not published before the debate on these Regulations takes place”.
No such document has been produced and, as a result, the Government have failed to meet the appropriate parliamentary standards required for processing this statutory instrument.
I now turn to the policy issues raised by this. As the Minister said, the criteria for deeming a country to be safe are set out in Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The rules by which the Secretary of State may add a state are that they must be satisfied that
“there is in general in that State no serious risk of persecution of nationals of that State, and … removal to that State of nationals of that State will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Human Rights Convention”.
Those are the two reasons why it can be put forward. But, in deciding that they are substantially true, the Secretary of State
“must have regard to all the circumstances”—
not just some—
“of the State (including its laws and how they are applied), and … must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations)”.
We have just heard two things from the Minister: first, “exceptional circumstances” was repeated and, secondly, we heard that the information has been taken from many sources. But, crucially, we got no detail—because, of course, we are discussing this after it has been to the committee that would look at this detail—about exactly where these sources of information are, where they have come from and how balanced they are. So, this House can draw only on conclusions that we think would be appropriate for judging whether these countries are safe.
I will draw only on the United States of America and the Home Office—the very department that makes this decision. The SLSC quoted the United States Government’s 2022 country report on human rights practices in Georgia:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: torture or inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrest or incarcerations … substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; refoulement … crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex persons and activists”;
crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of national, racial, ethnic and minority groups based on religious affiliation, social status or sexual orientation; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex persons; and the existence of forced and compulsory labour.
The Home Office’s country policy and information note on Georgia says:
“High-profile government opponents and managers of media channels opposed to the government may be subjected to politically-motivated prosecution and detention with a politically-biased judiciary”.
That is from the United States and our Home Office. There are plenty more examples. You must add to that the position of South Ossetia in Georgia, which is under Russian control, and the considerable interchange of information between the Russian secret services and Georgian officials.
The Home Office’s country note on India says:
“Human rights abuses, including rape, torture, and deaths in custody are reported to be widespread and conducted with impunity. Excessive force by security forces in areas of conflict are also reported, including extra-judicial killings, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, kidnappings and destruction of homes”.
Finally, there were the comments and responses from Members and Ministers representing the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office here last Thursday about concerns over Muslims, Dalits and other groups in India.
These facts demonstrate that, for some groups of people, there will be a risk of persecution or a failure to provide them with human rights security under our international obligations. Since the Illegal Migration Act was passed, we do not give people the sort of interview we would need to work out whether they are subject to that persecution. In response, the Government say that these are all “isolated incidents”, not general matters of concern—“isolated” and “general” are two important words here.
Just look at the contradictions within the Home Office, let alone between government departments, on this response. Home Office view A is that human rights abuses, including rape, torture and deaths in custody, are reported to be widespread and conducted with impunity; contrast that with Home Office view B that “isolated incidents” may have been reported but the “scale and extent” of concerns were not such that the test under the Act was failed. There you have it —the Home Office looking in both directions at the same time. Widespread or isolated—both cannot be right.
I have some questions for the Minister. Are the “widespread” and “significant” human rights abuses reported by the Home Office and the US Department of State consistent with the requirements of the 2002 Act, as amended? Why has the promised guidance not been produced in the four months between the laying of this SI and this debate? Given that a significant proportion of recently processed claims from Georgia were accepted, can the Government’s description of applications from Georgian nationals as “unfounded” be justified? Given the backlog of claims from these two countries, will existing claims continue to be processed as previously or will they be deemed inadmissible retrospectively, whenever these regulations come into practical effect? Finally, why are the regulations being introduced now, when they will have no practical effect until the relevant provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are brought into force? Unless the Minister can answer these questions satisfactorily, this statutory instrument has surely stepped over the line in terms of both parliamentary process and policy. I beg to move.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, India is indeed a safe country if you are a straight male Hindu citizen. It is far less safe if you happen to be female—women from religious and cultural minorities face the most gender-based violence—Muslim, Dalit, Adivasis, Sikh, Christian or a member of the LGBT community. These sectors of the population constitute about 280 million people. More than 10,000 people have been arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the majority from minority groups.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I wish to protest that the Home Office is, again, living in the world of fantasy and fiction when it comes to safe countries. We have had the charade over the Rwanda Bill, which is going through ping-pong at the moment, and we are here again.
The Minister says from the Dispatch Box very passionately that the Government have taken a number of sources into consideration when determining whether Georgia or India are safe countries. I have done quite a bit of research myself over the last few days; I have looked at reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Home Office’s own country report and the US’s country report, and the reports of Freedom House, the UN and the EU on both countries. All those sources raise considerations and concerns—in some cases significant—about the human rights position in both countries.
Can the Minister tell the House what sources the Home Office has looked at, other than the ones that I just read out? Would he lay before the House as a matter of urgency the content of those sources? I cannot find sources which state that both India and Georgia generally are countries that have and uphold international standards of human rights for the vast majority of their citizens.
For example, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, mentioned specific groups in India. There are 172 million Muslims in India—14.2% of the population—that are having constitutional rights significantly taken away from them. Is it generally safe for the 172 million Muslim citizens of India? Would the Minister like to comment on whether it is seen as generally safe?
I believe that the Home Office has, again, gone down the rabbit hole of believing the fantasy and fiction, rather than giving us specific facts and sources. As I say, I have looked, and I cannot find sources which would determine that these countries are generally seen as safe for human rights. It is particularly galling when the Home Office’s own country report talks about “widespread” abuses in India. Could the Minister explain the difference between general and widespread, and how the mention of widespread abuses in the Home Office’s own country notice brings it to then say that generally India is safe? It is preposterous that this has happened.
It seems to suggest that the numbers of claims determine whether the Government now look at whether a country is safe. Surely the fact that cases are rising may determine that conditions are actually getting worse, and more people are seeking asylum based on genuine issues and genuine fear for their own safety back in the countries where they lived. I am not clear what the correlation is. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister said that the numbers seem to determine whether countries are looked at by the Home Office and decided to be safe or not. If I got that wrong then I apologise to the House, but numbers have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether a country is safe, and the reverse of what the Government seem to be suggesting is that conditions could be getting worse.
I look forward to the Minister giving us the sources that the Home Office has looked at, and the evidence of those sources, to determine that India and Georgia are generally safe countries.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations mark a step towards the implementation of the few parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that have come into force since it received Royal Assent. The key sections on the duty to detain and remove asylum seekers arriving by small boat, among other provisions, have apparently been accepted as unworkable by the Government, at least for the time being.
The current list of safe countries of origin from which it is expected that, in general, people will not have grounds for asylum in the UK is set out in Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, as amended by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, as was explained by the Minister. Historically, during the time in which the UK was part of the EU, the designation of safe countries of origin applied mostly to other EU and European Economic Area member states. Those countries remain on the list, with the more recent addition of Albania, and with Georgia and India now marking the first significant expansion of that list beyond the EU and the EEA.
We support these changes in principle, notwithstanding a few important questions. It is right that the Government go into some detail about how these changes would work in practice and how Indian and Georgian nationals, who under exceptional circumstances face harm or death, can still seek refuge in our country. The grant rate for Indian asylum seekers has stayed at under 10% in recent years, but for Georgia it has swayed between 15% and 30%. I understand that there are fewer applications from Georgia in numerical terms, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister how those successful applications translate into appropriate cases of exceptional circumstances in the future.
There is little detail on how exceptional circumstances would apply. The example tests for exceptional circumstances set out in the 2002 Act will not apply to India and only one—the ECHR test—will apply to Georgia. The Government have stated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that guidance will be published to caseworkers in due course. Do the Government mean to say that the guidance does not currently exist? How are decisions made now, before that guidance is in place?
As others, including the noble Lord, Lord German, have pointed out, given that the Home Office’s own policy notes on India speak of the existence of serious human rights abuses, including rape, torture and death—and, for Georgia, they note politically motivated prosecutions —it is vital that discretion can be exercised for individuals in those countries in appropriate circumstances.
I hope that the Minister can outline today how this guidance will work, whether it will be in place when these regulations come into force and whether it will be published. Can he also outline what is being done to improve returns rates for both Indian and Georgian nationals? The UK has migration returns agreements with both countries, but the current returns rate of Indian nationals seeking asylum stood at less than 7% in the year to September 2022. Can he outline what the returns rate is so far for Georgia, given that it has been a year since the bilateral returns agreement was signed? Depending on his answer to that question, and given the low rate of Indian national returns, can he outline what the Government are doing to improve returns rates for both countries? Finally, can he say how the introduction of this list impacts outstanding claims? Will it apply simply to new claims, or will it be retrospective? I look forward to his replies.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. These regulations, by themselves, do not introduce a new process or policy. It is not for us to debate today the safe country of origin inadmissibility provisions; those provisions have been a long-standing part of our asylum laws and have been expanded via the Illegal Migration Act 2023. These regulations seek to expand this list further to incorporate Georgia and India as generally safe. I acknowledge that, in considering whether it is appropriate to do so, questions have been asked today about how the list will be used.
The inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from nationals of safe countries aims to deter abuse of our asylum system from those who would seek to abuse it and do not need to seek protection in the UK. It will reduce pressure on the asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of protection. Treating asylum claims from EU nationals in this way is not new: it has been a long-standing process in the UK asylum system that is also employed by EU states. But EU states are not the only countries that are safe countries; therefore, it is right that these provisions have been expanded through the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
Once commenced, Section 59 of the 2023 Act introduces the new Section 80AA(1) safe countries of origin list, so that these provisions would apply not only to EU nationals but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, to those from the other EEA states of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland and Albania.
For a country to be added to the list of safe countries of origin, it must be assessed as safe as per the criteria set out in the new Section 80AA(3) of the 2002 Act, as inserted by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. The test sets out that a country may be added to the list if
“(a) there is in general … no serious risk of persecution”
there for nationals of that country,
“and (b) removal … of nationals of that”
country
“will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the”
European Convention on Human Rights.
We do not draw conclusions on the general safety of a country based on information from single sources or isolated examples. Whether a country is safe for the purposes of inclusion in Section 80AA(1) is an assessment of whether the country in general is considered safe. Our assessments of the situation in the respective countries are set out in the relevant country policy and information notes, which I will come back to in more detail. Those are available on the GOV.UK website and are kept under constant review and updated periodically.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
Is the Minister able to name the human rights organisation that has deemed the countries safe?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have that information. As I said, all the information we use is published on GOV.UK.
Regarding reporting from single sources, or drawing on isolated examples, these might not consider the situation in context or be reflective of the general situation, which is what we are required to consider. We consider evidence from a wide range of sources and source types, as I have said. We compare and contrast information across those sources to reach a balanced and, we believe, accurate view of the situation.
We recognise, of course, that groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International produce reports that are sometimes critical of human rights records. We also consider what sources are reporting as well as how, when and why they have reported. This assessment and the inclusion of these countries on the list will be regularly monitored and reviewed.
The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, asked about the ongoing investigations by Canada and the US into alleged Indian state involvement in various activities. We remain in close touch with our Canadian and US partners about what are very serious allegations. However, I am afraid it would be inappropriate to comment further during the ongoing investigations by their law enforcement authorities.
Even if a country is generally considered safe, it is acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to return an individual in their particular circumstances. That is why the consideration of exceptional circumstances, incorporated into the safe country of origin inadmissibility provisions, will act as an appropriate safeguard. Where the Secretary of State accepts that there are exceptional circumstances why the person may not be removed to their country of origin in an individual’s particular circumstances, they will not be.
Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced, a national of a Section 80AA(1) listed country who is subject to the duty to remove or power to remove would not be removed there if it is accepted that there are exceptional circumstances as to why they cannot be removed there. They will instead be removed to a safe third country. For all other nationals of Section 80AA(1) listed countries, if there are exceptional circumstances why their claim ought to be considered in the UK, it will be.
I will deal with a couple of specific questions in terms of published guidance—
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in mid-flow. The exceptional circumstance rule is absolutely vital to understanding the operation of this statutory instrument. The Act refers only to two forms of exceptional circumstances: EU law or not signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Could he run through the Home Office’s view on exceptional circumstances for these two countries? What is expected to be in the operational notes, which he referred to?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I was just about to get to that.
These regulations seeks to add India and Georgia to the list of countries in Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as I have already said. They are not about the inadmissibility provisions, which already rely on the exceptional circumstances safeguard.
Section 80A already applies to EU nationals. Only when Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced will the safe country of origin list be actionable in terms of its application to the revised inadmissibility provisions at Section 80A of the 2002 Act and to the removal provisions at Sections 4 and 6 of the Illegal Migration Act.
Section 80A(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 sets out some examples of what may constitute exceptional circumstances in that context. Section 6(5) of the Illegal Migration Act sets out the same examples, but these are not exhaustive, nor do they purport to be. They will not be relevant in some cases. Exceptional circumstances are not defined nor limited in legislation, but will be considered and applied on a case by case basis where appropriate. When we commence and implement the wider Section 59 measures, we will provide updated guidance to assist caseworkers in their consideration of exceptional circumstances and the wider provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me to go into a bit more detail on Georgian asylum applications and grant rates. I am happy to do so. In 2023, there were 1,071 applications—23% fewer than in the year before, but more than four times higher than in 2019. For cases where decisions were made, the grant rate at initial decision was 12%—based on 24 grant decisions out of a total of 205. That was lower than the grant rate of 23% the year before, but higher than the 8% in 2019. Where withdrawals, which numbered 621, were included as part of the decision total, the grant rate was only 3%, compared to 5% the year before and 2% in 2019. The grant rate for Georgians is far below the average grant rate across all asylum claims. We should note that the number of Georgian applications with an outcome in each year before 2023 was low—120 cases in 2022 and 88 in 2019. I apologise for that blizzard of statistics, but I hope it answers noble Lords’ questions.
I hope that I have satisfactorily explained the Government’s position on the inclusion of both Georgia and India in the Section 80AA(1) list of safe countries of origin. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, if I were to ask the House to consider whether the five questions I posed have been answered in sufficient detail, I would probably have a negative answer. It is my view that we have tried to find a rationale for a workable procedure. We do not have the sort of information we would need in order to make a proper judgment. That was what the Select Committee advising this House decided. We were asked to test this out because they did not have the information to do so. I do not think we are much wiser.
It was pretty fundamental for us to know the sources of information on which the Government made their decision. If I were asked what a reasonable, workable system might be, I would say that there are people who could be safely returned. I am in favour of returning those who have no right to be here. Equally, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, there are people who would definitely be in trouble if they were returned. These are not just individuals but groups of people. We would like to understand and know where people who, because of the group they are in, would be unsafe in going back to India and Georgia. This would aid the balance of decision-making. All the time we have talked about it being for the individual to make it clear that they believe they have exceptional circumstances, not for the Government to understand it. The danger is that people get used to what these circumstances are. If, for example, you are a Dalit and know that you are likely to be persecuted, or if you were politically active in Georgia and caused some uproar, you will soon be testing this out as an individual within a group of people. It strikes me as being unhelpful to put all those individuals who are in that circumstance through costly court and other procedures one at a time to make sure that it works.
Guidance was fundamental to the view of the Select Committee that advised us. All we know from this discussion so far is that the guidance is to be updated, but we do not know what it is. I and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about retrospection. Will this apply to people who have the right to have their case heard, or will it apply only to people who have come in subsequently? We did not get an answer to that question either. I would put it down as an all bar one answer to the queries that we have put so far. We are having this discussion in the Rwanda Bill and these discussions will be ongoing. If this House continues to be without the information upon which we can judge whether the procedure that the Government are adopting is correct, then the Government are in for a bumpy ride for the very few months they may have left to make these decisions.
This is a matter which we will return to and one with unanswered questions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current level of provision for sexual and reproductive healthcare in England and the case for a workforce plan in this sector.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and the Minister. Their participation at this late stage is very much appreciated. I also thank the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV, the British HIV Association, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the National AIDS Trust for their briefings for this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/AIDS and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. My ongoing involvement in those APPGs reflects my very strongly held belief since I was a young woman that giving people, particularly young people, scientifically correct and fully inclusive sex and relationship education information not only protects them and enables them to study, work and live their lives to their full potential but benefits the whole of society in terms of health and economics.
I want to have this debate because sexual and reproductive healthcare in the UK is in a crisis. That is not me saying that but the Local Government Association, the British HIV Association and the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV—that is, those on the front line trying to hold these services together and make them work. Data from the UK Health Security Agency shows that demand for SRH services has been increasing year on year and hit a record high in 2023, with no signs of abating this year. That increasing demand has not been mirrored in an increase in resources and staffing. The recent Local Government Association report showed that services throughout the UK are at breaking point, with people being turned away from services, which are often open for very minimal times due to a lack of capacity.
Due to the deterioration in numbers of people trying to be genitourinary medicine physicians in the UK, there is a real possibility that very soon we will be without adequately trained experts in out-patient management of complex and complicated STIs. That is worrying for us all. There are huge issues about recruitment, training and staff that can be traced back to commissioning changes that were made under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Those reforms, which put public health back into local government, were right in principle; public health and prevention and surveillance of disease should start not in the NHS but in communities, where people live. The problem was that this reform coincided with a plummeting of local government finance and, consequently, the commissioning of services has been so severely depleted that services have deteriorated to the point where we have reached the highest levels of cases of gonorrhoea since the 1920s and the highest rates of syphilis since 1948.
The high rate of those diseases, and the lack of capacity for people to be seen in SRH services, has resulted in people presenting late and with levels of infection so high that they may have irreversible harm that could have been treated properly had they been seen earlier.
There has also been a resurgence in neonatal syphilis in the UK—something that we thought was history is now back. We have significant neonatal morbidity. In addition, reduced NHS service capacity has reduced the access to preventive SRH services, including vaccinations and the provision of HIV PrEP, both of which are critical to reducing future transmissions of STIs. In some areas of the UK, particularly outside London, there has been a disproportionate effect, as small clinics have been hit more than others.
It is important to understand in this debate that there are two types of specialists who deliver the majority of SRH and out-patient HIV care in the UK: first, GUM clinics, and HIV physicians who are trained in medicine and specialise in STI and HIV diagnosis and management; and, secondly, community sexual and reproductive health specialists, who train predominantly in women’s healthcare and who specialise in the gynaecological and reproductive care of women across their life course. Most provision of specialist contraception and training of other healthcare workers in contraception, and the leadership of systems across secondary and primary care, is done by community SRH consultants.
Dame Lesley Regan has done tremendous work in the development of the women’s hubs. I ask the Minister whether the Government plan to build on that work to make those into one-stop shops for women, where they can have their reproductive and sexual health issues dealt with all at once.
HIV treatment is different—HIV services are open-access and anybody can come into them—but there is a huge problem in the HIV workforce. Not only is there huge demand; there are so few consultant specialists around to help other staff to train and develop that we are now having a real problem recruiting trainees into genitourinary medicine. That means that those services are becoming ever more fractured, and there is a knock- on effect back to general practice and to pharmacies, which simply do not have the specialist knowledge and training to deal with those more complex cases.
Nurses and allied healthcare professionals are doing much more than they did a year ago, but they cannot deal with the sorts of complex cases that are now being presented to them. We have an inadequate number of consultant specialists working in the field and that is having an adverse effect on training.
Commissioning arrangements are at the root of the problem in all of this. No one is taking responsibility for ensuring that the next generation of doctors and nurses in sexual health services are being trained. No local authority has a training plan and there is no cohesion nationally to drive accountability where it fails. Services that offer no training and education are inherently cheaper and those are the ones being commissioned more and more—for short-term gain for cash-strapped councils, but with long-term harm to public health.
I ask the Minister to address three critical issues: first, making sure that all sexual health medical training posts are 100% funded through NHS England in the same way that posts in primary care oncology and public healthcare are funded; secondly, that NHS England is accountable on its plan to ensure improved recruitment, with the publication of a corresponding action plan to deliver improved recruitment in sex and reproductive health; and, thirdly, that no service is allowed to operate without a GUM consultant within it, no matter how much it depends on lesser-qualified staff.
It is worrying that we are going back to levels of sexually transmitted diseases that we thought were a thing of the past. It is deeply frustrating, because we now have the medicines to deal with these cases, and we know there are new technologies and ways of delivering services that could make the system so much more efficient. If we had nationwide home testing kits for HIV, if we had a greater use of pharmacies for the management of people with HIV in their local areas, rather than them having to go to specialist clinics for ongoing treatment, we could be making great progress. In this field, as in many other parts of medicine, were staff to have the time to sit and think through the ethics and potential of the use of AI, we could make huge strides forward in these public health matters. As it is, these services are stretched to breaking point.
I want the Minister to answer two simple questions. First, what are the Government going to do to stop the crisis and the downward spiral of stretched services relying on staff who are not sufficiently well trained? Secondly, what have the Government made of the lessons that can be learned from the GP recruitment crisis and the opportunities to apply those to increasing recruitment and retention in urinary medicine and HIV, including fully funding training posts? We need to get this workforce back up to the levels we know we can manage in order to deal with a crisis which need not have occurred in the first place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her contribution and fully endorse what she has to say. We clearly have a crisis in sexual and reproductive healthcare.
I refer the Minister to evidence given to the Commons Women and Equalities Committee only in January by Dr Claire Dewsnap, president of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV. She said that
“a lot of the presentations in clinics and potentially in other settings like primary and secondary care, are things that we have not seen for 50 or 60 years”.
In the same session, Dame Rachel de Souza highlighted that in the past, schoolchildren could go to the school nurse with sexual health issues but there has been a 35% cut in school nurses over the last 10 years. This issue of access means that it is significantly harder for young people to access sexual health services, particularly in rural areas. According to Dr Dewsnap, because of budget cuts only 10% of sexual health services offer a drop-in facility. That makes it far less likely that young people and children will seek the support they need.
A further, highly effective resource that has been totally cut is the Sexwise website. This highly valued sexual health resource for professionals and the general public was developed by the FPA in 2017 on behalf of Public Health England and handed to PHE to run in 2019. But, alarmingly, the Minister’s department ended the contract to deliver maintenance support for the website from 4 March this year. Twice, the department has refused an offer from the FPA to take it over, and the reasons given are clearly spurious. The first rejection was based on Crown copyright considerations of the Sexwise brand—a ridiculous argument. The second rejection, after the FPA clarified that the Crown could keep ownership of the brand, was, quite frankly, nonsensical.
The basic need for what Sexwise gave, which was accurate and free-to-access sexual and reproductive health information, has not gone away. I hope the Minister will instruct the DHSC either to put Sexwise out to a public tender—we are talking about tens of thousands of pounds of cost—or to accept the generous offer from the FPA to run it on the department’s behalf. I am afraid that the Sexwise saga just reflects the Government’s attitude towards public health, perhaps apart from smoking.
I would like the Minister to reflect on the effective dismantling of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. It took over the funding of the public health grant when Public Health England was disestablished in 2021, which in turn, of course, replaced the Health Protection Agency following the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It has now been authoritatively reported in the Health Service Journal that unannounced changes to the office have led to its fragmentation and decimation.
So over 12 years we have seen, through a number of iterations, the Government essentially move from having a large, mainly independent public health agency to a disparate group of people spread thinly across a number of directorates in the Department of Health. At what cost? I have seen reports that OHID has been reduced by about 60% in staffing terms, with a loss of several senior and experienced officials and the downgrading of many functions, including sexual health. Can the Minister tell me how many qualified public health specialists have left OHID and how many remain within his department? It is a far cry from the triumphal tone of the announcement launching the office, followed by the September 2021 statement by the then Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, who said he wanted OHID to work on preventing poor mental and physical health, addressing health inequalities and improving access to health services, and to work with partners within and outside government to respond to wider health determinants. That ended well, didn’t it?
My noble friend Lady Merron anticipated this in her regret Motion of 9 November 2021. As she put it, it is hard to see how the UK Health Security Agency or the OHID could be “independent or effective”. They were not set up in statute and were created
“without parliamentary scrutiny or approval”.—[Official Report, 9/11/21; col. 1675.]
As we can see, it is very easy then virtually to dismantle OHID without any public or parliamentary scrutiny whatever. Hunter, Littlejohns and Weale, in a forthcoming BMJ opinion column, will argue:
“Set up in haste with no consultation, OHID lacks any of the … independence PHE had, being an opaque body scattered through the Department of Health and Social Care. Given its low profile and lack of a clear mission, it comes as no surprise that, despite denials from the government, it has been virtually eviscerated”.
Or, as Dave West from the HSJ has put it,
“the latest restructure, as well as being damaging to a functioning national public health system, suggests any idea of greater push and support from the centre for independent for ICSs’ long-term agenda—of population health, prevention inequalities—remains for the birds. Hopes of tougher preventative action on alcohol or sugar, for example, equally so”.
That has to be on a par with the Government’s tepid approach to public health measures, smoking aside. The shamefully postponed implementation of the obesity strategy is but one example, and it is in this context, of course, that we see the problems arising in sexual health. How else can we explain the LGA’s analysis that, between 2015 and 2024, the public health grant received by local authorities has been reduced in real terms by £880 million, which has resulted in a reduction in councils’ ability to spend on STI testing, contraception and treatment? As David Hunter and his colleagues argue, revitalising public health in the UK requires changes, including a cross-government approach to tackle the social determinants of health alongside restoring the funding cuts to public health funding. Will the Minister effect that change, including restoring the real-terms value of the public health grant, the cut to which has so decimated sexual health services in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for securing this debate. I thank her slightly less for the fact I have had to throw half of my speech out because she has covered it so comprehensively already, but it was a great introduction that set out the issue of work- force that the subject directly addresses but also the true crisis in sexual health. I echo the reflections from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the importance of relationships and sex education. That is the foundation of prevention; it is clearly not being delivered to anything like the standard it should be to our young people. That means we are utterly failing them.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; he and I have had our disagreements in recent times, but I entirely agree with everything he just said. I echo his comments about public health, and that this Government have essentially abandoned public health as a way of ensuring that we have a healthy society that enables the people in it to thrive and live to their full potential. There is the failure to tackle the issue of ultra-processed foods—our broken food system—as well as issues around alcohol; I would add the failure to restrict gambling advertising and allowing the gambling industry to go totally out of control, which presents a great threat to many people.
Returning to the specific issue we are talking about, when I was reading the briefings, I came across the term “neonatal syphilis”. What I knew about neonatal syphilis before this came from reading the history of Georgian and Victorian England. If we read some of the novels of that era, we find some very vivid descriptions—they might not have known the cause, but they could describe the effect. I went and looked, and I came across the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in America setting out the reality of neonatal syphilis, which is frequently
“stillbirth, miscarriage, or neonatal death”.
If the baby survives, among the effects are
“blindness, deafness, developmental delay, or skeletal abnormalities”.
It is interesting that there is a parallel between what is happening here in the UK, with different structures, and what is happening in the US, because the US, as the CDCP says, has an acute failure in terms of neonatal syphilis—the number of babies born with neonatal syphilis in 2022 was 10 times greater than in 2012. The CDCP says that testing and treatment during pregnancy could have stopped 88% of those cases.
I reflect on those US figures because we are seeing increasingly an Americanisation of our healthcare system: a copy of the US healthcare system’s models; an import of US companies; and an import of people with professional experience, particularly managerial experience, of the US system. This is a system that the CDCP, citing the syphilis figures, says is a total failure. That is something we should really reflect on.
I should probably declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I will pick up figures that have already been mentioned, but that have to be highlighted. Among the largest reductions in public health spend since 2015 has been spend on sexual health services—29%—yet at the same time, there has been a significant increase in demand for sexual health services: nearly 4.5 million consultations in 2022, up by a third in a decade.
Of course, we are always hearing elsewhere in your Lordships’ House about rising costs. Sexual health clinics and services are no more immune from the costs of rising energy prices and rising staff costs, et cetera, than anywhere else. The funding is falling and the demand is increasing, so of course the needs are not being met. I reflect back on the debate earlier this week on the Budget. Member after Member of your Lordships’ House got up and spoke about “broken Britain” and our broken services. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for the Government, said at the end: “Oh, I think you’re all being too gloomy”. Well, I am afraid that if we look at the state of our sexual health services, we see that the phrase “broken Britain” is sadly appropriate.
I acknowledge having drawn on the excellent briefings we have received, and I now turn to training. We have received demands, which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, that all sexual health medical training posts be 100% funded through the NHSE, in the same way that posts in primary care, oncology and public health are funded, and that the NHSE be accountable for ensuring that some of the recruitment gaps that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to are filled in. This is important and relates to some of the other debates we have had about the importance of expertise and of proper, full medical expertise being involved at all levels of the health service. No service should be allowed to operate without a genitourinary consultant, and meetings of organisations and commissioners must include them.
I come to two more specific asks. We have a contrast in asks from the briefings. The Terrence Higgins Trust calls for a high-level sexual health commission to address these issues, while the National AIDS Trust calls for a national sexual health strategy. I do not have a particularly strong position on which of those is the right way to approach the crisis, as all these organisations are saying, in different words, are the Government going to take serious, significant action? They may not have very long to go as a Government, but this really cannot wait until we have had an election—whenever that is.
I come back to an issue I have raised a number of times before in the House: the patchy provision of postal STI and HIV testing across England. Only during one special week, the national HIV testing week, can everyone access this testing from a single service. That makes England an outlier. Wales and Scotland already have national HIV postal testing services. In Wales, that also includes STIs, and the Scottish Government are also moving in that direction. It would surely be cost-efficient and cost-effective to make available to everyone in England a national HIV and STI testing service. It would be an extremely good way to spend government money.
I also want briefly to raise the issue of chlamydia testing. We had a full national chlamydia screening programme that included both young men and women, but that was cut back in 2021 from preventing chlamydia infection to reducing the harms of untreated chlamydia. As a result, chlamydia has come to be seen as a women’s issue. Of course, infection occurs in both sexes, but that is not being drawn to the attention young men in particular. Will the Government reverse that change and reinstate the full national chlamydia screening programme service?
The final thing I want to address is people living with HIV who are no longer engaged with services. The Government estimate that some 14,000 people have not been seen at their HIV clinic for at least a year. That is a real risk to the health of people living with HIV and a significant threat to the Government’s goal of ending new HIV cases by 2030. Of course, this issue relates to many other policy areas that the Minister cannot deal with, such as poverty and homelessness, but surely there should be within health a programme to re-engage people with HIV, who should be being cared for not only in their own interests but in the interests of the health of the nation and the whole of society.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Barker for setting out so clearly the challenges and some of the potential solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just reinforced why this issue is so pressing and urgent, as we see levels and types of sexually transmitted diseases that go back to an era we thought we had moved past.
I first want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about access, which was really important. Particularly for teenagers and younger people, in many cases access to the school nurse has gone, and the general GP access crisis may have a particularly negative effect on this group. As I think we have all experienced, access to your GP is really something for pushy parents. It is not something that reserved teenagers find at all easy, so the general crisis in GP access may have a particularly negative effect on a group that we want to be able to see their GP. There is no school nurse, and they are too shy to see the GP—call it as it is—or find it too difficult, so where are they getting their information?
My first suggestion for the Minister is that it is really important that we understand that, and that the Government commission some work. My instinct is that those people are probably going to TikTok or Instagram. Those might be useful sources of information, but they are not the same as a nurse or a GP. One of the things that TikTok and Instagram might do is provide initial information and, if it is done well, refer you on to a health professional, but we really need to understand that journey by talking to 14 to 17 year-olds and finding out what they do when they have a concern. When they are doing the right thing and they are worried, where are they going? What is their experience? What kind of information are they getting, and are they seeing the professionals that they need to see? That in itself could really help. Again, I hope that the Minister is going to say that this kind of work is under way. I know it is very difficult and sensitive; particularly when you are surveying teenagers about sexual issues, there are all sorts of legal and safeguarding questions, but I do not think that should hold us back, given the urgency of understanding their experience.
In terms of the broader questions around the workforce, there are three structural questions that I really wanted to put to the Minister. First, can he, hand on heart, say that the Government are taking sexual health seriously when we see the kind of cuts that we have heard about to public health budgets? Those are compounded by crises in local government funding, so the bodies that we need to respond and provide the information—public health services and local government writ large—are seeing significant cuts. I hope the Minister can offer something. We have often brought funding crises to him, and pots of money have been found and dished out for various reasons, but I have not heard of one in this space. I hope that he will think about that. It is really hard to take the Government seriously on this issue when the people who have to deliver the service are seeing their budgets cut year on year.
My second question is one that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raises around the role of integrated care boards and integrated care services. I was interested to read the briefing from our friends in the Library, which says that the workforce plan tells us that:
“Workforce planning, development and training for public health areas such as sexual and reproductive health and alcohol and drug treatment should benefit from improved joint working between ICBs and local authorities”.
I emphasise “should”; I do not think that “should” is good enough. I would really like to hear the Minister give any examples the Government can point to that say they “are” benefiting from this ICB structure. I know it is early days; we have been talking about it being early days for about a year, but at some point we should see the benefits that the ICBs should deliver. This is one of those critical areas, where it is joined-up working and the pooling of resources between the two services—local authority-delivered services and traditional acute community and primary healthcare services—that will deliver the benefit.
The third question is on workforce planning—the really interesting question of how all the different pieces are working together, underneath the headline which the Government have talked about. We on all sides of the House have praised the fact that we have these headlines. Again, it is time to dig into some of that detail. There are really two key issues. One is to say how the different pieces fit together because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has pointed out, there have been experiences where a push to recruit in one bit of the health service has led to that bit of the health service that now has the money hiring people from some other part of the health service that then, a year later, finds itself in crisis. We really need to understand for all these services how these pieces are being meshed together. It is like a waterbed: you push down on one point and another point pops up. The pressure needs to be applied very thoughtfully. There needs to be a bigger bed, for a start, but once you have that, you need to be really thoughtful about how it works to push down in one place and push up in another. It would be helpful to hear more from the Minister about how specific services like these—where you can imagine the recruitment for one service could come from another form of nursing or public health—can be knitted together.
The second issue is thinking about how people behave in their careers; they behave quite rationally. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the shortage of GUM specialists. As people go through their training and build their career, they will respond to signals about where the opportunities lie. If they see that the funding has been cut in a particular area and the jobs are not going to be there, they will make rational choices.
Again, we need to hear from the Minister—and perhaps also, in an election year, from the Opposition—what signals the Government can send out to make sure that somebody going through the early stages of their career, who is interested in delivering sexual and reproductive health services, will that feel it is worth doing the training because the jobs are going to be there at the end of it. They are going to make a rational choice; that is what we are seeing. Some of the suggestions that my noble friend made are precisely around the fact that we are not getting the specialists that we need in this area coming through because people are choosing to get trained in other specialties instead.
I hope the Minister will be able to respond on these key areas around workforce planning, as well as to the excellent suggestions made by my noble friend. Again, I thank her for giving us this opportunity to talk about an area that is critical, particularly—though not exclusively —for younger people. When mistakes are made at that stage and they do not get the help they need, they can end up with conditions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. We need to do all we can to prevent that from happening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on securing this important debate, and on her thorough assessment of what is a very worrying state of affairs. As I am sure the Minister has heard, that assessment has been received with some unanimity of concern across the Chamber.
The Health Foundation estimates that sexual health services will have seen spend lowered by some 39% between 2015-16 and 2024-25, which is far in excess of the already problematic 27% cuts to the public health grant. However, the situation gets even worse as the reductions in the public health grant tend to be largest in the more deprived areas. In Blackpool, for example, ranked as the most deprived upper-tier local authority in England, the per-person cut to the grant has been one of the largest. Perhaps the Minister could address how this disparity in the provision of funding for sexual health services will be put right for people in the most disadvantaged areas. It would also be helpful to hear how we have got to this situation.
My noble friend Lord Hunt raised some key questions about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which I certainly want to echo. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that, as well as to an explanation about how these cuts, which are more extreme in disadvantaged areas, square with the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
I anticipate that the Minister will give your Lordships’ House a number of statistics to refute the negative impact of the reduced funding that I have referred to on sexual health services. However, a recent Written Question tabled in the other place by Rachael Maskell MP asked what recent assessment had been made of the quality and adequacy of the availability of sexual health services. Minister Leadsom replied:
“No formal assessment has been made of the quality and availability of sexual health services to meet demand nationally or locally”.
As this is the case, how can the Government assure themselves that they are satisfied with the impact of the funding that they provide? How can they address, therefore, the very real questions that have been put in the debate this evening?
I turn to the current state of demand. The Local Government Association, using data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, reports on a number of areas. For example, almost all council areas have seen an increase in the diagnosis rate of gonorrhoea, with 10 local authorities seeing rates triple, while nearly three-quarters of areas have seen an increase in cases of syphilis and more than one-third of local authority areas have seen increases in detections of chlamydia. It is interesting to note that councils, as well as other groups, have called on the Government to publish a new 10-year sexual and reproductive health strategy to address infections in the long term. Perhaps the Minister could advise the House what consideration the Government have given to that proposal.
An analysis by the Guardian just last month found that spending by English councils on sexual health services had reduced by one-third since 2013 despite a rise in the necessity for consultations for sexually transmitted infections. Advice, prevention and promotion services have had the largest cuts to funding, with net spending down some 44% since councils were made responsible for public health in 2013. Meanwhile, STI testing and treatment fell by one-third and contraceptive spending by nearly one-third. Yet we know it is costly for people to end up in hospital who could otherwise have been treated through sexual health and reproductive services. So could the Minister comment on how cuts such as these make sense in terms of value for money, when research shows that each additional year of good health achieved in the population by public health interventions costs £3,800, around three times lower than the costs resulting from the NHS interventions that become necessary in the absence of those preventative measures?
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was right to draw attention to the workforce that is necessary to provide these services. There have been many warnings that a large number of skilled medical staff have left the NHS and, even in the unlikely event of a major injection of resources, it would just not be possible to replace that loss of workforce overnight.
I think we in this Chamber all agree that long-term workforce planning is essential to ensure the sustainability of crucial sexual health services. There is currently a retirement cliff edge for all members of multidisciplinary teams. That has been exacerbated by difficulties in recruiting new staff into the specialty, as well as the experience of the pandemic, which saw more healthcare professionals leaving the sector. As we have heard today, there is an urgent need to recruit new trainees by addressing the low number of training posts in GUM and HIV and lower awareness of the specialty. A survey of RCN members reported that sexual and reproductive health is not regarded as attractive to new staff, while concerns were also raised about the diminishing options for education and training. That is borne out by the limited exposure to the specialty that we see in undergraduate training and in the core general training following medical school—something highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
In all this, the failure to plan and invest in a sexual and reproductive workforce only exacerbates pressures elsewhere in the healthcare system. People are being pushed into hospital now due to untreated STIs, with admissions to hospital for syphilis and chlamydia doubling between 2013-14 and 2022-23 while gonorrhoea admissions have tripled.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, the workforce plan refers to what I would describe as a hope—a hope that there will be benefits from improved joint working between ICBs and local authorities on workforce planning, development and training for public health areas, including sexual and reproductive health services. In answer to a Written Question that I tabled last month, the Minister confirmed that NHS England conducted an annual performance assessment of the ICBs for the 2022-23 financial year. Can the Minister indicate what assessment has been made of those promised improvements through joint working in respect of sexual and reproductive health services; in other words, is the joint working delivering in the way that the workforce plan hoped for?
Importantly, how will the Government address the very real issues that have been highlighted in this debate? They are real, they have been with us for years and they need resolution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I start by adding my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for securing this debate and for all the work that she does in this important area. I was grateful for all the contributions, but I admit that it made me smile when the noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked whether the solution to the sexual health debate should be one of a bigger bed. I thought that was a very topical answer to it all, but I will come back to his bigger bed question on the long-term workforce plan later on.
I admit to a bit of surprise when hearing some words used in the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, used “crisis” and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned “broken Britain”. I can answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about the quality and availability of services for sexual health because, thanks to our very own House of Lords Library briefing, as I am sure all noble Lords saw, some very interesting and extensive research was produced by the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in October 2023. It looked at 46 European countries on a whole range of subjects and, for instance, in the area of access to abortion services the UK came third out of 46. On contraception, we came first and on HPV prevention, we came third. On gender-based violence in education, we came first. If we add all those up, what was our overall ranking? First.
I am somewhat surprised because this is a reasoned and balanced place, and this came from the House of Lords Library. In the whole conversation we have had in this debate—in all the things mentioned—I was somewhat surprised that it was not mentioned anywhere that this body had done extensive research on it all and it put us first. It commended us time and again in that.
I was also surprised when HIV was mentioned a couple of times. The UN target is called 95-95-95, which is wanting 95% of cases to be diagnosed, wanting 95% to be treated and wanting to make sure that 95% of people with HIV have an undetectable viral load. The UK, and I think we are alone in this, hit the 95% level on diagnosis. On treatment, we hit 98% and on detectable viral loads, we hit 98%. I will check whether we are alone but we are definitely beating those UN targets.
The action taken by the Government—which was recently applauded during Elton John’s visit, as noble Lords will remember—includes standard things such as opt-out HIV testing in every circumstance where people are going into A&E. This has already detected 1,000 people with HIV who were previously undetected. That is absolutely ground-breaking in the world. We were also applauded for the action taken on HIV through PrEP. Call me old-fashioned, but I would rather look at the results we are achieving than at how much we are spending, and I hope noble Lords would join me in that. On the results, according to this independent source and against the UN HIV target, we undeniably come out very highly.
However, I do not want to appear complacent. Clearly, far fewer people are using condoms—often for very good reasons, because there is not the same fear of sexual disease and HIV. So there are societal changes, but that brings some challenges regarding sexually transmitted diseases—that is understood. We are trying to make our funds go as far as possible, not just in services today but in introducing contraception and those services to pharmacies. Pharmacy First is making this very accessible—we are already seeing good take-up, and we expect about 30% of people to get their contraception through Pharmacy First. That is a real example of how we are massively expanding access to the workforce.
The long-term workforce plan is absolutely a bigger bed strategy, and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we clearly need to make sure that that provides the individual specialisms that are needed. The Government and I accept that work will need to be done to make sure that those specialisms result from that. But I think all noble Lords will agree that the bigger bed strategy is right, and improvements will come through across the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to Sexwise. The steps we are trying to take are sensible, and the Government did this well when they consolidated a lot of their different websites into a single source. We want the primary source of information we are pointing people towards to be the NHS websites, and particularly the NHS app, which I think all noble Lords would agree is completely appropriate for younger people. At the same time, I absolutely take the sensible point the noble Lord made about a group being willing take over Sexwise. Funnily enough, I said exactly that: “Why can’t we give it a contract for £1 if it is difficult to give it away? Why can’t we do something pragmatic along those lines?” That is the challenge I have set: if it is a good service and someone is willing to do that, why would we not want to support that? But I hope noble Lords see that, in general, it is a sensible strategy in the digital age to consolidate your assets around the overall NHS umbrella and the NHS app.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we definitely want to build on the women’s health hubs. STI and HIV screenings are part of their specifications. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we have hepatitis B, HIV and syphilis as standard parts of the screening of pregnant women. That is seen as very important. I also absolutely agree about the importance of home testing in all this. As noble Lords will see, we are trying to use the NHS app as a vehicle for people to get home testing as they require.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the advice behind focusing chlamydia screening on women rather than men. That is based on the scientific advice and evidence we have received that that is the best use of resources in this case.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, on his very reasonable question about where young people get their information from in a letter detailing what we know. I accept that, if we do not have that information, we should find it out. Hopefully, we can come back on that. Likewise, I will need to come back further on what evidence we have to date on ICBs and the benefits of joint working. As ever, I will follow up on the detail in writing.
I am grateful for the opportunity for us to debate these things. This is one of those occasions where I can stand here in all honesty and say that, objectively, by a number of measures—looking at the results coming in, not at the funding—including from none other than the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights, Britain comes out at No. 1. That is something that we can all feel proud of.