House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology closely engages with all Departments on the adoption of AI, including the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to ensuring that the adoption of AI is done in an ethical, safe and responsible way. That includes using AI to improve public service outcomes and productivity in the NHS. Ahead of the AI Safety Summit last year, we announced a new AI in healthcare fund, backed by £100 million, to target areas where the rapid deployment of AI could create transformational breakthroughs.
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Without doubt, AI offers an opportunity to innovate regarding medical diagnostics. What discussions is he having with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the next generation of clinical scientists, including radiologists and pathologists, gain the right skills to make full use of AI?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Ensuring that the UK’s life sciences sector can grow and access the variety of skills it needs to support innovation, including the adoption of AI, is a key commitment of the life sciences vision. To deliver that we are working cross-Government, including with the Department for Education and DHSC, industry and academia, to ensure that our ecosystem can deliver and attract interdisciplinary talent. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Department are also working to ensure that the NHS can take advantage of the opportunity that AI represents for healthcare. In addition, DSIT is actively represented on NHS England’s radiology and pathology boards, where AI and skills are regularly discussed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Health and Social Care Committee’s report into the digital technologies of the future clearly demonstrated the opportunities that sit before us if we get the basics right. AI is not only of use for increasing productivity in diagnostics, but also when setting treatment plans and in pharmacology. How is the Minister setting out a strategic plan for how AI can be invested in the NHS for the future, as Labour has done with our “Fit for the Future” plan?
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Lady is right to say that AI can play a great role in improving the way we treat conditions, provided that it is implemented in an ethical, safe and responsible way. One great example of that is Brainomix, which is already being used in 37 NHS healthcare trusts. It means that the in/out time has been greatly reduced, and three times more people who previously would have not been able to live independently are now able to do so because of the use of AI. That is also being used in additional critical pathways, and lessons are learned. I know the NHS is working closely with DHSC to ensure that AI is used effectively.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
In our White Paper on AI regulation we set out our ambitious pro-regulation, pro-innovation framework, outlining five cross-sectoral principles to be applied by existing regulators. In February we published our response, setting out how we are supporting regulators to deliver the framework and strengthen our global AI leadership. That includes new funding and guidance for our regulators, and we have established a central risk function to support.
Chris Elmore
Yet we heard just a few months ago from the Prime Minister that the UK’s answer is not to rush to regulate. The Competition and Markets Authority has been clear about the potential harms that unregulated AI could generate from baking in biases that affect certain demographics, and general purpose models that could get out of control. Why have the Government dragged their feet on safeguards for the most advanced AI models, or is the Secretary of State simply waiting for the next Labour Government to control the new AI models?
Michelle Donelan
Mr Speaker, this is absolute tosh. We have led the world when it comes to AI safety. We have set up a long-term process in the AI Safety Summit, and the next one will be in Seoul in just a few weeks. We have also set up the world’s first AI Safety Institute, which is testing both pre and post deployment. We have also been clear: we will not rush to legislate. We will grip the risks and better understand them, rather than produce out-of-date legislation as a gimmick.
Justin Madders
Tomorrow the TUC will officially launch its Bill on AI regulation and employment rights, which recognises that transparency, observability and explainability are all key elements of a fair and just workplace. What will the Government do to ensure that AI does not lead to a weakening of workers’ rights?
Michelle Donelan
We want to garnish the opportunities of AI for the British public, which include the comple- mentary aspect that it can pose for jobs, especially in teaching and medicine, by taking away some of the admin and bureaucracy. We are also very realistic that technology always changes labour market needs. In 1940, 60% of the jobs we now have did not exist. That is why we have undergone a revolution in our skills system, including the launch of the lifelong learning entitlement next year.
Dame Nia Griffith
It is all very well the Government saying that they will take their time over this response, but the point is that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that a regulatory framework is urgent, and Dr Rogoyski of the University of Surrey is pointing out that delay could mean the UK probably having no choice but to follow the approach of the US and Europe on AI regulation. Can the Secretary of State set out exactly what the timeframe will be for regulation?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member is getting confused between regulation and legislation. We already have a plethora of regulation and world-leading regulators that we are supporting. We were clear in our White Paper response that we will legislate—as will every nation around the world—but we want to get that legislation right. She commented on the US’s approach. We are working hand in glove with the US, and I signed the world’s first memorandum of understanding on AI institutes just a few weeks ago.
Henry Smith
What assessments have the Government made of the United Nation’s plans to internationally regulate artificial intelligence? What are the implications for UK sovereign security?
Michelle Donelan
The UK Government are committed to unlocking the opportunities of AI, while mitigating the risks. That requires both domestic and international action. The UK is a leading voice internationally, having hosted the AI Safety Summit, which delivered the world-first Bletchley declaration, as well as actively participating at the UN. That includes our proactive role shaping UNESCO recommendations on AI ethics.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that leading AI developers are expected imminently to release new, more sophisticated AI models. Can she confirm that our AI Safety Institute has had access to those models, as was agreed at Bletchley Park? Is it the case that the developers have made changes to their models where they have been requested by the institute?
Michelle Donelan
I know that my right hon. Friend shares my passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as a desire to make sure we grip the risk. Our institute is the first in the world to be doing pre and post-deployment testing, in line with the agreement we made at Bletchley Park. I cannot get into the specifics of which models we are testing, as I am sure he will understand, as that is highly commercially sensitive information, but I can assure him and the House that where risks are found, we expect relevant action to be taken. The responsibility of developers is to ensure that their models are safe, but the Government are committed to holding them to account.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that spreading best practice in this field is perhaps the most important thing? For example, the health benefits of AI have already been mentioned, such as in the diagnosis of bowel cancer, and that is about promoting the health of the public at large. Those things need to be pushed forward with urgency. It is not enough just to try to slow things down and over-regulate.
Michelle Donelan
I absolutely agree. AI has the potential to be revolutionary, especially in areas such as healthcare. That is why at the summit we announced a £100 million pot to accelerate some of our existing healthcare missions. We are working hand in hand with the Department of Health and Social Care on this important topic.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
AI is an incredible new technology, and it can help the NHS to save lives, but there are also risks, such as the danger of deepfakes. The Government have been warned about those risks, yet time and again Ministers have dithered and delayed, and the Government’s failure to act was highlighted in the Financial Times this week. Have the Government run out of ideas, or are they just scared of their own Back Benchers?
Michelle Donelan
As the hon. Member will know, we have the defending democracy taskforce, which is dedicated to this very subject and is led by the Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). We as a team are actively participating in that, and we also work with social media companies and our international counterparts. It is something that I personally put on the agenda at the summit and that I have personally discussed in forums such as the G7. The Deputy Prime Minister is also leading the way with his AI compact. There is no easy answer to this, but we are working in a conciliatory and speedy manner to ensure that we address all opportunities and answers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before Parliament builds on the high standards that we already have for personal data protection. It strengthens and modernises the regulator so that it can enforce standards must more robustly, to protect people. We are looking at what we can do to strengthen our cyber-resilience and data infrastructure all the time as new technology develops.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly vital that the enormous amounts of personal data collected by Departments and private companies are safeguarded. I have received a number of complaints about people’s personal data being abused by companies, and indeed about public sector data being sold to companies who then use it. Just this weekend, our Greater London Authority candidate had his phone hacked and his social media destroyed. That is equally important as a demonstration of what can happen to democracy when data is abused. Will my hon. Friend take further action to safeguard people’s personal data?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case. I regret what has happened to the GLA candidate, which highlights some of the risks in relation to technology. That is why we have high data protection standards, but there is a range of ways in which we need to tackle this problem. We have the national cyber strategy, which is working to ensure that we can deal with the cyber-threats we face. We are taking measures to protect our data infrastructure and trying to do things to stop fraud in the national “Stop! Think Fraud” strategy, as well as new laws on security of devices, such as connected devices. We need to do a whole range of things, but we need to keep making sure that we are vigilant about the risks.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When my 91-year-old mother died, I took on her landline for purely sentimental reasons. For months and months after that, I kept getting scam calls offering all sorts of dodgy products. Does the Minister agree that the elderly almost more than anyone else must have their personal data protected?
Julia Lopez
I am sorry to hear of that experience, which I am afraid is shared by constituents across the country. That is why we have taken new measures in the data Bill to try to deal with scam calls by trying to ensure that we can see where those numbers are and take action by blocking them on bulk. I appreciate what the hon. Member said; it is something that we must tackle.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
We are told that this is the general election year. In other countries, we already see those who want to manipulate democracy using AI to scrape together personal details, including someone’s face and voice, allowing them to falsify candidates’ views. What the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised about the GLA candidate is pertinent. As we quickly approach the second half of the year—when we are told the Prime Minister will finally call the election—will the Government commit to ensuring that personal details are protected for candidates, voters and, above all, democracy as a matter of urgency?
Julia Lopez
We absolutely share those concerns. That is why we have a defending democracy taskforce working across every Department to look at the threats to our democracy. We face a substantial threat, and it is one that we must all be mindful of in how we conduct ourselves as candidates. AI, fakes and the protection of data is one element of that, but I assure the House that we are taking a whole range of measures to ensure that the protection of the coming general election is robust.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Individuals’ personal data is not safe in Tory hands. A recent article in The Guardian reported that senior Tory party officials planned to make millions from selling off their own members’ data through the “True Blue” app. If the Tory party is happy to sell off its own members’ personal data, how can the public possibly have confidence that their data is safe under the Government?
Julia Lopez
The allegations that the hon. Lady has put forward were written in The Guardian, and I have not seen them myself. I am presiding over the data Bill, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that we are trying to bring forward laws that would do such a thing.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Ofcom is the independent regulator of the Online Safety Act. The Government are working with it to implement the Act as quickly as possible, including the relevant secondary legislation. Ofcom is taking a phased approach to bringing the duties into effect and is consulting on guidance and codes of practice. Offences around serious online abuse came into effect on 31 January this year.
Vicky Ford
The Online Safety Act introduced many measures to keep children safe, but given the increased concerns about children’s online safety, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to go even further and introduce a child-safe phone? That would ensure that, at a minimum, all phones intended for children are properly fitted with parental controls to stop children accessing harmful content.
Michelle Donelan
The Government produced world-leading legislation on online safety, which puts the onus on social media companies, not parents. I know that my right hon. Friend has spoken about information, which is particularly important to make it as easy as possible for parents. She raises an important about device-level controls, and I assure her that I am listening not just to Members of this House but to parents.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Government finally backed Labour’s calls and announced that they would make the creation of deepfake porn a criminal offence. However, it is disappointing that the Government continue to adopt an intent-based approach over one of consent in relation to these crimes. Why are Ministers prioritising a man’s right to have banter over a woman’s right to feel safe? Will the Government look at the regulation of AI apps such as Nudify and ClothOff, which are freely available, easy to use and exist only to humiliate and violate women?
Michelle Donelan
I share the hon. Member’s passion in this area, which is why we put it in the Online Safety Act with regard to the sharing of that content. We have now gone one step further, and are in the process of making it illegal to create that content in the first place.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Government are clear that artificial intelligence is the defining technology of our time, with the potential to transform humanity positively. We also recognise the challenges that AI can pose. As has been said, we are working to ensure that we respond to the full range of threats to our democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce. DSIT is engaging with social media platforms, civil society groups, academia and international partners to tackle the risks that AI can pose to democracy.
Stuart C. McDonald
In the longer term, I agree that AI has enormous potential to support participation in politics, and we should seek to harness that. But in the short term, disinformation and deepfakes, often put together by foreign actors, threaten to have the most immediate impact on democracy. What risk does the Minister believe AI poses to this year’s election in particular, and what steps is he taking to alleviate those risks?
Saqib Bhatti
Let me be very clear: the UK will not tolerate malicious cyber-activity that targets our democratic institutions. The Deputy Prime Minister has already come to this Dispatch Box and taken definitive action where that has happened. The defending democracy taskforce and Government teams are working collaboratively to ensure that we respond to threats to our democratic processes, including digitally manipulated content. The Online Safety Act will force companies to take proactive, preventive action against illegal, state-sponsored content online via the foreign interference offence, including deepfakes and other AI-generated content within the scope of the Act.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In two short sentences, will the Minister reassure us that AI will not destroy not just democracy, but the human race?
Saqib Bhatti
Two sentences, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the Government are taking a proactive approach to AI. The defending democracy taskforce is working very hard to protect our democratic processes.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
I want the British people to be able to seize the extraordinary opportunities that AI offers, but that can happen only if we address the risks. At Bletchley Park we kick-started a global conversation and, since then, the Bletchley effect has seen countries from around the world collaborating on the development of safe, responsible and trustworthy AI. Two weeks ago I signed an agreement with the United States to allow us to collaborate seamlessly on AI safety testing. Last week we announced the date of the second AI Safety Summit in Seoul. We also remain laser-focused on implementing the landmark Online Safety Act, which will make Britain the safest place to be online. Last month we saw the first sentencing under the cyber-flashing offences that we brought in in January.
Simon Jupp
A fast and reliable internet connection is vital for everyday life and so many local businesses. I conducted a broadband survey in East Devon, which showed that some rural parts of my constituency sadly still lag behind, such as Sidbury, Fluxton, Marsh Green and Talaton. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that broadband providers improve connections across our county?
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I am glad to say that over 75% of premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency can access gigabit-capable broadband. That is up from 6% in 2019, but we want to do more, so we have included mid and east Devon in our cross-regional framework for Project Gigabit. That is currently undertaking pre-procurement market engagement. We hope to give him news very soon.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The first act of the Prime Minister was to promise a Government of professionalism and integrity, yet here we have a Secretary of State who uses her position to accuse a British scientist of being a terrorist sympathiser. She goes on to use public money to settle her libel case and then she tries to cover up just how much taxpayers’ money she has wasted. Are those the actions of someone with integrity and professionalism—yes or no?
Michelle Donelan
As the Minister responsible for UK Research and Innovation, I was alerted to a tweet by officials in my Department, which stated, “This is disturbing”
and to the comment:
“Suella Braverman urges police to crack down on Hamas support in UK”,
with no further context or wording. That was posted by a representative of an equality, diversity and inclusion board that sits under UKRI. At the time, like many others, I was indeed concerned and used the forum that the person used to alert UKRI to my concerns. This was highlighted using that medium, but on receipt of the letter, UKRI itself said that it was deeply concerned and launched an investigation.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Michelle Donelan
We are pro-innovation, but also pro-privacy. However, it is clearly not right for anyone to be exposed on any service to harms such as sexual abuse, extortion or grooming. Platforms must have robust processes in place to safeguard children, in line with the Online Safety Act 2023. Responsible encryption has an important role to play in protecting privacy, but it should not compromise safety, and Ofcom will take robust action when that is compromised.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Michelle Donelan
I have answered that multiple times. An official alerted me to those concerns. I then saw the tweet myself and asked the Department for further advice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
In2tec is indeed a great example of innovation in sustainable electronics. I am pleased that it has benefited from £250,000 in UK support. It would be my pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in Kettering, and I believe we have a date soon.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Julia Lopez
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of gigabit broadband to the economy. I am very glad to say that 95% of Northern Ireland has that access—the highest percentage in the country. That is a tribute to the work done between central Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Julia Lopez
We agree; that is why we have the shared rural network programme, which is dealing with a lot of those notspot problems.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Black students studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects are leaving education in great numbers. What is the Minister doing to identify the challenges and help the progression of black students in STEM subjects?
Andrew Griffith
The Government are absolutely committed to expanding STEM opportunities. A key way of doing that is building mathematical capabilities and helping girls and minorities to stick with maths, which is why the Prime Minister has announced our ambition to see all young people receive maths education until they are 18.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Andrew Griffith
The Medical Research Council is benefiting from the highest ever level of research spending, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about what more we can do in this important area.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
We are joined today in the Gallery by postmasters caught up in the Horizon IT scandal. It is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our history, which is why we have introduced a Bill to quash convictions, delivered schemes to ensure swift compensation, and established an independent inquiry.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Selaine Saxby
Does my right hon. Friend agree that towns such as Barnstaple—the main transport hub in North Devon, serving hundreds of square miles—should have a fully functioning bus station? Liberal Democrat-run North Devon Council has not reopened ours since the pandemic, leaving residents out in the cold with no public facilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as people start to feel the difference as a result of tax cuts and falling inflation, we should be making it easier for people to use the bus, come to town and support Barnstaple’s local economy? Will he join me in calling on the Lib Dems to get on with reopening the bus station?
The Prime Minister
We know how vital bus services are for communities right across the country. That is why we are providing Devon with £17 million to deliver better bus services, and we introduced the £2 fare bus cap. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently visited my hon. Friend and saw the benefits of reopening Barnstaple bus station, and it is clear that the local Liberal Democrats should just get on and do it.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the postmasters in the Gallery, in their quest for justice.
This week we marked 35 years since the disaster at Hillsborough, and the enduring courage and determination of the families must be marked by the passing of a Hillsborough law.
We also lost Lord Richard Rosser, a lifelong member of the Labour party. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts are with his wife Sheena and his family and friends.
I am privileged to be the proud owner of a copy of the former Prime Minister’s new book. It is a rare unsigned copy; it is the only unsigned copy. It is quite the read. She claims that the Tory party’s disastrous kamikaze Budget, which triggered chaos for millions, was the “happiest moment” of her premiership. Has the Prime Minister met anyone with a mortgage who agrees?
The Prime Minister
All I would say is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to spend a bit less time reading that book, and a bit more time reading the Deputy Leader’s tax advice. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to get through Prime Minister’s questions.
Keir Starmer
We have a billionaire Prime Minister, and a billionaire—[Interruption.] Both of whose families have used schemes to avoid millions of pounds of tax, smearing a working-class woman. [Interruption.] The former Prime Minister has a long list of people to blame for the economic misery. Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but they made her Prime Minister, and millions of people are paying the price. She blames the Governor of the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Office for Budget Responsibility. The American President is blamed at one point. We even learn that the poor old lettuce was part of the “deep state”. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is actually much simpler than that? It was the Tories’ unfunded tax cuts—tens of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts—that crashed the economy and left millions paying more for their mortgages, wasn’t it?
The Prime Minister
Everyone knows that two years ago I was not afraid to repeatedly warn about what my predecessor’s economic policies would lead to, even if it was not what people wanted to hear at the time. I was right then, but I am also right now when I say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s economic policies would be a disaster for Britain. He would send inflation up, mortgages up and taxes up, and working people would pay the price.
Keir Starmer
I appreciate the Prime Minister having the stomach to say that out loud, but everyone knows that it is the Tory party’s obsession with wild, unfunded tax cuts that crashed the economy. We know it, he knows it and his party knows it, and the whole country is living it. When is he finally going to learn the lesson from his predecessor’s mistakes and explain where the money is coming from for his own completely unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance?
The Prime Minister
When my predecessor was running for leader, I did have—to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s words—the stomach to argue out loud about her economic policies. I had the conviction to say that they were wrong—not once, but twice. He tried to make his predecessor Prime Minister, despite him opposing NATO and Trident, ignoring antisemitism and siding with our enemies. It is clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did: he put his own interests ahead of Britain’s.
Keir Starmer
Actually, when the Prime Minister was running for leader, he explained how he was funnelling money from poor areas to pay it into richer areas. We know what his record is.
I notice the Prime Minister is not denying the £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance, but he is refusing to say where the money will come from. We have been trying for months to get to the bottom of this, so now is his chance. No more spin, no more waffle, no more diversion—I know that will be difficult. This is the choice: either he can cut the state pension or the NHS, which national insurance funds—that is route one—or he can put up income tax. Which one is it?
The Prime Minister
We have just cut taxes by £900 for a typical worker. We have delivered the biggest tax cut for businesses since the 1980s. But while we are cutting taxes, Labour is already putting them up. In Wales, it is putting up taxes right now for small businesses. In Birmingham, it is putting up council tax by 21%. In London, the Labour Mayor has put up taxes by 70%. This is just a glimpse of what they would do if they got into power. A few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman finally admitted it to The Sun. What did he say he would do? He said, “We would put up taxes.” It is always the same: higher taxes, and working people paying the price.
Keir Starmer
No single politician has ever put tax up more times than the Prime Minister has. But hang on, he was just given the chance to rule out cutting the NHS or state pensions to pay for scrapping national insurance. I was a lawyer long enough to know when someone is avoiding the question, so I am going to give him another chance. Will he now rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or putting up taxes to pay for his unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance? Which is it?
The Prime Minister
I make absolutely no apology about wanting to end the unfairness of the double taxation on work. The NHS is receiving record funding under this Conservative Government. Pensioners have just received a £900 increase under this Government. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to talk about tax, let us have a look at what Labour’s brand newly appointed tax adviser has to say. This adviser thinks that supporting pensioners is “a complete disgrace”. He believes their free TV licences are “ridiculous”. If it was not bad enough, this adviser has called for increases in income tax, national insurance and VAT. It all makes sense now—that is who the shadow Chancellor has been copying and pasting from.
Keir Starmer
This is genuinely extraordinary: two chances to rule out cuts to state pensions, cuts to the NHS, or income tax rises to fund his promise to abolish national insurance—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, I want you to set a good example, not a bad one.
Keir Starmer
This really matters. The Prime Minister has had two chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to pensions or tax rises. This matters to millions of people watching who will want to know what is going to happen to their NHS and pensions—[Interruption.] It really does matter to millions of people who are watching, so I will be really generous now and give him one last chance. It is very simple and very clear. Is his £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance being paid for by cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or yet another Tory tax rise?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really got to keep up. It is this Government who have just delivered a £900 increase to the state pension. It is this Government who have already committed to the triple lock for the next Parliament. He has had six opportunities, but I do not think I heard him say that. When it comes to the NHS, you would much rather be treated in the Conservative-run NHS in England than in the Labour-run NHS in Wales. It is another week where all we have heard is political sniping. Not a word about their plans for the country. He has failed to acknowledge that since we last met, taxes have been cut by £900, the state pension has gone up, free childcare has been expanded, wages have risen for nine months in a row and just today, inflation is down again, to 3.2%. Our plan is working and the Conservatives are delivering a brighter future for Britain.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of the residents of Carlton. Our long-term plan for towns means that 75 towns across the country including Carlton will benefit from £20 million each to invest in their local area. Crucially, as he has said, it will be in the hands of local people to decide on their priorities for the place where they live. Whether it is regenerating local high streets, investing in parks and green spaces or tackling antisocial behaviour, we are levelling up across the country and he deserves enormous praise for his role in securing that investment.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
This week, a former Prime Minister who oversaw a financial crash before being unceremoniously turfed from office told the public the truth—and I am not referring to that one, Mr Speaker. On Monday, Gordon Brown told the people of these isles that
“the forces pulling Britain apart are greater than the forces holding it together”.
Maybe the Prime Minister can find some time this afternoon to agree with just one of his predecessors?
The Prime Minister
Where I do agree with my predecessor very strongly is that Scotland would be far stronger inside the United Kingdom.
Stephen Flynn
Gordon Brown was also correct in stating that Scottish independence is not simply off the agenda. Those remarks were echoed just yesterday by the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, who stated that it remained an unresolved issue—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh at her, but she went on to say:
“That can be a very dangerous place to end up in when you are not allowing people to express their wishes in a democratic manner.”
Does the Prime Minister welcome the fulsome, wholehearted and warm support of the Labour party in denying the people of Scotland the opportunity to have a say over their own future?
The Prime Minister
We did have a democratic vote on that topic, but I would suggest to the SNP that, rather than obsessing about independence, and wasting time cracking down on free speech and trying to lock up J. K. Rowling, he should focus on what the people of Scotland care about: schools, hospitals, jobs and our new tax cuts.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. A key principle of our country is that there are the same rules for everyone. On this topic, the Labour leader should show some leadership: stop reading the legal advice; simply publish it and get a grip of the situation. It says a lot about his priorities that, with his famed legal expertise, he is more than happy to help defend Hizb ut-Tahrir but refuses to help his deputy.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The recently published Kenova report makes it clear that the IRA was riddled with British agents from top to bottom. Those agents were involved in the abduction, torture and murder of British and Irish citizens. The British Government—successive British Governments—knew all about it and did nothing. The report also calls for an apology from the Government to those victims. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make that apology?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the report is an interim one. As the Secretary of State has laid out, we cannot comment on the findings until we get the final report, but we would never condone wrongdoing where there is evidence of that. I will also say, because it is not said enough, that the overwhelming majority of the police, armed forces and intelligence services served with great distinction. They defended democracy in the face of some horrendous violence, and without their service and their sacrifice, there would have been no peace process. They helped ensure that the future of Northern Ireland will never be decided by violence but by the consent of its people.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the great work of Ben Houchen. I share his concerns about the pledges of the Labour candidate—over £130 million of unfunded spending, showing that Labour cannot be trusted. We see the results in Labour-run Birmingham, with taxes going up by 20%. The story of Labour in local government is one of working people paying the price. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend and I completely agree that the people of Teesside should vote Ben Houchen and vote Conservative.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
With the record funding that we are putting into the NHS, our urgent and emergency care plan is delivering more ambulances and more beds, with faster discharge through our hospitals to speed the flow, and that plan is working. Of course there is more to do, but this winter we saw ambulance and A&E waiting times improve from the year before for the first time in many years, and if we stick to the plan, we will continue to deliver improvement for the hon. Lady’s constituents and everyone else.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right. Because of our plan, the economy has, after a tough few years, turned the corner. Inflation has fallen from over 11% to 3.2%, and it is forecast to return back to target in just a few months—a year ahead of expectations. That is why we have been able to cut people’s taxes. As he mentions, the tax cut is worth £900 for an average worker. That is part of our plan to end the long-term unfairness of the double taxation on work.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am extremely sorry to hear about Juliana’s case, and my sympathy is with her and her family. We are committed to improving victims’ access to court transcripts to help them move on and rebuild their lives. We already offer a free service to families of homicide victims, for example. That is why we have already committed to a one-year pilot to help identify the current demand and to inform our next steps. Alongside this, we are actively looking at other options to immediately reduce the costs.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how Bracknell Forest Council has worked positively with the Department for Education through the safety valve programme. As part of that agreement, the council will receive £16 million in extra funding over the next few years to provide the vital education that his constituents deserve. I am told that the Department is still reviewing capital bids for the safety valve programme, but it will be in touch with local authorities directly as soon as possible.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
While the Labour party was busy trying to take us back into the EU and reverse the referendum result, my predecessor was signing trade deals around the world that have seen Brexit Britain overtake the Netherlands, France and Japan to become the fourth largest exporter in the world.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituent, and I extend my sympathy to Claire and her family. While I cannot comment on individual cases, as I am sure she will understand, I know that the Financial Conduct Authority has the powers it needs to take action against firms that breach its rules. Further, customers can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service, whose decisions are binding on insurers. I will immediately ensure that the relevant Minister meets my hon. Friend to look more closely at this specific issue and the case that she raises.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
It was a pleasure to address Members of the Ukrainian Parliament when I visited Ukraine earlier this year. Indeed, it was my first foreign visit of the year; I was the first foreign leader to visit Ukraine and President Zelensky to demonstrate our strong support for the Ukrainian people at their moment of struggle against Russian aggression. We have increased the amount of support we have given to Ukraine this year— the first major country to do so—and a big part of that support concerns air defence. Where we have led in supporting Ukraine’s efforts, we will continue to do so and continue to encourage other countries around the world to step up and match our leadership, because we all want to see a future for Ukraine based on freedom from tyranny.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Sadiq Khan is failing London. While burglary is down across England, it is up in London. Violent crime is down across England, but up in London. The Labour Mayor is the only one of 43 police and crime commissioners to have missed his police recruitment target. Londoners will have the chance to speak when they cast their votes on 2 May. I hope that they kick him out because we all know they will be safer with Susan Hall.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
My local community is reeling from the discovery of 35 bodies and unidentifiable cremated ashes at a local funeral home. The pain was made worse when people realised that the funeral plans they had used their life savings for were fake. Does the Prime Minister agree that in these unique and limited circumstances banks should offer discretion when deciding if chargeback applies to payment refunds?
The Prime Minister
I express my sympathies to the families affected by the case that the hon. Lady raises. I believe the Ministry of Justice is urgently looking at the matter. I will ensure someone gets in touch with her as soon as possible.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the potential of this innovative technology for patient care. I am delighted that more generally Cornwall is benefiting from our new hospital programme, providing a new women and children’s hospital at the Royal Cornwall Hospital, in the centre of Cornwall, which he and I discussed when I was last with him. NHS England is actively exploring opportunities to expand robotic-assisted surgery. Any decisions on funding new allocations will factor in health inequalities, such as areas with less access to robots to date. I will ensure that the current access to robotic surgery in my hon. Friend’s local community is appropriately considered by the relevant health Minister.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he was off to make a telephone call to Mr Netanyahu, to urge restraint on a Government that have killed and maimed well over 100,000 people in six months, 72% of them women and children. Will he tell us how the telephone call went? What will he do if his advice is not taken and an unrestrained war begins?
The Prime Minister
I was pleased to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who thanked the UK for its support of Israel’s security over the weekend. We discussed the situation and how Iran is isolated on the world stage. I also made the point to him that significant escalation is not in anyone’s interest and that it is a time for calm heads to prevail. I also reiterated our concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I welcome the statements and commitments that the Israeli Government have made about significantly increasing aid into Gaza, and now we need to see those commitments delivered.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that, particularly at a time of increased geopolitical risk, we must protect our nation’s food security and therefore our most valuable agricultural land. We do want to see more solar, which is one of the cheapest forms of energy, but, as he said, on brownfield sites, rooftops and away from our best agricultural land. That is why our recently published national infrastructure planning rules set out the requirement for solar not to be placed on what is described as the best and most valuable versatile land where possible. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are ensuring that developers and planning authorities strike the right balance so that we can deliver what my hon. Friend wants, which is more British food grown here at home.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I went out recently with Chris McEwan, the mayoral candidate in Teesside. It was clear that residents are really worried about crime. Levels in Tory-run Teesside are among the highest in the country. The residential burglary rate is 52% higher than anywhere else in the country. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has lost control not only of his party, but of crime in this country?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, what a joke! We have police and crime commissioner elections across the country, and the hon. Lady really should look at the record. Under this Government, crime has been cut by 50%, and we have 20,000 more police officers. Let me give her the facts, because this is why it is so extraordinary to hear what she said. People with a Labour police and crime commissioner are more likely to be victims of burglary and twice as likely to be victims of robbery. The facts completely speak for themselves, so people should vote Conservatives for safer streets.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
This year, the Government announced a further £600 million in extra funding for local councils—a real-terms increase, as has been the case in every single year of this Parliament. But we all know what happens when Labour is in charge—whether it is racking up debt in Warrington, as my hon. Friend said, increasing council tax by 21% in Labour-run Birmingham, slashing services in Nottingham, or, as I have just said, higher crime on average in each Labour police and crime commissioner area. It is crystal clear that, whenever Labour is in charge, it is working people who pay the price.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
While 64,000 people are on the waiting list for a council house in the west midlands, families are living in hotels, cold and damp homes and mouldy flats. The Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, has built 46 social homes in eight years. Does the Prime Minister think that that is good enough?
The Prime Minister
Andy Street is absolutely delivering for the west midlands. Unlike the Labour Mayor in London, he has delivered on all his housing targets. It is the Labour-run council in Birmingham that is imposing on the hon. Lady’s constituents and others a 21% council tax rise, and what are they getting in exchange? Six hundred job losses and cuts to services. On some streets, they are even turning off the lights. What Labour has done to Birmingham the Conservatives will never let it do to Britain.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I ask the Prime Minister to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for holding further meetings with Hitachi this morning—and, indeed, with the union representatives. We were all glad to see what happened with Alstom yesterday, but it is important that we do the same to support the factories up at Hitachi in Aycliffe.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his role in championing the rail industry in the UK. As he rightly said, the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State have been actively engaged with companies to ensure that we have a robust supply chain. As my hon. Friend knows, we are investing record amounts in rail, particularly in the north, and we are pleased to see that that is being delivered.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is no doubt aware of the collapse of SSB Law, and many constituents, including hundreds in my constituency, have been affected and have bills of up to hundreds of thousands. One constituent had to sell his wedding gifts, and his father had a heart attack with the stress. People are having to raid their pension pots; they are getting bills, and bailiffs are knocking on the door. Will the Prime Minister meet me and my constituents’ representatives on the collapse of SSB Law, and make sure that the Government respond to this injustice that has happened to people across the country?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear about the situation impacting the hon. Lady’s constituents. I will be more than happy to make sure that the right Minister looks into it and that we get back to her as soon as possible.
Humanitarian Situation in Gaza
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The deputy Foreign Secretary is regrettably unable to respond to this question in person, as he is at the World Bank spring meetings in Washington. I will respond on his behalf. Earlier this month, we passed a grim milestone: six months since Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack on Israel. The UK Government have been working with partners across the region to secure the release of hostages, including British nationals. We want to see the release of all hostages.
Palestinian civilians have spent these months suffering, with conditions worsening by the day. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The Iran attack and our support for Israel have not changed our focus on ensuring that Israel meets its commitments to enable at least 500 aid trucks a day to enter Gaza; to open Ashdod port for aid deliveries; to expand the Jordan land corridor; to open a crossing into northern Gaza; and to extend hours at Kerem Shalom and Nitzana. We are pushing as hard as we can to get aid to Palestinian civilians. As this House knows, we have been urging Israel at the highest levels to take immediate action on the bottlenecks holding up humanitarian relief. We have recently seen a small increase in the number of aid trucks being allowed to enter Gaza, but not all of them are full, and numbers are not yet close to reaching the levels required given the severity of the humanitarian situation that we now see.
We will continue to press Israel to take immediate action to open Ashdod fully for humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, we recently announced new support for a life-saving aid corridor by sea to Gaza, including the deployment of a Royal Navy ship, which has now arrived in the Mediterranean and is ready to integrate with the US pier, and provide a command and control platform.
We are also committing up to £9.7 million for aid deliveries through that corridor, as well as providing logistical expertise and equipment. In recent weeks, the Royal Air Force has conducted seven airdrops along the Gazan coast, delivering more than 58 tonnes of food. The UK-Med field hospital, funded by the UK, is up and running in Gaza and has already treated more than 8,000 people, a high proportion of them children. We need to see the operating environment in Gaza improve, so that more aid gets in and can be distributed quickly, safely and effectively. Israel must ensure that the UN has the access, equipment and staff that it needs to do that.
We were horrified by the attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy, which killed seven aid workers, including three very dedicated British nationals. Israel must do more to protect aid workers, including through guaranteed deconfliction for aid convoys and other humanitarian work to ensure that they can operate safely. The findings of Israel’s investigation must be published in full, and followed up with a wholly independent review, to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.
Six months on, however much we might wish otherwise, the fighting has not yet come to an end. We cannot and will not stand by. The Foreign Secretary is in the region this week, pressing for further action.
Mr Lammy
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this urgent question.
Conditions in Gaza are desperate and intolerable. Famine is taking hold, sewage is pooling in the streets and the water has still not been switched back on. Almost nothing is reaching northern Gaza, where people are already dying of starvation. The healthcare system has been utterly devastated. Yesterday, leading non-governmental organisations told me about specific blocks and restrictions that they face from Israeli authorities in doing their life-saving work. Aid is sat waiting, unable to reach those in need, with some rotting where it stood. Items are removed from trucks without explanation, and doctors are reusing single-use medical equipment taken from patients who have died. Today, a UN report says that 10,000 women have been killed. That is a description of hell on earth. It cannot go on.
For months, we have demanded that aid flow without restrictions—unfettered and unimpeded—at a level that meets humanitarian need. The UN Security Council has demanded it; the International Court of Justice has ordered it. However, despite the pledges that have been made, UN figures show that more aid went in on some days in January than went in yesterday, so I have three questions for the Government.
First, can the Minster be clear that Israel is not meeting its commitments, and about what pressure the Government are applying to change that? Secondly, why have the Government not yet announced that they are restoring future funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? It is shocking that, in the face of famine, the UK is one of the last major donors yet to resume funding, without explanation. Thirdly, why are the Government seemingly softening their message to Netanyahu on Rafah? Let us be clear: 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering there have nowhere safe to go.
There can be no humanitarian operation to meet the scale of need without an immediate ceasefire now. Both sides must agree to comply. We note that it was Hamas and their leader, Sinwar, who rejected the latest ceasefire deal. Both sides must urgently agree to end this war now to prevent the further loss of innocent life, to free the hostages still cruelly held by Hamas, and to allow a surge of aid into Gaza.
David Rutley
Important points have been made. It is important to welcome Israel’s commitments to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza, and the limited steps that have been made, but—and this is an important but—more must be done, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to realise those commitments, and we continue to urge that that happens. As I said, the Foreign Secretary is in the region, and we are working hard on those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about UNRWA. The final report from Catherine Colonna is due at the end of April. We will review that and make a decision on future funding. We recognise the important role that UNRWA plays. On the wider, more strategic point about our approach, it is clear that we want to see a humanitarian pause before then pushing for the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the hostages is absolutely key, and is he able to report any more progress? He has explained that Hamas have not agreed to the latest proposal, but does he agree that pressure needs to be put on them by their interlocutors who are working with them to do something solid on the hostage problem, and to do it speedily?
David Rutley
As I have said, the Government continue to call for an immediate humanitarian pause to allow for the release of hostages. While we cannot provide a running commentary on negotiations, which are highly sensitive and ongoing, the UK is using all our diplomatic channels to support international negotiation efforts facilitated by Egypt, Qatar and the US.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Under-standably, perhaps, the world’s attention has been on the shocking Iranian missile attack at the weekend, but we cannot and must not forget about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the plight of millions of innocent civilians facing a man-made famine and living with the constant threat of attack. Neither can we forget the immensely brave humanitarian aid workers, particularly the seven World Central Kitchen employees, whose status as humanitarians appears to have offered them little or no protection from the Israel Defence Forces. Despite the promises made, the United Nations has reported that this week, more than 40% of what it tried to take into Gaza was rejected. Those of us who have been to the border and seen the efforts of the Egyptian Red Crescent, and its warehouse full of rejected medical equipment, have a pretty good idea of what those items were. This is an area that has no single operational hospital.
The elephant in the room, though, is arms export licences. For how much longer is the UK going to send humanitarian aid to Gaza while simultaneously licensing weapons sales to Israel? Would not the best form of humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza be to stop supplying Israel with the weapons that will kill them?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight what happened in Iran recently, and of course we must not forget the humanitarian situation on the ground in Gaza. As I highlighted in my opening remarks, we are working very hard to make sure that the aid he talked about can come through. He also talked about exports; the latest assessment carried out by the Foreign Secretary leaves our position on export licenses unchanged. That is consistent with the advice Ministers have received. We will continue to keep that position under review, but the hon. Gentleman should remember his opening point about Iran and what happened recently. I will leave it there on export controls.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Humanitarian aid getting into the Gaza strip is very important. Has my hon. Friend noticed that in the last couple of days, the White House national security spokesman said in an interview with NBC that the aid getting into Gaza has increased by a large amount in the past few days? More than 2,000 trucks have been able to get in, including about 100 trucks in the past 24 hours alone. Three bakeries have reopened in northern Gaza in the past week, producing some 3 million pita breads daily, and food aid convoys are now continuing via the newly opened northern crossing. Of course, there is always more to do—as I have said, that is very important—but does my hon. Friend accept that there have been significant improvements, considering that this is still an active war zone?
David Rutley
I am grateful for the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. As I said in my response to the Opposition spokesman—sorry, could he remind me of his question again?
David Rutley
We have seen limited improvement. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it has been significant, and it has, but from a low base, and as I have set out, our aspirations are clearly a lot higher. There are a number of key areas in which we want to see further improvements, and we are working closely with Israel on that.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Airdrops, promises of harbours and promises of money to come are not even touching the sides of the problem, given its scale. People are starving to death. At the beginning of March, my Committee published a report calling on the UK Government to press for more than 500 trucks of humanitarian aid a day to be allowed into Gaza; for all the crossings to open; for the Israeli military to co-operate better with aid agencies; and for deconfliction, so that humanitarian workers can live, and also safely carry out their vital work. Despite the Foreign Secretary’s optimism about greater humanitarian flows, the average is just over 1,100 trucks a week. Why are this Government not doing more to persuade Israel to meet its responsibilities under international law and facilitate aid to the people of Gaza? How many more people have to die?
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns, particularly given her position as Chair of the International Development Committee, but I have highlighted already that we are pressing incredibly hard on Israel to make further progress, and there has been limited progress. The Foreign Secretary is in the region, and he continues to press this case, as does my the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is doing important work in this area as well.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am sorry to question the Minister again on the same theme, but he will be starting to appreciate the frustration in the House. Over the last six months, we have heard the Government beg, plead with and press Israel, and have telephone calls, meetings and conversations with it. We even had the RAF in the sky, rightly, to defend Israel from Iran. Yet it occurs to many of us that the Israeli Government care little for what we say, to the extent that Medical Aid for Palestinians reports that a famine in Gaza over the next few weeks is all but inevitable. When will we realise that saying things is making no difference, and that we have to act, not least to take steps to enforce the judgment of the International Court of Justice? When will we actually do something concrete to save lives?
David Rutley
As I have said, we are pressing incredibly hard to make sure that we see further progress in this vital area. I have highlighted that one of the key things we are doing is committing £9.7 million for aid deliveries through the life-saving aid corridor to Gaza through the sea. That is a material step—it is action that is being taken—but clearly we will continue to put pressure on the Israelis. They have made commitments, and we want them to stand up and realise, or allow agencies to realise, those commitments.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Crossings are still not open, trucks are going in half empty, and 41% of the UN’s requests to send aid into northern Gaza are being refused by the Israeli Government. That is the reality on the ground. The Colonna report comes out this Saturday, on 20 April, not at the end of the month. When will the Government come to this House to tell us when they will reinstate funding to UNRWA, which is the only aid organisation with the infrastructure on the ground to deliver aid at scale?
David Rutley
As I have said, we will review that report. When we receive it, we will make our final decision, and we will come to Parliament to explain that decision. As I have also highlighted—and, more importantly, as the Development Minister has highlighted—we recognise the vital role that UNRWA plays.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary was very proud to announce that the United Kingdom had set up a contact group for the middle east, which has members from Europe, the middle east and the United States. There is a key link to the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza, in that all the group’s members, and the European Commission, have decided to fund UNRWA. The contact group aims to find a solution in the middle east. Why is it taking us so long to make a decision, when our European counterparts have made theirs? I also ask the Minister to ask the Foreign Secretary—I have raised this with him and the Prime Minister—to set up an international donors conference for Palestine, as we did in the case of the Friends of Syria. We need to move forward urgently, and show our leadership on this matter, as the situation is getting critical.
David Rutley
As I have said, and I will say it again, we will wait for the final Colonna report before we make a decision on UNRWA. This situation was particularly concerning, so we need that report in order to make a decision. My hon. Friend will remember that we trebled the amount of aid we provide to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Now our task is to make sure that we can do that, and find ways to get that aid in.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Yesterday, Oxford doctors Nick Maynard and Deborah Harrington briefed parliamentarians very movingly on their experiences of treating people in Gaza. They impressed on us how important it was that they were kept safe, and how many of their colleagues had died. I am sure that the Minister and the whole House will thank them for their tireless work, as well as other aid workers, and anyone who gives over their safety to save others. They also pointed out that the malnutrition that we see is making patients more vulnerable to infectious diseases. A report released by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine projected that if the situation continues as it is, there will be 74,000 excess deaths—that is, that number will die, over and beyond the number who have died by bombs, if something is not done. Does the Minister agree that we need not only an immediate bilateral ceasefire, but rebuilding of the medical situation in Gaza now, not later, because that is what is stopping people getting the life-saving treatment that they desperately need?
David Rutley
I join the hon. Member in praising the vital work of aid workers in the most challenging of circumstances, and I highlight the courage and bravery that they demonstrate. Obviously, we want to create conditions in which they can operate more safely. She calls for a ceasefire. We call for a pause that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire. Of course, as we move to such a situation, some of the things she talked about, particularly the extra medical support, can be provided.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Access to the north of Gaza for those providing humanitarian aid is still dire, and 28 children are reported to have died of malnutrition and dehydration. UNRWA continues to be disproportionately affected by access restrictions, and it was last able to deliver food to northern Gaza at the end of January. As we have heard, other countries are restoring funding to UNRWA, including the United States, so why are we taking so long?
David Rutley
We want to see the report, and then we will make our final decision. We recognise the important role of UNRWA, and we also recognise the importance of opening a crossing in northern Gaza, as my hon. Friend highlighted in her opening point. We are pressing the Israelis to stand up to their commitments.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of British doctors who have recently been in Gaza, and they described the systematic targeting of healthcare in Gaza. Let us be clear: that is a war crime. A UN special rapporteur recently warned, at a meeting that MPs organised, that Government Ministers and officials involved in arms exports to Israel should be absolutely clear that they could be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting war crimes in Gaza. Will the Minister say on the record in this House, and ahead of next week’s High Court hearing, that the legal advice that the Government have received confirms that there is no such risk, and that arms sales are in line with international law?
David Rutley
After our latest assessment of our position on export licences, it remains unchanged, and is consistent with the advice that Ministers have received. We will continue to keep the position under review.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As has been referenced, our close allies in the United States have commended Israel for stepping up the amount of aid getting into Gaza, but once aid trucks are on the Gazan side of the border, Hamas have sought to hijack the trucks, and to cynically use the distribution of aid as a political weapon, as has been recognised by this Government. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the level of control that Hamas exercises over UNRWA and the distribution of aid?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes important points, which set out why we are waiting for the final report, as I have said repeatedly, before making a final decision. The underlying situation relating to UNRWA was very challenging, and we need to make sure that aid is used for the appropriate purposes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Government rightly condemn Iran for risking destabilisation in the region, and for demonstrating that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard, yet we have had six months of Israel killing civilians, doctors and aid workers; destroying almost all civilian infrastructure in Gaza; cutting off water, fuel and electricity; and severely limiting the supply of aid. That is all in clear violation of international law, has destabilised the region, and has sown chaos in Israel’s own backyard, so will the Minister condemn the action of Israel, too?
David Rutley
We recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself and, as I have said, we are calling for an immediate pause in order to get aid in and the hostages out. We also recognise the destabilising action of Iran and its acolytes, and we must ensure that we push back and seek to de-escalate the whole situation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
By now there could have been a humanitarian pause and aid could be flowing into Gaza to help those poor individuals threatened with famine and war, but of course, just as the last two humanitarian pauses were breached by Hamas, Hamas refused to accept a ceasefire on the terms that have been agreed. Such a ceasefire would mean that the hostages could be coming back now, and the people of Gaza could be receiving aid. Does the Minister agree that Hamas are clearly the obstacle to peace in the middle east?
David Rutley
Clearly Hamas are an obstacle to peace. Their actions provoked terrible atrocities in Israel back in October, which we find abhorrent. Now we want to ensure that we find a way of tackling the terrible humanitarian situation, as I have described, and tackling further destabilising activity by Iran.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In reply to my written question on 15 April, the Minister said:
“We want UNRWA to give detailed undertakings about changes in personnel, policy and precedents”.
Has the Minister, or any of his colleagues, actively sought those undertakings and changes from UNRWA by contacting it directly? If so, in what state was that request last made?
David Rutley
The broader issue about UNRWA is that we are waiting for the final report and then we can make decisions. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s detailed points with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and get back to him.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that it is inconceivable that the money we would earmark for UNRWA will not be given this year, and will he either set out what alternative agencies he thinks could do achieve the same outcomes on the ground, or confirm that we will have to give UNRWA the money anyway, in which case we might as well get on with it?
David Rutley
I have already said that UNRWA carries out important work and has a vital role, but the concerns about its activities mean that we must have this report. We then want to look at our approach and our funding in relation to that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Oxfam has reported that 1.1 million people are projected to be facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity in Gaza, and children are now starving. Samantha Power, administrator for USAID, told the US Congress last week that northern Gaza is now experiencing famine. Do the Government share that assessment, and how will aid get there?
David Rutley
We continue to be very concerned about the humanitarian challenges in Gaza and, as I have highlighted, we are pressing hard and taking steps ourselves. We have increased the amount of aid that we are committing to the region, and we are focusing laser-like in seeking that Israel should step up to the commitments it has made. It has already made limited progress; we need to see more.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Israel’s right to self-defence comes with clear responsibility. Gaza has become a conflict hellhole, and the delivery of more humanitarian aid from the international community, including the UN, is non-discretionary. Will the Minister please confirm that everything possible is being done with the Israeli Government to ensure that non-combatants are being supported and are not being inadvertently targeted or hit?
David Rutley
We have highlighted that with the Israeli Government, and I confirm that we are pushing incredibly heard. Not only are we increasing the amount of aid that we give to the region, but we want to ensure that it gets through. We have already deployed a number of airdrops, which have helped, but a lot more needs to be done.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As has been said, more than 33,000 people have been killed, 70% of whom are women and children. The International Court of Justice has warned of genocide, and more than a million people have been left starving while almost 2 million are displaced from their homes. Even as the Foreign Office’s own legal advice, which it continually refuses to make public, is purported to declare that the Israeli military are breaking international law, and as the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, the reality remains that nothing has changed: bombs are still falling, children are still starving, and civilians are still dying. Let me ask the Minister a simple question: does international humanitarian law mean anything anymore, when the UK and the international community continue to refuse to draw a line?
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion and concern about the area, and we continue to have grave concerns about humanitarian access. However, that is not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with IHL in general.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Israel’s military is reported to be using Lavender, an artificial intelligence system, to help choose its bombing targets in Gaza. That is machine decision making over human decision making, and it arguably sacrifices accuracy in favour of speed. The Lavender system identifies targets, which are reviewed for only 20 seconds before authorisation of a strike. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the use of AI in combat, the concerns over error rates, and the humanitarian impact on the ground?
David Rutley
Too many civilians have been killed, and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets and avoid harming civilians and destroying homes. That is the message we give when we engage with the Israeli Government.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The situation in Gaza is having its impact on the west bank. Tragically, this week a 14-year-old Israeli child was found dead, and that set off a process of settlers rampaging across the west bank. We now know that four Palestinians have been killed and others brutally attacked, and the evidence is that IDF soldiers stood to one side and allowed that to happen. At a meeting with Israeli colleagues this morning we heard that the Israeli Government are now arresting legal and peace observers in the west bank. Will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that observers should be allowed to operate within the west bank and ensure that peace is maintained? May we have a detailed report on the sanctions that the Government are applying to Israeli settlements and settlers?
David Rutley
I do not know the detail of some of the earlier points the right hon. Gentleman raised, but I will welcome receiving that. My understanding and memory is that we put sanctions on two individuals. We keep this issue under constant review, because those actions and what happens in the settlements is important, given the implications that has for the west bank.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The escalation of recent days is deeply worrying, with two nuclear-armed countries exchanging ballistics, and neither with any reputation for care of civilian lives and both with agendas of their own. That escalation has occupied the headlines, but the people of Gaza continue to suffer unrelenting military attacks and starvation. The rules-based order and international law have suffered lasting damage, including by the targeting of aid workers and medics. The UK’s influence with an out-of-control Netanyahu Government has yielded little, but one of the few legal tools available is the suspension of arms export licences. When will the Government use that?
David Rutley
As I said in a previous answer, our assessment on export licences remains unchanged. We have one of the most robust export systems in the world, enshrined in law through the Export Control Act 2022 and implemented through our strategic export licensing criteria. It is important that the hon. Lady recalls and notes not just the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but also what is happening through Iran’s destabilising activities.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Humanitarian agencies have concluded that we have passed the point of being able to avert famine in Gaza. Whatever we do now, we will be too late for those people who will have starved to death by the time aid arrives, and that is a stain on the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what specific steps the Government have taken to bring about the full implementation of resolution 2728, which was passed by the UN Security Council over three weeks ago? Pleading with, pressuring and pressing the Israeli Government is clearly not a strategy that is working, so why do the UK Government not recognise that consequences and concrete actions can start with the stopping of arms sales to Israel?
David Rutley
We are urging, we are pleading and we are doing everything that we can to make our case. We are also trebling the amount of aid to £100 million. As I have said, we are also taking action to have this lifesaving aid corridor by sea to Gaza. Those are important actions that we are taking forward.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Having seen the drone attacks on Israel at the weekend, it is disappointing to watch the Government and the US Administration basically telling the Israelis to roll over and accept this aggression by Iran. It was, however, encouraging to see an alliance of air forces assist the Israelis to protect their people. I wonder why there is little condemnation of this aggression against Israel and little continued acknowledgement that had 7 October never happened, none of this would be happening. What are the Government doing to ensure that both Gazans and Israelis are free from Hamas and Iranian aggression respectively and can live normal lives? As we say in the UK, Israel has the right to defend itself.
David Rutley
I agree and the Government agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. As part of our approach to enabling a sustainable ceasefire to be put in place, Hamas have to be put clearly in their place. They must not have the influence they have at the moment, and their ability to fire rockets into Israel needs to be completely diminished to enable that sustainable ceasefire.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that his words are not cutting through. Hamas were wrong to reject the ceasefire, but what Israel does next is not inevitable. Yet the Israeli Minister for Defence on Monday evening said that Israel was waiting for aid to be delivered to Rafah and for civilians to leave, and then it would begin the military operation. He will know that there is nowhere for these people to go and there is no food elsewhere. It is an impossible choice for people. A few pitta breads will not cut it for millions of people at risk of starvation and at risk of harm from a military operation in Rafah. What can the UK do if Israel proceeds with its threat to enter Rafah?
David Rutley
As the hon. Member knows, I respect her enormously, and we have worked together on a number of issues. On her vitally important point, we want to urge restraint about this proposed military operation by the Israelis. We are also calling for restraint in response to what has happened with Iran, although notably the RAF and others were there to provide support to defend Israel from that attack. The Foreign Secretary is in Israel and the region this week to tackle these very issues and to address the points I have made.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On Monday, in response to my question about restoring UNRWA funding, the Prime Minister said that, along with allies, he was “reviewing the interim findings”. In subsequent responses to other Members, he said he was waiting for a final report, which is due towards the end of the month, on 20 April. Can we have a Government statement on Monday in which the Government set out a clear pathway back to restoring funding? The UK is the only major donor aside from the United States that has not restored its funding. Time is running out and lives are being lost.
David Rutley
I recognise the importance of the points that the hon. Lady makes. All I will say is what I have said previously: we are waiting for the report and then we will update Parliament on our decision. We need to review this report in detail.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
Seventeen repetitions of “We are waiting for the report” will become the new definition of complacency. The more I listen to those on both Front Benches describing the bloody, putrid sea of misery that is Gaza, the more I am amazed that both sides continue to support the supply of British arms and military components to the country that is doing all this. No one could understand that. The Minister said how hard they were trying—personally, I believe him; he seems a sincere chap—but why is it not working? If the Government are trying so hard while scrambling their jets to defend Israel and giving arms to Israel, why will Israel not listen?
David Rutley
I say with respect that the questions I have been asked are entirely appropriate and understandable given the circumstances. I have responded as best I can from the Government’s perspective. The hon. Gentleman knows from his extensive experience that the situation on the ground is hugely complex. We are working night and day, and our officials in the FCDO are working flat out. We are providing the support we can to Israel and to help tackle the destabilisation. I understand the passion with which he asks his questions, but he should also understand that these are incredibly complex situations. We are endeavouring to do everything we can to make our case with Israel, but it is also having to think about the implications of what is happening and act after a terrible tragic attack by Hamas and the responses by Iran.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am concerned to hear the allegations made by several organisations that the trucks going in are half-full or less, which makes the amount of aid getting into Gaza by truck a difficult statistic to use. What is the Minister doing to make sure that tonnage of aid is getting to the right places? Clearly, the Israeli authorities seem to be not able to deliver on their duties under international law to get aid to the right places. What more can he do to put pressure on the Israeli authorities to do what is legally binding and right to do?
David Rutley
The hon. Lady makes an important point that we need to think not just about trucks, but tonnage. I will speak to the Development Minister about this particular issue and make sure that we have extra focus on it. We need the trucks, but we need the tonnage, as well. It is vital.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is good to finally hear those on the Labour Front Bench seemingly find their voice on this issue, after tens of thousands of deaths and months of shameful prevarication, although they are still willing to sell arms to Israel. On the UK Government’s policy on arms sales, the criteria for halting arms sales does not require a legal confirmation that a breach of international humanitarian law has occurred, but only that it might have occurred. Does the Minister not consider that the ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court of war crimes and crimes against humanity and the consideration by the International Court of Justice of potential genocide are indications that breaches of international law might have occurred? In any event, why are we so keen to sell arms to someone we have been pressing so hard to cease operations?
David Rutley
We continue to have grave concerns about the humanitarian situation on the ground, but those are not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with international humanitarian law in general. We have already talked at length about the export licences and our controls around that. We recognise Israel has the right to defend itself.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
The Belgian Foreign Minister stated that Israel was engaging in “tactics of starvation”. Last month, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland stated:
“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.”
This month, Belgium’s Minister of Development and Co-operation stated that Israel’s use of hunger as a weapon of war was
“a flagrant violation of international law”.
The Israeli Defence Minister is on record as saying:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
When will this Government wake up to the reality that innocent Palestinians are dying and take action to stop them dying from hunger and starvation?
David Rutley
We are working hard to get the aid in, as I have highlighted. That is critical. We are also calling out the Israeli Government, recognising that too many civilians have been killed. We want to see Israel taking greater care to limit its operations to military targets and to avoid harming civilians and destroying homes, as he has indicated.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The world is astounded by the fact that we are having to rely on sea corridors and air drops for the delivery of aid when we know that the only way we will prevent starvation in the hell that is Gaza is through mass truck supply and UNRWA-assisted delivery. Will the Minister explain the Government’s assessment of whether the current supply of aid through trucks, air and sea is sufficient to prevent imminent famine?
David Rutley
We have seen limited improvements—I have highlighted that—but we want to see Israel stand up to its commitment to increase the total number of aid trucks to at least 500 a day and increase the capacity through the Jordan land corridor to 100 trucks a day. More work is clearly required, and it is important to highlight that this is not just for is; it is an international priority where we are working with our partners.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the horrific scale of killing and the starvation of Palestinians, and especially children, we need an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages, and the Netanyahu Government must allow aid into Gaza unimpeded, rather than continually blocking it. There also needs to be a process of investigation, accountability and justice, whether through the ICC, the ICJ or the UN commission of inquiry, given the serious allegations of war crimes, but the UK Conservative Government do not presently find any of those routes acceptable. Will the Minister please highlight which of those accountability mechanisms they find acceptable?
David Rutley
We respect the role and independence of the ICJ, but, to the points that the hon. Member raised, our view is that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide. We remain clear that formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment by a competent court.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will the Minister explain the rationale behind advocating a humanitarian pause in the bombing to allow medical aid, food, water and basic supplies into Gaza and then—presumably—permitting the killing to start up again? That has puzzled me for some time. Bombing civilians is a crime against humanity. Is it not time for humanity to be reasserted and for the ceasefire, which so many have called for, to start?
David Rutley
The Government’s position is that we need a pause—we need to get aid in and hostages out—and then work for the conditions for a lasting peace. We must also recognise Hamas’s role in getting to this point. In those conditions, we need to remove Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel and ensure that they are no longer in charge in Gaza.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I say a thank you to my constituents who last weekend organised an Eid gathering for Palestinians in the north? When I was there, I met Gaza health and aid workers and heard lots of stories. One of them was about Nuzha Awad, a lady who had given birth to triplets. Her babies should have weighed about 6 lb to 8 lb each, but they weighed just 2 lb each and have not even developed their thighs because of malnutrition. According to confirmed reports, we know that 27 children have died so far of malnutrition. We send in RAF jets to support Israel when it is attacked, yet Israel does not heed the British Government’s warnings to get humanitarian aid in. So people are rightly asking: why are our Government so weak on saving the lives of children?
David Rutley
Some of the points that the hon. Member made are tragic and heart-rending to hear. I reiterate that we want to see change and are pushing for change, and we are taking action to ensure that more aid is available. We just need to get the conditions to enable aid to come forward and through to the people who need it on the ground in Gaza.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When the Israeli Government are not listening to the Minister about aid getting in, why are the Government still considering selling arms to Israel? When we are pleading with the Israeli Government so much, the Government cannot accept that situation and continue to sell those arms.
David Rutley
We are working hard with the Israeli Government on humanitarian issues, as I have highlighted. Our export controls are in place, and our approach remains unchanged. We must recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister says that the Government recognise the importance of opening a northern crossing, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said earlier, almost no aid is entering northern Gaza. The situation everywhere is most desperate. Exactly what pressure are the Government applying to ensure that routes to northern Gaza become operational as soon as possible and remain open?
David Rutley
That is part of our ongoing diplomatic efforts with Israel and our like-minded partners who are committed to providing aid and getting that in. One of the key things that Israel is committed to is that northern route. The hon. Member makes that important point, and that is one of the elements that we continue to urge Israel to stand up and commit to.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
F-35s are reducing Gaza to dust. During Pinochet’s brutal rule in Chile, the workers of Rolls-Royce in East Kilbride refused to manufacture parts for the Chilean air force and were hailed as heroes. Why would the UK Government not follow that humanitarian example and stop exporting the parts for F-35s?
David Rutley
It is because we have got one of the most robust arms export regimes in the world, and, as I have said, we need to recognise Israel’s right to defend itself. The hon. Member probably noticed what happened over the weekend with the attacks from Iran. That situation is not just important for what happens in Israel—vital though that is for those involved in Gaza—but has ripple effects that are destabilising the region, and that has global implications as well.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
We were told a month ago that 1.1 million people faced catastrophic levels of food insecurity in Gaza, and that we were reduced to air drops. The situation in northern Gaza is horrific, and it is a consequence of political choices. The World Food Programme has said that the area has been largely cut off from aid, and has recorded the highest levels of catastrophic hunger in the world. Twenty-eight innocent children are reported to have died of malnutrition and dehydration because of political choices. What meaningful, strong actions will the Government take to ensure that international law is upheld and all Palestinians have a right to food?
David Rutley
I have already highlighted the steps that we are taking as well as the commitments that Israel has made. We are asking Israel to step up to its commitments. It has made limited progress, and we want to see much further progress to help those people on the ground.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
According to UNICEF, one child in Gaza is killed or injured on average every 10 minutes. Yesterday, Israeli occupying forces struck a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza, massacring at least 11 people and injuring many more. The deputy Foreign Secretary has boasted about how proud his Government are to be supplying Israel with arms, even while it commits such crimes against humanity and has been found by the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us categorically whether arms exported from Britain were used in the strike on the Maghazi refugee camp, and, for that matter, whether the three British aid workers who were killed at the beginning of the month were killed by weapons manufactured in Britain?
David Rutley
As I have already highlighted, we have strong export controls. To the important point that the hon. Member made, we have asked Israel for an assessment and an independent investigation to take place as to what happened in that situation.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages, for an immediate ceasefire, for unhindered humanitarian aid, for adherence to international law and accountability for any breaches, and for immediate international efforts for a two-state solution. On aid and international law, between 6 and 12 April, 41% of UN co-ordinated missions to northern Gaza, where famine is under way and children are dying by the minute, were denied. The Israeli authorities’ obligation to facilitate humanitarian aid is a matter of law. It is not just about access; it must also be able to get to where it is needed.
I appreciate the difficulties in which the Minister has found himself today but, again, why are the Government so ineffective in getting support? We have had months upon months of saying that things will happen, and they never do. Why have they been so ineffective and what will they do to make sure that Israel adheres to our requests?
David Rutley
I have highlighted that there has been limited progress, but we have made some progress in our arguments with Israel, along with international partners. Now we are pressing for those other areas to be dealt with, including northern access, which is a vital priority. We are pushing hard. The Foreign Secretary is once again in the region this week to address these issues.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last week, Samantha Power of the US Agency for International Development told Congress that they it was witnessing famine in northern Gaza. Let us be honest—to the wider global population, it appears that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war, whether through the supply into the country or by intimidating the workers who should be distributing it. Does the Minister share the US assessment of the situation, and will he commit to supporting and restoring the funding of UNRWA?
David Rutley
We remain concerned about the implications of targeting civilians. Too many have been killed, and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets. As I have said repeatedly, we await the Colonna report about the UNRWA situation, and we will examine our response.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Some 500 health-care workers have been killed in Gaza in the past six months. That is more than the total number of healthcare workers killed in all conflicts around the world in the previous two years. Does the Minister agree with Professor Nick Maynard, the British surgeon recently returned from Gaza, that healthcare workers are being deliberately targeted? If so, why is the UK still supplying arms to Israel?
David Rutley
I have addressed the point about arms. The hon. Gentleman’s point about protecting aid workers is important. We believe that the Israelis need to do much more to protect them. That includes the guaranteed deconfliction of aid convoys and other humanitarian workers, to ensure that they can operate safely.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
In answer to questions, I have heard the Minister repeatedly talk about pressure on Israel, encouraging Israel and hope that Israel will respond. When will he stand at the Dispatch Box and accept that for all the Government’s urging and encouraging, the situation is getting worse? In concrete terms, what will the Government do now to get aid through, to make sure that Israel lives up to the promises that it makes and does not deliver on? I ask the Minister not to give me an answer about the strength of our arms sales licence regime. How can it be morally right to provide arms to Israel that are being used in the killing of women and children and worsening the humanitarian crisis?
David Rutley
As I have highlighted, we have trebled the amount of aid that we are putting in to support those people. We recognise that Israel is an occupying power, so we have to urge and work with the Israelis to enable these things to happen. The important thing is that we are seeing limited progress. As I said, now we are pushing and pressing to see further progress in achieving the aims and the commitments that Israel has already set out.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I hope the Minister remembers Hind Rajab, the six-year-old Palestinian girl who was trapped in a car with nothing but a mobile phone and her own cries for help while the paramedics were struggling to get to her. They and Hind were killed that day. An IDF investigation concluded that its forces were not present within firing range of the vehicle. A subsequent Washington Post investigation disagreed. I raise that case not only to remember Hind but because whenever the Israel Defence Force’s actions result in increased civilian suffering or reduced humanitarian aid—as in the killing of aid workers—the Government’s response is to call on Israel to investigate itself. Is that really the only way to ensure accountability and reduce suffering?
David Rutley
On the specific point about aid workers, I highlighted that we also want an independent review. It is important that they are protected, and we need to understand the situation on the ground. The hon. Lady highlights, importantly, that we are also urging Israel to take greater care in limiting its operations and the impact they have on civilians.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Following the Iranian attacks over the weekend, we are one step away from the precipice of a regional war. The comments of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon following his meetings with the Israeli Government—that he believes Israel is minded to act—should worry us all. The British Government rightly emphasise the need for de-escalation, but do they recognise that de-escalation must begin in Gaza?
David Rutley
We need to de-escalate the whole situation and do everything we can to use our influence in that task. We have highlighted already what we are asking and urging Israel to do from a humanitarian perspective in terms of their stated aims to carry out further military action in Rafah. There is the wider area as well. We are working with our partners in the region and around the world to find ways to deescalate the situation more widely. It is multifaceted and really complicated, but we are finding ways to bring that influence to bear, because we do not want this to escalate any further.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Every Member of this House knows that it was that great Conservative statesman who said that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to stand by and do nothing. Today the Minister, who we know is a good man, must have been embarrassed. He stood there, wrung his hands and told us that our Prime Minister has pleaded with the Israeli Prime Minister. When did the party of Edmund Burke become the party of complicity and appeasement?
David Rutley
I am not sure that the question deserves an answer. We have already highlighted cross-party that these situations are complex. We are working incredibly hard with all our partners—I think that is recognised by the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is challenging, but please let us not lower the tone in that way.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Currently, 1.1 million civilians are at risk of starvation due to the Israeli aid blockade. That is clearly a breach of humanitarian law and the interim ICJ ruling. The UK Government tacitly recognise the breaches, because they are trying to bypass the Israeli blockade using the Royal Navy. The UK Government’s incoherent position is that rather than call out Israel, they are urging and pleading Israel to change tack, while still selling arms to Israel and withholding funding to UNRWA. The interim Colonna report confirms UNRWA’s neutrality. All other major donors apart from the US have restored funding. What is making the UK Government wait for the final Colonna report before restoring funding? Are they sitting on intelligence that is somehow not available to all the other partners?
David Rutley
We have made it clear that we want to see the full report, and then we will make a decision.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Between 6 and 12 April, 41% of UN co-ordinated aid missions to northern Gaza were impeded or denied access. The Israeli authorities’ obligation to facilitate humanitarian support is about not just getting trucks in but getting aid to where it is needed. That is a matter of international humanitarian law. Does the Minister really think that less than 60% of aid getting in is an acceptable rate? Does that really show the Government’s diplomatic efforts to be successful?
David Rutley
We are seeing some success enabling and encouraging Israel to allow more trucks in. As I said, it is limited progress but it is progress. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done. We are working with our partners to make sure we can do that.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Testimony from an Israeli intelligence officer reveals that IDF soldiers were authorised to kill 20 uninvolved civilians for a single Hamas operative. Israel is frequently in breach of the principle of proportionality and, frankly, UK diplomacy is not working. What will it take for the Government to admit finally that Israel is breaching international humanitarian law and to cease arms sales?
David Rutley
We have talked about this a number of times in this urgent question in our responses. [Interruption.] And I am just about to answer that particular question; thanks for the encouragement. We have grave concerns about the humanitarian access, but that is not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with IHL in general.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, Samantha Power, the administrator of USAID, told Congress that northern Gaza is now experiencing famine and that almost no aid is entering northern Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the situation is intolerable and unacceptable? What exactly are the Government doing to make sure that it changes urgently?
David Rutley
The situation is incredibly challenging. As I have said already in answer to an earlier question, one of the commitments Israel has made is about access in the north. We continue to urge Israel to live up its commitments, so that aid can come in from the north, as well as there being more aid more generally, to help those on the ground in Gaza.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Jim Henderson from Cornwall served in the Royal Marines for seven years before working in Gaza. The aid convoy he was supporting was travelling from the north. It was following the right procedures and remained on the correct route. It is understandable that the death of Jim and his fellow Brits should have seized our attention here at home and led to an investigation by the IDF, but the UN Secretary-General said a fortnight ago that the death of all 196 aid workers killed in Gaza in the past six months should be subject to independent investigations. Does the Minister agree?
David Rutley
I have already highlighted how important it is that we urge Israel to do much more to protect aid workers. We want to make sure there is a guaranteed deconfliction of aid convoys, and we need to do other humanitarian work to help. I pay tribute to the individuals who have done heroic work, including those the hon. Gentleman highlighted. I think he will recognise that the individual he referred to is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who, as I understand it, has been working closely with the family and I am grateful to her for that.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The Minister has said on a number of occasions today how complex the humanitarian situation is on the ground. UNRWA is the aid agency with most of the logistical and organisational network to deliver in that situation. On Monday, the Prime Minister was asked a number of times about the interim report that he says the Government have received. Will the Minister commit to publishing it in full? Will the discussions he says he is having with allies on what should happen next be published, so we know what is holding back the UK and why it is the last country not to fund UNRWA?
David Rutley
The thing holding us back from signing off our approach is seeing the report. That is what we need to wait for. It is coming very, very soon and we will be responding to it in full.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The director-general of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, has talked about the devastating destruction of Gaza’s hospitals, and the dead bodies still being removed from the ruins of Al-Shifa Hospital. Will the United Kingdom fund the WHO and other charities on the ground in Gaza to rebuild the shattered hospitals that have been destroyed under Israeli bombardment? Will he deliver the ceasefire necessary to allow that construction to happen, because it cannot happen while there are no construction materials going into Gaza?
David Rutley
The hon. Lady makes a characteristically thoughtful and important point about reconstruction. Our immediate approach now is about the pause and getting aid in. That has to be the top priority right now. Then, as we look forward, let us get the conditions in place to have a sustainable ceasefire. As part of that, we can work through how that reconstruction will take place.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As I said to the Prime Minister in his statement on Monday, the mother of James Kirby, one of the other aid workers who lost his life while trying to deliver aid through World Central Kitchen, is my constituent. The family want answers, and I would appreciate it if the Minister passed on that message while the Foreign Secretary is in the region. Given the attacks on healthcare workers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), as well as the attacks on people trying to deliver food aid, will he explain what the pleas for guaranteed deconfliction actually mean, because they do not seem to be working?
David Rutley
I also pay tribute, as the hon. Lady has, to James Kirby. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. The work we are doing to raise that point with Israel is important. We want to find ways to ensure that we deconflict aid convoys. I think Israel recognises that there are challenges there. It will be carrying out its own report, and a further independent review will be needed to help find ways to ensure that deconfliction is meaningful and strong.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first thank the Minister very much for his response to all the questions? It is clear that he has compassion and that he wants to answer in the best way, so we thank him for that. Last week I had occasion to be in Israel and visited some of the kibbutzim where innocent Jewish people were murdered, and the Nova music festival where over 1,000 young people were murdered, and met some of the families. All that was a result of Hamas terrorism on the Israeli people. Hamas is the reason we have a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What discussions have taken place about opening wider channels to allow medical aid in and ill people out and medical interventions free from harassment and intervention from Hamas?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member, whom I regard as a very good friend, for his comments. He is right to highlight the role of Hamas and what they have done to get to this situation. We are working collectively to figure out how we can best address the situations. Medical supplies are key and we will be providing them. We are providing support on shelter and have been helping with air drops. Across the House, it is clear that more needs to be done. There is frustration and I am grateful to all colleagues across the House for, on most occasions, their measured comments. I understand their concerns. I am also pleased that Members have not resorted to cheap party politics. These are incredibly difficult challenges and I am very grateful for the questions and the challenge that has been provided. It is constructive, and we will use it to help make the case to those on the ground who need to hear it.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Points of order come after urgent questions and statements, unless they are directly related to the UQ we have just had.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I apologise for not giving you forward notice of my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it relates to something that just occurred in the urgent question. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) referred to the recent death of one of my constituents without notifying me. I raise this point of order because this is an incredibly sensitive time and I have connected with the family through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consular service, which is the right and proper thing to do. I am nervous that my constituent’s name has been taken to score points across the Chamber, when it is completely inappropriate to do so. I wonder if you could advise me on how we can avoid that in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I noted the exchanges to which she refers. It did occur to me, as the exchanges were taking place, that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton should have thought twice before mentioning the name—in very, very, very sensitive, sad and indeed tragic circumstances—of a constituent of another Member of Parliament. I wonder if he would like to apologise.
Richard Foord
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her work on behalf of her constituent. It is the duty of everybody in this Chamber to work as closely as we can on sensitive casework. Clearly, she has done that. I should add that I used my point about an individual who has, unfortunately, suffered a terrible, awful circumstance to draw a parallel with the 196 aid workers who have been killed in this awful, terrible war.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for responding to the point of order from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). We must be very careful, because this is as sensitive as a subject possibly can be. There are bereaved people who will be watching our proceedings; my heart goes out to them, and I am sure that the whole House feels the same. However, I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I think the hon. Gentleman has said that he will be more careful in future.
Afghan Refugees: Deportation from Pakistan
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)(Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if he will make a statement on the deportation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan to Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The United Kingdom has a long-standing and close relationship with Pakistan. We engage regularly with the Government of Pakistan to advance key priorities and interests, including those relating to human rights and adherence to international law. We are closely monitoring Pakistan’s policy on the deportation of Afghanistan’s citizens, and we are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration to ensure that Pakistan adheres to its human rights obligations with respect to those affected.
We understand that the recently elected Government of Pakistan intend to resume their programme of deportations from mid-April following a winter pause, although that has not yet been formally announced. While we respect Pakistan’s sovereign right to control its borders, the UK, alongside the international and donor community, is urging Pakistan to do so in accordance with its international obligations.
The UK has committed £18.5 million to the International Organisation for Migration in Afghanistan to support vulnerable undocumented returnees from Pakistan and Iran. As part of that work we have been engaging closely with the Government of Pakistan on these measures, and they have assured us of their support in relation to preventing the deportation of Afghans eligible for resettlement in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Since the formation of the new Pakistani Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary and the British high commissioner have received assurances from Foreign Minister Dar, during discussions on 25 and 28 March respectively, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will support our relocations work.
We continue to work closely with UNHCR and the IOM to ensure that all Afghans who have been found to be eligible for resettlement in the UK under the ARAP or the ACRS—including eligible family members—have been provided with the necessary documentation to verify that, and to prevent their deportation.
Wendy Chamberlain
Saying that Afghanistan is not a safe place is something of an understatement. Nearly two thirds of the Afghan population were in need of humanitarian aid by the end of last year, and, in the words of the United Nations high commissioner,
“Human rights in Afghanistan are in a state of collapse”.
The restriction on women and girls amounts to nothing less than a gender apartheid.
Afghanistan is not a safe place for anyone, but it is particularly unsafe for the Afghans who worked alongside western forces and diplomatic efforts—for civil society advocates, for women who formerly held high-profile political or legal roles, for members of the LGBTQ community, and for the many others who were forced to flee when the Taliban took control. Many of those who fled to Pakistan are desperately awaiting resettlement to safe countries, including the UK. Yesterday, reports suggested that Pakistan had embarked on the deportation of Afghans back to Afghanistan, and resettlement, the hope of safety and of being reunited with families, is now at risk of being completely lost. For some of those waiting to come here the routes are open, but the process is achingly slow. Many await family reunion, which it was promised would start this spring, while others believe that they will be eligible to apply to come to safety in the UK under ACRS route 3 pathway 2, as yet unopened nearly three years after the fall of Kabul. I urge the Minister’s Home Office colleagues to act in this regard.
Pakistan’s decision to deport the migrants whom they deem to be illegal is deeply worrying. During the first round of deportations in October last year—which was the subject of an urgent question from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)—there were news reports of Afghans eligible for resettlement here being arrested during immigration enforcement. There is every reason to believe that that will happen again, and, indeed, this round puts even more people at risk. Afghans in Pakistan are meant to hold a Pakistan-issued Afghan citizen card, but there are reports of long delays in the processing of applications leaving people undocumented through no fault of their own. More worryingly, it has been reported that the latest round of deportations will even include those carrying cards. Effectively, that puts every Afghan in Pakistan at risk, regardless of their reasons for being there.
The UK has a responsibility here, not just to those Afghans whom we promised safety but in relation to the region as a whole. We can all understand the desire to flee from persecution, but we also understand the difficulties of support systems in Pakistan in responding when those who are fleeing reach their borders. If we want to show that the UK is a global power and a global force for good, we must act. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that all individuals eligible for resettlement or reunification in the UK are able to register themselves as being legally in Pakistan, what steps is it taking to prevent the deportation of Afghans in Pakistan if they are likely to be eligible to settle in the UK, what steps is it taking with our foreign allies to encourage Pakistan to halt these repatriations, and what steps can the UK take to help Pakistan support the refugee population? People are being sent back to Afghanistan now, with all the dangers that that entails. We must act.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is good to have the opportunity to discuss this issue, and the hon. Lady has raised important questions, but I can repeat the assurances that we have now received from the newly elected Pakistani Government, who have themselves repeated the assurances that we received from the previous Government that all Afghans who are eligible for our various UK schemes will be exempt from deportation. There have been two instances of temporary detentions when the British high commission has intervened, and that has gone well. Since November, all Afghans eligible for resettlement in the UK have been provided with identification in the form of a letter from the British high commission, and that is being considered acceptable by the Government of Pakistan. None of those people have been detained or deported as a result of the letter, which constitutes our assurance, through the high commission, that we are committed to ensuring that those Afghans who are eligible to come to the UK are under our umbrella of protection.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Gosh, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is five years since my last question, and it is the first time that I have ever been called first.
It seems curious that we are dealing with a question about the sovereign decision of another Government. While the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) wants to challenge Ministers on our representations to that Government, I thought it important to reflect that throughout my time “owning” the ARAP scheme in the Ministry of Defence, the Pakistani Government were extraordinarily supportive of everything we asked of them. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our high commissioner and her brilliant team at post in Islamabad, but also in making clear our continued gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for the incredible flexibility that they show in facilitating both ARAP and the ACRS?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is a pleasure to be able to discuss this issue in a new way with my right hon. Friend. We have been working closely on these issues within Government, and his commitment to ensuring that those eligible for these schemes have been able to come to the UK has been, without exception, incredible. Let me just add that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 chartered flights, and have relocated more than 5,500 individuals under the ongoing ARAP scheme. I certainly pay tribute to the incredible, tireless efforts of our British high commissioner, Jane Marriott, and her wonderful team in Islamabad, who continue to work day in, day out with the Government of Pakistan, their officials and their military, and help us to ensure that we can bring those Afghans safely to the UK in due course.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on presenting the urgent question, and on her work across the House in relation to, in particular, the women who are suffering in these circumstances.
Although Afghanistan no longer occupies the headlines, all of us—on both sides of the House—know that the situation in the country is stark. Women are living under a gender apartheid, and the men and women who fought bravely for a better Afghanistan alongside British armed services are often targeted and killed by the Taliban, as has been confirmed by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Labour has always been clear that we owe many Afghans a debt of gratitude for supporting British aims in Afghanistan. The Minister mentioned the figure of 5,500, but how many people does she estimate now require protection so that they are not repatriated back across the border?
Will the Minister also answer three other brief questions for the information of the House? First, could she detail the discussions she has had with the Pakistani Government to halt or at least limit the returns to Afghanistan? Secondly, what steps is she taking to belatedly bring to safety at-risk Afghans, particularly former members of the Afghan security force, especially now that certain members are no longer in the Government and may not be there to make the case for these vulnerable individuals? Thirdly, what steps are being taken to commit to a strategy across the board to support women and girls in Afghanistan, to give them hope that they have not been forgotten, and to recognise the important work done in these Houses of Parliament by Baroness Kennedy and others on gender apartheid?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the hon. Lady highlights, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) has been a stalwart in making sure that those who are eligible for ARAP, and indeed the wider cohort in the ACRS, have been moving forward. We have an agreement, and the new Government of Pakistan are supporting it. Where we indicate from the high commission that people are eligible for the schemes, the Pakistani Government are comfortable with our bringing them across. As I say, the number since October illustrates the continuing repatriation of these people to the UK. There are daily discussions between the high commission and various parts of the Government of Pakistan, as required to ensure we make progress on all those issues, and we continue to bring people across.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has been an absolute champion of making sure that those who are eligible go through the system. I can reassure her that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has now taken over that brief in the Ministry of Defence, will continue to ensure that as the programme rolls out, it goes at pace. I can also give the reassurance expected by those who are in Pakistan and looking to come to the UK for safety.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows there are people who, in the process of making their way to Pakistan from Afghanistan, became undocumented but who are none the less entitled to resettlement here, either because they helped us and our military or because of their work in the legal system. Does she agree that it is important for the Pakistani Government to continue to show enough flexibility so that when people show that they are entitled to come here and that becomes documented, they are protected during the process?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the importance of making sure that all those who are eligible, have applied and are being or have been processed through the scheme, and who may still be in Pakistan and have not yet made it here to the UK, have support from the team at the high commission and have letters of support, so that the Government of Pakistan know that they are within our ARAP-eligible umbrella. That will continue to be the case until such time as we have been able to bring them all to the UK.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is only right and proper that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) has brought forward this urgent question today, so congratulations to them.
I note that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, is in her place. Her Committee’s report highlights that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has referenced the Rwanda scheme as their justification for deporting Afghans back into the hands of the Taliban. Does the Minister agree that the Afghan men and women who fought with British forces and were not brought out to safety through Operation Pitting, yet who managed to flee the Taliban and use small boats to cross the channel and get to the UK, should not be sent to Rwanda? Or is the message from the present British Government to our allies, “We’ll use you, but we’ll drop you when we’ve had our way with you”?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have discussed the question of Rwanda a lot in recent weeks. We consider Rwanda to be a safe country, as does the international community. I do not think it is comparable to Afghanistan, but we are continuing to ensure that all those who worked alongside British forces, have applied and are eligible for ARAP, and those who are not in the military space but who have applied and are eligible for the ACRS, are able to have protection through the letter from the high commission in Pakistan, while we look to bring them to the UK in due course. That will continue to be the case until the programme is completed.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Of the estimated 1.7 million refugees on the border, many will be Christians or members of other minority religious sects. What safeguards are the UK Government putting in place, and what conversations are they having with the Pakistan Government, to make sure that those Christians are not returned to Afghanistan, where they will be persecuted, and that that faith can shine through?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my statement earlier, we will always continue to remind the new Government of Pakistan, as we did the previous one, of their international obligations around some of these incredibly difficult issues. We have a very good relationship with the Government of Pakistan, so that is a conversation that we continue to have daily.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I am a really proud foster parent to an Afghan refugee—actually, I am now a grandmother—so I am grateful for the urgent question. I am really concerned about those who have been forcibly taken out of Pakistan, and particularly about the reports on those who were actually born in Pakistan. It smacks of a sick joke that, on one hand, we are talking about bringing Afghan refugees here, but on the other hand, tonight the Government will vote down the noble Lord Browne’s amendment to prevent Afghans who supported us and our British armed forces from being packed off to Rwanda. My question is really simple: how can we show a moral stance on the issue today, when the Government will be voting down the amendment on Afghans who are at risk?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is lovely to hear of that personal commitment to a refugee from the hon. Member’s family. Such stories are so important, and it is lovely to hear them brought here and championed, because that shows that the commitment is about much more than just words. I congratulate her on becoming a granny, as it were. It is a lovely story to share.
Importantly, the hon. Lady raises the question of those who worked and served alongside our armed forces or in other areas. The two incredibly generous schemes—ARAP and the ACRS—are there precisely to provide the opportunity for those who wish to apply, and who are eligible, to come and have safe harbour in the UK. The schemes, particularly ARAP, will continue for as long as needed, and we encourage those who have not applied—though the numbers suggest that very large numbers have already applied—to do so. As I say, they are long-standing and very generous schemes, which will continue. Week in, week out, we are able to bring the incredibly brave people who served and supported our armed forces to the UK.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
My Afghan diaspora in Bolton takes this matter very seriously under the leadership of Dr Aziz, who I should also note is opening a new medical centre next week in Bolton. What discussions have the Government had with the Pakistani high commissioner to the UK to make sure that those who are eligible will not be adversely affected by the 15 April deadline to deport Afghans from the country, which the Pakistani Government are now working to?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is good to hear that a new medical centre is opening, which I am sure will provide important services for the whole community. As I say, our conversations with the British high commissioner in Islamabad, senior officials here and the Pakistani high commissioner based in London continue day in, day out. We have a very close relationship. Our commitment to provide letters of support for those who are in Pakistan and waiting to come to the UK because they have been found to be eligible for one of the two schemes is respected by the new Government of Pakistan, as it was by the previous one.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has already mentioned, in our report on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that other nations might be influenced by the way in which the United Kingdom treats its international law obligations. That was earlier this year, and we noted at that stage that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had already referred to the UK Government’s Rwanda policy in defence of his decision to deport Afghan refugees. I suggest to the Minister that this is quite a serious matter. Does she appreciate that while Pakistan’s policy might not be identical to the British Government’s Rwanda policy, the fact that the British Government have been prepared to set to one side their international treaty obligations in respect of refugees and asylum seekers acts as an encouragement to other countries that wish to do the same?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I would not compare Rwanda, which we consider to be a safe country for those who are ineligible for asylum here, to Afghanistan. Importantly, those Afghan refugees who are eligible to come here under one of our two incredibly broad and generous schemes have that layer of protection until such time as they get here, through the high commission and the relationship that we have with the Government of Pakistan, who are very clear that they would not look to deport any of those Afghan refugees who are eligible to come to the UK.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain the assessment that has been made of the adequacy of the humanitarian assistance available to those at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In terms of the UK’s commitment, we continue to be one of the largest donors to Afghanistan in a number of humanitarian areas, with £130 million in aid last year. While not wishing to speak out of turn—the Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is not here; he has been in Paris working on an Ethiopian package—we hope to be able to invest something nearer £150 million in the coming financial year in support of those humanitarian challenges for Afghanistan.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is possible—indeed, likely—that some of the Afghans in Pakistan are those whose ARAP applications are currently being reassessed by the Ministry of Defence. The outgoing Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), from whom we heard just a moment ago, updated the House on this just recently, and I am due a response to a written question on the progress on this from the Ministry of Defence today. It is good to see the Minister for Defence People and Families, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), sat with the Minister but, given the urgency of this matter, can I ask the right hon. Lady to give an assurance that her Department is working very closely with his Department to ensure that the applications of any potential ARAP-entitled people in Pakistan are being reassessed as quickly as possible?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am comfortable in committing to him that he will receive the reply he hopes to have by the close of play. He is absolutely right to say that the FCDO and the MOD are working hand in glove. The teams are incredibly well joined up, and I want to give them a gentle shout-out because they worked tirelessly to make sure that everyone’s application is properly scrutinised. As I say, these schemes are very generous and we will continue to run them until such time as we are able to bring all of those eligible back to the UK for safety.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is absolutely ludicrous that, three years after the fall of Afghanistan, we are still talking about people that the UK Government have left behind. It is absolutely appalling and incompetent that those who supported the UK missions in Afghanistan have been so woefully neglected. Can the Minister tell me exactly how many people are waiting for the UK Government to get their act together and process their ACRS and ARAP applications?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, these are broad and generous schemes and I can update the House on them today. The figures I have in front of me show that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 charter flights and relocate over 5,500 individuals. We will continue to work on that with our high commissioner and her team in Islamabad and the teams here, and through the Ministry of Defence and the teams in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We have an incredible team of officials working together to make sure that we bring all those who are eligible back to the UK.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
While I acknowledge the role that Pakistan has played in hosting Afghans after Operation Pitting, we need to recognise that many of the people being returned from Pakistan will be at significant risk. On top of that, many Afghans were incorrectly advised about which scheme to apply for and, as a consequence, may not even be in the process, so in addition to those who have started the process, there will be another cohort who have not started it because of the poor advice that they were given. Given that the ACRS is not even open—there is no phase 4 open at this moment—what numbers of people are expected? I have a constituent for whom this is really important. Can the Minister tell us the number of people she is expecting who are not in the process and who need to be accommodated?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, the ARAP programme is very generous, and it remains open—
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
On the ACRS, obviously the first part has been running, and we will continue to run these schemes as we need to. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to write to me if she has a specific constituent connection that she wishes to raise, and I will be happy to look at that, but the schemes continue to work, and our teams are working day in, day out, to make sure that those who are eligible are able to get to the UK.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I have already raised the issue of the special forces and those who might now be stuck in Pakistan, but there is also the matter of those working in local government who may have been magistrates and others. Afghan family members in my constituency suggest that the way that this has been handled could cause long-term reputational damage to the UK. What is the Minister’s assessment?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the review of further potential eligible applicants is ongoing by the Ministry of Defence, and as decisions on eligibility are made, they will of course have the support of those who are already in the scheme and eligible to come to the UK. I am very proud of this broad and generous scheme, and I have no doubt that it will continue to run for some time while we bring many of these refugees to the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, as always, for her responses. What steps will the Government take, not only to provide safe passage and routes for Afghans and allies to reach the UK, but to provide them with safe legal status? I give the example of the case of one of my constituents, who served in Afghanistan in the Army. Alongside him served an Afghani. That Afghani had to leave Afghanistan with his family and flee to Pakistan. I met him in Pakistan almost three years ago. The point I want to make is that if we can get that gentleman and his family—his wife and four children—to the Strangford constituency, we will get him a job and house, and we will make sure that his children are educated. He needs a visa to ensure that he gets here, and if the Minister can process his application correctly, the good people of Strangford will do the rest.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I have absolute confidence that the communities of Strangford will wrap their arms around those refugees who come to the UK, and if there is a particular issue, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to write to me. The British high commission in Islamabad is working constantly with those there who are eligible to do that paperwork. Their number is quite extensive; there are a lot of them. If there is a particular case that he would like to raise with me, I would be happy to discuss it.
Fireworks (Noise Limits)
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fireworks (Noise Limits) Bill 2023-24 View all Fireworks (Noise Limits) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the maximum noise levels of fireworks which may be sold to the public; and for connected purposes.
My Bill aims to tackle the antisocial use of fireworks, and would mean that fireworks available to the general public no longer emitted sound levels that were equivalent to a pneumatic drill or a chainsaw; instead, sound levels would be capped at those equivalent to an alarm clock or a hairdryer. Fireworks can be a great source of entertainment, but they cause misery for many people and their pets right across this country. This Bill would stop shops selling loud fireworks to the general public, and so tackle this widespread problem.
In my constituency of Bradford South, the misuse of fireworks is a 24/7, round-the-clock blight, causing unacceptable stress and anxiety to people and their pets. I take this opportunity to highlight my petition on this subject, which is live on my website. It calls for a reduction in the decibel limit for fireworks, and has already been signed by so many of my constituents.
Time and again, people in Bradford South tell me that their family life is disrupted as their children and pets are rudely awakened by the excessive noise of fireworks after 11 pm. In some cases, that happens every single night. Letting off fireworks after 11 pm on a non-designated day is of course illegal, but as Members right across this House will know, the policing and enforcement of fireworks legislation is, to put it mildly, a challenge. However, we can stop this antisocial behaviour involving fireworks by preventing people from buying excessively noisy fireworks from shops.
This Bill holds the power to protect people from noise disturbance without impacting the enjoyment of those who want to use fireworks. I emphasise that professionals could still continue to use fireworks that exceed the 90 dB limit, so organised public displays would not be affected. I am certainly not seeking to prevent people from enjoying fireworks responsibly.
Of course, the antisocial use of fireworks is not just a Bradford problem but a nationwide problem. The Petitions Committee noted in 2019 that thousands of people across the country had raised the issue of antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks. The Committee recognised that many people felt that current laws were unenforceable and that complaints were not acted on. Local authority and police witnesses confirmed that current legislation is challenging to enforce.
Fireworks are regulated in England under the Fireworks Act 2003, which was introduced by my predecessor, and under the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 and the Explosives Regulations 2014. There are four categories of fireworks. Category 4 fireworks present a high hazard risk, and can be supplied only to those with specialist knowledge, but members of the public can purchase category 1, 2 and 3 fireworks. Category 3 fireworks present a low-to-medium hazard risk, and are intended for outdoor use.
In the current legislation, the noise of fireworks that can be bought in shops must not exceed 120 dB, as measured by an appropriate method at the determined safety distance. However, that legislation is simply out of date and ineffective. With the public, police, and local authorities complaining of the inadequacy of those measures, it is time to change the law, stop the noise, and reduce the maximum decibel limit for publicly available fireworks.
The dangerous and antisocial use of noisy fireworks can have a serious effect on people’s health and cause distress. One constituent described to me how the fireworks cause her window panes to shake,
“4 times a week, week after week”.
We are talking about a persistent noise nuisance that people are unable to plan for, causing severe disturbance to pets and to people’s everyday life.
The antisocial use of fireworks can be distressing for those with health conditions and disabilities. Parents giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee spoke of their experiences in caring for their children. One parent said:
“our son has severe complex needs including epilepsy, which can cause him to stop breathing…the public are able to set fireworks off at any time…we cannot guarantee how loud they are going to be…My son screams, has a seizure and has to be administered oxygen.”
One of my constituents in Bradford has spoken to me about the impact on people with anxiety, including her mother. Another spoke of local ex-servicemen suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who are constantly affected by loud, explosive fireworks. As one constituent told me:
“It’s a disgrace that animals and humans have to suffer this”.
This issue must be dealt with. The very first step must be to introduce new limitations on the noise levels of publicly available fireworks.
The proposal to limit those noise levels to 90 dB or less is supported by leading animal charities; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals endorses my Bill and says:
“We believe that by introducing measures like this, we can better prioritise the safety and well-being of animals and vulnerable people...we urge Parliamentarians across the House to work with Judith on these welcome proposals.”
The current limit of 120 dB was based on studies on the effect of noise on people, rather than animals. Loud and high-pitched noises can adversely affect a large proportion of animals, whose hearing is often much more sensitive than a human’s. According to the RSPCA, around two thirds of animals are distressed by at-home firework displays. One of my constituents described the harmful impact of fireworks on her pet:
“my dog shakes at the sound of the fireworks...when we try to cuddle and calm her down nothing works...I’ve even been to the door shouting ‘please stop’.”
This shows the desperation of animal lovers. Another one told me:
“My brother’s dog died recently of a suspected heart attack...as he lay quivering under his bed, terrified of fireworks.”
It is absolutely vital that animals and pets are considered alongside human needs.
The Bill would alter the legislation to ensure that the upper noise limit of publicly available fireworks is set at 90 dB. This modest but necessary change to the law would be life-changing for so many people and animals right across this country. This is a Bill for those who fear the excessive noise of fireworks, a Bill for people whose pets are left terrified by the noise of fireworks, a Bill that would end the broken sleep of children, and a Bill for those who want to end the misery that noisy fireworks bring.
It is time that this House acted to defend people across this country from the harmful impact of the illegal use of noisy fireworks. The Bill tackles the issue in a practical and workable way. It will take pressure off overstretched and under-resourced police and law enforcement agencies by eliminating the availability of noisy fireworks. Importantly, the Bill also allows people to still enjoy fireworks—just in a way that means that other people and animals will not be disturbed. It aims to end the misery caused to people and their pets through the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks at all hours of the day and night, day in, day out, week after week. It puts an end to this relentless bombardment, because people should not have to put up with this. The Bill provides this place with the opportunity to act.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Judith Cummins, Kirsten Oswald, Marco Longhi, Mr Clive Betts, Peter Dowd, Rachael Maskell, Naz Shah and Imran Hussain present the Bill.
Judith Cummins accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 200).
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 April 2024 - (17 Apr 2024)
15:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 244 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Introduction
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 3E, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6D, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10D, and Government motion to disagree.
Michael Tomlinson
Madam Deputy Speaker, here we are again—you were in the Chair the last time we considered this Bill. This House has now voted several times, including in our strong endorsement of the Bill on Second and Third Readings. We need to bring this process to a conclusion to get the Bill on to the statute book and to get the flights off the ground as soon as possible.
Lords amendment 1D says we should have “due regard for” the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but why stop there? Why not the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018 or any other Act? Why not list the whole statute book? The answer is because it is not necessary. Together, the treaty, the Bill and the evidence demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair, is lawful, has justification and seeks to uphold our international obligations.
As I set out in our earlier debates, the Government respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and it was precisely to address the Supreme Court’s concerns that we brought forward the treaty with the Republic of Rwanda. We have also prepared an evidence pack on what has changed and how those concerns are being addressed.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am struck by how reasonable Lord Hope’s amendment seems in setting up an independent body to assert that Rwanda is a safe place, as the Minister says. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Michael Tomlinson
I will address that amendment in a few minutes, but there already is an independent body: the monitoring committee is part of the treaty. I am not speaking to that amendment at the moment, but I hope to allay some of the hon. Lady’s concerns in a few minutes’ time and then to see her in the voting Lobby.
Having considered the lengthy and extensive exchanges throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government now invite Parliament to agree with our assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have indeed been properly addressed and to enact the Bill accordingly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My party will support the Government, with the exception of one amendment. I have previously asked the Minister about freedom of religion or belief. We have that freedom in the United Kingdom, but some disquiet has been expressed to me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, about that freedom in Rwanda. People have repeatedly asked me this question, which I sincerely and graciously ask the Minister to answer. Is there the same freedom of religion or belief in Rwanda as we have in the United Kingdom?
Michael Tomlinson
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that any two countries’ systems are the same. As I have previously said, those freedoms are in Rwanda’s constitution. He has previously asked me that question, and I have read out the precise wording. I endeavour to do so again before the end of this debate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many people share the Government’s ambition to stop the boats. Would these Lords amendments not muddle the legislation in a way that, once again, would leave us open to an unnecessary court challenge? Can he reassure us that, unamended, the Bill will do the job?
Michael Tomlinson
I know my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the Bill since the outset, and he is right. The amendments fall into two categories: those that are simply unnecessary and those that are worse than unnecessary. The second group are wrecking amendments deliberately designed to prevent the very things that the Bill was designed to do—namely, stopping the boats and getting the planes off the ground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has previously accused me of repeating myself from time to time—heaven forfend—but he is right, because our approach is justified as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional propriety. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has even said that it is not unprecedented, and he is right. It also meets our international obligations.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I reciprocate the Minister’s comment because, in so far as I may have rather infelicitously suggested that he has repeated himself, I have to confess that I, too, have repeated myself. [Hon. Members: “No!] Yes, and I have done so for extremely good reasons.
My amendment, which I will not go into now, received huge support in this House but was not accepted by the Government. It still presents a serious question that has to be answered. Going back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, there will come a time when this Bill is passed, hopefully in the immediate future, after which it will receive Royal Assent. At that very moment, as sure as anything, a claim will be made straightaway by Matrix Chambers, or by one of the other doughty chambers or whoever. The question will then be what the Supreme Court is going to do about it. That is the subject to which I keep returning.
As the Minister knows only too well, when we said that we were concerned that the Bill will not work, it was not because we did not want it to work; it was the exact opposite. We want it to work, but given that the Opposition are still going on about international law, we need to be sure that the wording is clear and unambiguous so that the Court rules in the Government’s favour. If not, it is all over.
Michael Tomlinson
Once again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a tendency to repeat himself from time to time, as he admits, but he is right to do so. He has previously mentioned paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which I can cite in full:
“in any event, the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned in the present case.”
It has been our joint endeavour to ensure that this legislation is clear and unambiguous.
On the treaty’s implementation, I reiterate that clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and that the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all the necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.
The monitoring committee, as I told the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification and response to any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting takes place in real time.
Debbie Abrahams
Will the Minister ensure that the report is laid before Parliament so that we can review it?
Michael Tomlinson
The monitoring committee’s work is independent. Commitments have already been made that there will be an update in Parliament, which is one of the amendments in lieu that we agreed to last time. Today, the right thing to do is to push back on all these amendments, which are either unnecessary or wrecking.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I appreciate the tone and manner in which the Minister is approaching this difficult issue, but can he help on one matter? I understand his point that some amendments might have the effect of delaying the Bill, or might give rise to challenges and delay the policy objective, but I am troubled about why that should be thought to apply to Lords amendment 3E, proposed by Lord Hope of Craighead, who is a distinguished jurist and whose amendment is proposed in moderate and unpartisan terms. The rub of what will happen going forward is whether or not Rwanda is safe. Parliament can legislate, as a matter of sovereignty, to say that it is safe, but for the legislation to be effective we have to deal with the fact that we have chosen to make ourselves judges of fact, but facts may change. Given that we have put in place the mechanism, with the monitoring committee and enhanced arrangements, which are all to the Government’s credit, I struggle to see what is in the Hope amendment that undermines the operationality of the Bill, rather than helping it. If facts did change, would it not be helpful to have such a mechanism to enable us to review that, on an informed basis?
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his engagement in the Chamber during previous debates and outside the Chamber. I hope over the next few minutes to persuade him as to why this specific amendment is in fact unnecessary. I share his respect for the noble Lord Hope, as should we all, but I respectfully disagree with him that this amendment is necessary. Let me explain why.
The implementation of these provisions will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee that we have been discussing. That role was enhanced by the treaty from that originally envisaged. The commitment from our friends and allies in Rwanda is evident given the progress that has already been made. Let me set out two or three concrete pieces of evidence to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. The complaints process has been set up. This, plus the wider assurances on the training process, which will ensure the quality of decision making and build capability in Rwanda’s asylum system, all reaffirm the fact that we have confidence in Rwanda’s commitment to delivering this partnership and in its status as a safe country.
As is evident from our numerous debates, Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised as generally safe and stable. A further piece of evidence is that Rwanda’s overall score in the World Justice Project’s rule of law index has increased consistently. It is the first in sub-Saharan Africa and 41st globally. In fact, it is higher than both Georgia and India, which this Parliament has in the recent past confirmed are safe countries. Those relocated to Rwanda will be given safety and extensive support, as detailed and set out in the treaty. I am grateful to all the officials in the Government of Rwanda who have been working so hard on this.
Lords amendment 6D, which I characterise as a wrecking amendment, would simply encourage illegal migrants to continue to frustrate the system through lengthy legal challenges in order to prevent their removal, running contrary to the core purpose of the Bill. The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal, while maintaining the principle of access to the courts. Taken as a whole, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the right constitutional balance—the balance that we have all been seeking in this Chamber—between Parliament being able to legislate as it deems necessary, and the powers of our courts to hold the Government to account.
Turning to the final Lords amendment, amendment 10D, I acknowledge, as I acknowledged during our previous exchanges, that this Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. I repeat: we will not let them down. Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 enables the Secretary of State to specify categories of persons to whom the duty to remove will not apply. Once the United Kingdom’s special forces Afghan relocations and assistance policy review, announced on 19 February, has concluded, the Government will consider how to revisit our immigration legislation and how it will apply to those who will be eligible as a result of the review.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is one thing to hear the Minister give the assurances he has given today, but the fact remains that we have been out of Afghanistan for some time now. There is considerable evidence that those who helped us, and put themselves in danger as a result, have not been able to get easy access to the United Kingdom and get immigration status. The Government have not dealt with the issue in the past, despite the fact that the difficulty that these people are facing has been made quite clear, so why should we believe their assurances that they will deal with it in the future? Therefore, this amendment is necessary.
Michael Tomlinson
The answer is that this Prime Minister has placed around his Cabinet table the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—a veterans’ Minister sitting at the highest level. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has served our country, as have many right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We will not let veterans down. That is the reassurance that has been given from this Dispatch Box and in the other place by the noble Lord Sharpe.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) expressed optimism on Monday. I confess that I too am an optimist. May I take this opportunity, perhaps in the optimistic hope that this might be my last opportunity during the passage of the Bill, to thank all the Bill team in the Home Office for their extraordinary work? It is a team effort, but may I praise one who has gone above and beyond, whose voice, I hope, recovers? She knows who I am talking about. I thank the parliamentary Clerks for their advice and assistance, not least in our marathon Reasons Committee sessions. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for always ensuring that I have been in order.
To conclude, we have made it abundantly clear that our priority is to stop the boats. We simply cannot stand by and allow people smugglers to control who enters our country and to see more lives being lost at sea. We have an obligation to the public and to those who are being exploited by criminal gangs to stop this vile trade and protect our borders. Letting this Bill pass now will send a clear signal that if people come to the United Kingdom illegally they will not be able to stay. I commend the motion to the House.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords in the other place for all the hard work they have done in trying to amend the Bill, which is quite frankly a sham and a con. I would like to highlight the restraint that they have exercised. Despite the deeply damaging nature of this legislation, in terms of its impact on our constitutional conventions and our adherence as a country to the rule of law, none of the amendments before us today seeks to wreck the Bill or the unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme the Bill seeks to enact. Not one of them would prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off or stop the Government flogging this dead horse of a policy. Instead, the amendments seek only to commit the Government to the promises they have already made about who will be sent to Rwanda, and to clarify the mechanisms that will underpin that process.
Ministers claim that there is tremendous and pressing urgency, but if that is the case why did the Government forgo the opportunity to use Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 March for debates and divisions on the Bill? Could it be because they needed extra time to scramble high and low for an airline that wanted to be associated with this unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme? Or could it be because the Home Secretary is unable to decide who should be exempted from deportation to Rwanda? Indeed, it has been reported that, because of his dithering, the entire hare-brained scheme has been given a “red risk” rating in the Home Office.
That brings me to the permanent secretary’s comments at the Public Accounts Committee on Monday—namely that 40,000 asylum seekers are currently stuck in the truly Kafkaesque perma-backlog of inadmissible cases whose claims for asylum the Government are refusing to process. Forty thousand requires an awful lot of flights, given that the Government have not managed to get one flight off the ground and given what we know about the Rwandan Government’s capacity to process just a few hundred cases a year.
Therefore, given that a maximum of around 1% of the asylum seekers who are in the perma-backlog can be sent to Rwanda, what is the Minister’s plan for the remaining 99% who are stuck in this indefinite limbo of his Government’s own making? Is the plan to keep them in taxpayer-funded hotels, of which hundreds are still in operation, according to what the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border said on Monday, despite the Government’s boasts? Or, perhaps they will have an amnesty, which the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) warned about last year, and which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) warned about at that very Committee.
Well, we know what we would do: we would deliver our backlog clearance plan, surging the number of decision-makers to process claims quickly, and set up our new returns and enforcement unit with 1,000 new staff to remove those who have no right to be here.
It is quite frankly shocking that the number of foreign criminals removed has dropped by a staggering 27 % under the Conservatives, and also profoundly worrying that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has plummeted by 44 % in that time, with just 2%—2%!—of small boat crossers removed since 2018. What a sorry state of affairs.
Our new returns unit, together with our cross-border police units to go after the criminal smuggler gangs operating in the channel upstream—funded, of course, through redirecting the money that has been squandered on Rwanda—gives us a compelling and realistic plan. It is a plan that is based on hard graft, common sense and effective international co-operation, in stark contrast with the headline-chasing gimmicks, empty gestures and blank cheques that have come to define the way in which successive Conservative Governments have broken our asylum system and lost control of our borders.
The Government’s refusal to engage constructively with the other place on this Bill is deeply disappointing, given that their lordships have simply been fulfilling their constitutional duty to revise and improve the draft legislation that we convey to them. The noble Baroness Butler-Sloss received a tiny concession for her commendable attempts to stop the Government sending victims of modern slavery to Rwanda, but let us be clear: that concession was barely worth the paper that it was written on.
It is utterly shameful that Ministers are still refusing to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Browne. We owe a debt of honour and gratitude to the Afghans who so bravely fought alongside British troops, and the idea that we might send them to Rwanda is simply unconscionable. Lord Browne’s amendment is not only driven by a moral imperative; it is underpinned by our national interest and by military logic, for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our armed forces to recruit local allies will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended.
Let me turn now to the other amendments before us today. It cannot be repeated often enough that adherence to the rule of law must remain at the heart of our constitutional conventions, and as a cornerstone of our liberal democratic values. It is therefore profoundly concerning that Ministers continue to refuse to recognise how important it is for Britain to abide by these principles, and to have this commitment in the Bill.
Sir William Cash
I simply want to put it to the hon. Gentleman that, as the rule of law includes the basis of sovereignty, it is quite clear—from one great jurist to another right the way down through the generations—that, where an Act of Parliament is clear and unambiguous in its wording, it is the duty of the courts, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just said with regard to Lord Reed’s judgment, to give effect to those words. That is the rule of law, not this confection that the hon. Gentleman is producing time and again. If I may say so, he has flogged this dead horse not just once, but many times, because he keeps on saying it. He has repeated himself now three times. I have never seen a dead horse flogged so badly as that by the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Kinnock
Lectures about flogging dead horses in the context of a debate about Rwanda really is quite extraordinary, because if we wanted a definition of a dead horse, it is this policy. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many exchanges on this point and I have enjoyed them. As I have repeatedly said to him, yes Parliament is sovereign, but Parliament must act with due care and attention and caution with regard to the opinions that come from our most eminent court, the Supreme Court, and in this case the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda is not a safe country. It is a travesty that Parliament is seeking to undermine the rule of our judiciary in that way and it raises deeply troubling questions about this issue of the rule of law.
John Redwood
Where would the proposed returns unit send illegals to, and what if the countries concerned did not want to receive them?
Stephen Kinnock
I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, as we often get this point about returns from Conservative Members. What I find fascinating is that, when we look at, for example, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are clearly safe countries in principle, we see that 80% of the applicants from those countries whose asylum claims fail are not being removed by this Government. For instance, the Home Office rejected asylum applications from 1,750 Pakistanis in 2023, yet Home Office data shows that just 620 people were removed to Pakistan in 2023. A clear proportion of those would have been asylum seekers—some may well have been foreign national offenders. The key point is that there are many, many countries to which it is more than possible to return people, yet the Government are simply failing to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked an extraordinary question in Home Office orals on Monday about a foreign national offender in her constituency who has been convicted of a sexual offence and has asked to be returned to his country of origin, but the Home Office has not facilitated that or allowed it to happen. Clearly, there is something going seriously wrong with returns. As I have mentioned, we have seen the number of returned failed asylum seekers plummet by 44% since 2010. We should be focusing on those countries with low grant rates, because that is where we can clear some of this backlog and return people to their country of origin when they have no right to be here.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I find it interesting that he has suggested that all we need to do is ask India for emergency travel documents and it will immediately issue them. Has he made any attempt to find out what the issues might be there?
Stephen Kinnock
The key point is that, under the last Labour Government, returns were working. A part of that, I suspect, is based on proper, adult, grown-ups in the room having proper, adult, grown-up diplomatic conversations with the Governments with whom we mean to engage. What we have seen with this Government over the past few years is a consistent commitment to burning diplomatic relationships with a whole range of countries, and when we burn those bridges it makes it much more difficult to achieve what we need to achieve in our own national interest.
The Government have promised a whole range of things from that Dispatch Box, and the Lords amendments on these rule of law issues are simply seeking to put in the Bill what Ministers have promised. Why else are they rejecting the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Coaker, which simply asks the Government to commit to promises that they have made? Likewise, why not support the Lords amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti, which allows Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe for individuals on a case-by-case basis, if the Government support the principle of appeals, as Ministers claim that they do?
Sir William Cash
Given that the noble Lord Coaker has brought this forward in one shape or another several times, and given that it is central to the debate, in the light of what I said in my earlier intervention, would I be right in thinking that the Leader of the Opposition supports the amendment? If so, why?
Stephen Kinnock
It is for the simple reason that we want to put in the Bill an articulation of what has already been said by Ministers from the Dispatch Box. We feel that it is extremely important to underline this country’s commitment to the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman mentions the Leader of the Opposition; as an eminent lawyer himself, there are few who are more committed to the rule of law than he.
If there is a parallel universe in which the Rwandan Government are able to process asylum claims in a safe and competent manner, surely it makes sense to verify that point and the measures that are set out in the Rwanda treaty, and to verify that they have been fully implemented, and for the Government’s hand-picked monitoring committee to establish that that is the case. That is not an unreasonable request from the noble Lord Hope, and the Government should therefore support his amendment, precisely as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is no longer in his place, pointed out.
The British people are looking on at this Government’s attempts to continue flogging this dead horse of a Bill—that seems to have become the metaphor of the day—with a growing sense of bemusement and anger. Blowing half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money on sending 300 people to Rwanda is utterly mind-boggling. It is equally staggering that £2 million will be spent per asylum seeker to send them to Rwanda. We could surely spend £2 million more effectively on sending the Prime Minister and his four predecessors on a one-way trip to outer space with Virgin Galactic.
Perhaps the right thing to do would be for the Government to drop this entire failing fiasco and instead adopt Labour’s detailed plan to repurpose the Rwanda money into smashing the criminal smuggler gangs and ending the Tory small boats chaos. We know what the Bill is really about; the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted it in December. It is all about the Prime Minister getting “a few symbolic flights” off the ground before the general election. This weekend, a civil servant confirmed to Lizzie Dearden in the i newspaper that efforts are geared towards a single flight as “proof of concept”, calling it an “election vanity scam”.
That really tells us everything that we need to know. None of this is about dealing with the chaos that the Government have created; they have focused on getting a couple of symbolic flights off the ground. It lets the cat well and truly out of the bag. Everyone can see the Rwanda scheme for what it really is, everyone can see the legislation for what it really is, and everybody can see this Government for what they are. I think we need a new one, and so too do the British people.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Bearing in mind the short time, I will do my best to speak briefly. We have four amendments from the Lords. I can deal with them in short order. Amendment 1D has no merit. I have not voted on that particular issue before, but today I will vote against it, because we cannot perfect that mess of a clause—clause 1. I will not repeat the arguments that I have made on that, and I really do not think that the amendment improves the clause with the addition of various statutes, as the Minister said. I think that we should reject the amendment.
I agree that amendment 6D is a wrecking amendment. We know that the delineation of clause 4 specifically with individual cases was a proper and right addition to the Bill from the outset, which I think makes it compliant with the rule of law. Therefore the amendment should be rejected. I will not repeat my arguments on amendment 10D. I still think that there is a class of people who served this country, and bravely exposed themselves to danger, who have not yet been dealt with. Many of them are in Pakistan. It would perhaps have been helpful to see an amendment in lieu to deal with that point, as the Minister did with regard to modern-day slavery, for which I thank him.
I was pleased to hear the detailed reference that the Minister made to the progress being made by the Government of Rwanda to implement the provisions under the treaty. That is clearly the issue at the heart of amendment 3E and clause 2. He knows my concern about deeming provisions and the desirability of their meeting the reality of the situation, which is why I welcome his statement, and the statement of the noble Lord, the Advocate-General in the other place, that the Bill will not come into force until the treaty has been implemented.
I think the Minister conceded that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope is not a wrecking amendment; it is designed to ensure that there is a mechanism through which this place can deal with the fact that Rwanda is a safe country, and to ensure that if, God forbid, the situation ever deteriorated such that it was no longer a safe country, we would not need primary legislation to correct the situation. At the moment we would. The second proposed new subsection in amendment 3E would allow this place to be involved in a situation where Rwanda might no longer be a safe country, on the advice of the independent monitoring committee, which of course is a creature of the treaty itself, set up under the treaty, as the Minister described. It is not part of the Hope amendment to set up a new body. That is not the intention.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s reservations about the inability of this House to reconsider the matter of the safety of Rwanda under the current legislation, but is the problem with the noble Lord Hope’s amendment not that the mechanism that he describes gives to the monitoring committee the final say on the safety of Rwanda? It does not give this House the opportunity to say, “We’ve heard the advice of the monitoring committee, but we none the less believe that Rwanda remains a safe country for the purposes of the legislation.” My right hon. and learned Friend and I might think that that is a wholly unlikely scenario, but as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, does he agree that it must remain possible?
Sir Robert Buckland
Up to a point, Lord Copper. I think the second proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (8) of clause 1 —will provide leeway for the Government to disagree with the advisory committee, which might advise that Rwanda is no longer a safe country when in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is. Then it would be a matter for Parliament to determine, and the trigger would not come into place. On the first proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (7) of clause 1—my right hon. and learned Friend is on stronger ground, in the sense that it relates to a statement from the independent monitoring committee. However, I have no problem with an independent monitoring committee that has been set up by a treaty that has been agreed to by this Government and by the Government of Rwanda, and which has come into force in our law through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions. Slightly inelegant though it is, it is difficult to see another way to do this that could be conclusive, and which could give certainty to all those involved in the operation of the scheme.
The Minister knows that I seek to remove and reduce the possibility of legal challenge. I do not want to see the legislation becoming the subject of angst, sturm und drang in either the High Court, the Court of Appeal or, God forbid, the Supreme Court. We saw the effects of what happened when the situation as of 2022 was determined on the evidence by the Supreme Court. The Minister knows my views about that. Whatever concerns I have about the Supreme Court in effect conducting a test on evidence, which frankly is not what it should be doing—the Supreme Court should deal with and interpret the law of this country—that is the reality in which we operate. I want to ensure that the Bill does not lead to the same problem. That is why the noble Lord Hope’s amendment has strong merit. It clears up any doubt that there is not a mechanism either for the Executive or this place to apply the provisions of the Bill, or to disapply them when the facts change.
Let us ensure that the reality keeps pace with the law, and that deeming provisions, however attractive they might be, are not used as a device to cut corners and to run ahead of ourselves in a way that will only cause problems, not just for the judicial system but for the operation of the policy itself, which the Minister knows I have consistently supported, and will continue to support, as an innovative and proper response to the unprecedented challenge of mass migration that the west is facing now. This is serious stuff. I want the Government to get it right.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I will start in order with Lords amendment 1D in the name of Lord Coaker. The Minister asked why the Government ought to have due regard for those particular pieces of legislation—why would we want to have due regard for international law and various Acts, including the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Well, the reason is found on the face of the Bill, which states, in the name of the Home Secretary:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
The Government are setting out to undermine our international obligations, so it is quite right for the Lords to insist that we abide by them. That is the very least the Government should be doing. There are implications for children, for people who have been victims of slavery and trafficking, and for people whose human rights will be abused. The Government should be paying far more attention to that.
On Lords amendment 3E in the name of Lord Hope, there is significance in ensuring that the monitoring committee can do its job properly. It is not clear in what circumstances Rwanda can be declared not safe. The monitoring committee is supposed to produce an annual report that then goes up the chain to the Joint Committee, but there is no mechanism for the committee to blow the whistle should something happen. There is no mechanism for it to say, “Suddenly, something has happened and Rwanda is no longer safe.” What happens in that circumstance to those recommendations? How are they acted on, and what then happens to the people the UK wants to send to Rwanda?
There no such mechanism in this legislation—or, as far as I can see, in the treaty, which involves a three-month delay, and the agreement of both parties, before anything can be annulled. What happens should something untoward occur in Rwanda? I referred to the action of the M23 rebels in my remarks earlier this week, but the Minister did not respond to it in his summing up. What happens if something goes awry? We do not know; we are beholden to the Government’s assertion that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. There is no mechanism to remove the perpetuity of Rwanda’s designation as “safe.”
I highlight the experience of the Irish author and journalist Sally Hayden, who wrote “My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World's Deadliest Migration Route”. She has raised concerns about the mechanisms of scrutiny in Rwanda itself, and about the treatment of refugees in Rwanda. She has visited the country on several occasions, but was denied entry last month as she went to cover the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. She has tried to resolve that with the Rwandan authorities, but believes that she was refused entry precisely because she has criticised them and their treatment of refugees. Should that not alarm us all when it comes to the scrutiny of the Bill both here and in Rwanda? She said:
“Proper scrutiny of the consequences of this policy are not possible because it’s not a country with freedom of media and freedom of speech”.
We should be deeply concerned about that. Without that independence and scrutiny, we cannot be certain that what is happening in Rwanda is what the UK Government intend or what the Rwandan Government are telling us. Press freedom is crucial for that level of scrutiny, beyond the supposedly independent monitoring committee. I support amendment 3E.
I also support amendment 6D, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, because it stands up for the right of our own authorities to make proper decisions. It empowers our decision makers and our courts, as they should be empowered, to look at the evidence before them and make proper decisions. The Government are asking the judiciary, immigration officers, tribunals and everybody in the system to engage in a legal fantasy—that they should ignore all the evidence before them and believe the Government when they say that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. With reference to proposed new subsection 1(c), which deals with refoulement, I remind the House that Rwanda engaged in the refoulement of several persons during the negotiation of the treaty, never mind at any time. We should be worried about that.
Lords amendment 10D proposes the new clause, “Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas”. We had an urgent question earlier today about the people from Afghanistan who are being yeeted out of Pakistan. The Pakistani Government are apparently pleading by using Rwanda as some kind of justification for that behaviour. That really indicates the ripple effect of what the Government are doing: other countries are praying in aid this legislation when they look to do things that we also have concerns about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have very little time left so I must put on a formal time limit of two minutes.
Sir William Cash
I will be brief and focus entirely on Lord Coaker’s amendment 1D, which I have already mentioned in interventions. The problem with the wording that he put forward in debate is one of disingenuously mixing apples and pears. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is also behind the amendment, because it is much more substantial than its predecessor. It is actually a change in Labour policy as well. The noble Lord Irvine, Tony Blair as Prime Minister and Jack Straw all agreed that the sovereignty of Parliament, where words are clear and unambiguous, prevails.
The bottom line is that that is exactly what we are dealing with here. I applaud the idea of maintaining international law—I have never taken a different view—but in his speech Lord Coaker compared what is going on in the middle east to the illegal war in Ukraine and the Houthis in the Red sea. He fails to appreciate that those situations are separate to this issue, and I am raising this as a matter of principle and constitutional propriety. Those are exclusively matters of prerogative, whereas in this instance we are dealing with an issue of sovereignty and the clear and unambiguous words that appear in statute, as Lord Hoffmann made clear when he distinguished between treaties and statutes in relation to the case of Regina v. Lyons, which I have referred to previously.
The position is basically and simply this: I stand by what I have said on this subject in the past. I sincerely trust that the Court will agree that these words are clear and unambiguous.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1D is a motion to disagree with the Government’s obligation in relation to the Bill to have due regard for international law and the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. If the Government are confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with international law and the aforementioned domestic law, I do not understand why they are rejecting this amendment again.
The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3E would scrap the requirement inserted by the Lords that Rwanda be treated as a safe country only if and when protections contained in the treaty are judged by the independent monitoring committee to have been implemented and to remain implemented. Surely Lords amendment 3E is an entirely proper and legal amendment if the Government deem that the measure in their own treaty is necessary? Given that Members had no opportunity to debate that treaty prior to ratification, the amendment would at least provide some reassurance that the protections it contains will be put into practice.
The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6D is a motion to deny individual grounds for legal challenge that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons, or that there is a real risk that Rwanda will remove or send those persons to another state. The Home Affairs Committee has always been clear that there has to be the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge as a necessary part of our fair asylum system.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s assurances about the specified category that could be used in the future, but amendment 10D sets out very clearly why such provisions should be included on the face of the Bill and our obligations to those who have helped us and our armed forces overseas. That amendment would be the right thing to add to the Bill.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.
I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We are at that stage in the legislative process where Government obstinacy sometimes overcomes rationality. There is no way that these can be described as wrecking amendments—I wish they were, but they are not. Lords amendment 3E simply uses the Government’s own mechanism to ensure, as Conservative Members have said, that Parliament has the opportunity to change its judgment when the facts change. Anyone who has any experience of the history of this region of Africa realises that there is built-in instability, and therefore we may well need to come back to this matter, although I hope we do not.
My Northern Ireland colleague the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked about Lords amendment 10D, and the ministerial response was that we should not worry because the fact that a number of veterans sit in Cabinet means that the system will work for those who served in Afghanistan. I am sorry, but so far, the veterans sitting around the Cabinet table have not ensured that. Many of us have dealt with individual cases, and all Lords amendment 10D would do is ensure that we live up to our commitment that those who served alongside us, putting their lives and those of their families at risk, will be secure. The existing scheme has not worked in that way, but Lords amendment 10D would ensure that it did in the future.
My final point is that I came to this place on the basis that Parliament was all about protecting its citizens and ensuring that they have safety but also access to law. Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment 6D simply ensures that Parliament fulfils that role—it certainly is not a wrecking amendment.
Michael Tomlinson
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I would like to make a few remarks; I fear that I do not have time to respond to each and every point that has been made, but I thank right hon. and hon. Members right across the House for the contributions they have made.
I want to pick up on one contribution, which is the intervention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The shadow Minister cannot actually say what Labour would do: he says that he has a plan, but all Labour can say it would do is exactly what the Government are already doing. It has said that it would scrap the Rwanda scheme even when it is up and running, but it has not found a deterrent. Worse than that, as my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) have also said previously, it is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with this policy to come up with their own solution to the problem of how we deal with people who enter the country with no legitimate, credible case for claiming asylum and who cannot be returned to their home country. As ever, answer came there none from the Labour party.
Letting this Bill now pass will enable us to send a clear signal: “If you enter this country illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be detained and swiftly returned to your home country or to a safe third country, namely Rwanda.” I urge this House to once again send a strong message back to the other place that these amendments are not necessary.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act (No. 2) 2024 2023-24 View all Finance Act (No. 2) 2024 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 42 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Drew Hendry has been selected.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a Budget to deliver on the priorities of the Prime Minister and his Government, in the context of an improving economic picture. Inflation has more than halved, down from its peak of 11.1% to 3.2%. Real wages have increased for the ninth month in a row and are now growing at an average annual real rate of 1.9%. The Finance (No. 2) Bill builds on these improvements by seeking to reward work, boosting the housing market, improving the tax system and strengthening the economy. This follows on from our national insurance cuts that, when combined with the autumn reductions, mean 27 million employees will get an average tax cut of £900 a year and 2 million self-employed people will get a tax cut averaging £700 a year, all made possible because we have a plan for growth and for better and more efficient public services. The Bill covers 24 different measures in total and I will outline its most substantive powers.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Minister consider a further measure to right a historic injustice? In Committee, will he entertain an amendment to allow those caught up in the loan charge access to a tribunal?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We have had a discussion about the loan charge previously. I do not believe an amendment would be in order on this Bill, but I say to my right hon. Friend and others that I am always open to hearing concerns about the loan charge. I have done previously and will happily continue to hear information, evidence and concerns from colleagues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to present the Bill. Over the last six months, particularly the last few weeks, farmers have been under exceptional weather pressure, with the implication that they will be unable to cultivate or plough their land or sow their crops. The Minister referred to inflation coming down. By the way, I am glad that it is dropping; we all should be, and if we are not there is something wrong with us. At the same time, inflation cannot come down if the cost of foodstuffs starts to rise. Has the Minister had the opportunity to consider that issue? How can we help farmers to keep food prices down at this difficult time, and thereby ensure inflation continues to drop?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive welcome of today’s news about inflation. He is right that it is welcome but we always need to keep an eye on it. I join him in thanking our farmers, who have played a pivotal role in helping food prices to come down. The supermarkets have a role in that area as well. He raises some points that are slightly outside the remit of the Bill, but I assure him I will continue to have conversations with ministerial colleagues and others, and I am sure he will as well. We always listen to the important farming community in this country, who do so much to create employment and provide us with food.
The Bill covers 24 different measures. I will not go through every single one of them, but want to focus on a few key areas. First, I turn to how the Bill rewards work. We all recognise the simple truth that work should pay. We understand how hard many people up and down the country work. This Government want to ensure they are recognised for that because that approach not only benefits individuals and families, but overall growth and the economy. As I mentioned, that is why we have already taken two Bills to cut national insurance through Parliament, but this Bill goes further.
A key measure in the Bill is to increase the high-income child benefit charge threshold from £50,000 to £60,000. In addition, the rate of the charge will be halved, so that individuals continue to receive child benefit until one household member earns £80,000, taking 170,000 families out of paying this tax charge. These changes are a well-earned reward for working families up and down the country and put pounds back into parents’ pockets.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
While the changes in the child benefit allowances are important, especially helping parents who want to get into work and have their children looked after, does the Minister accept that one of the biggest impacts of the Budget on people who are working is the way in which they are being dragged into higher tax rates because thresholds have not been raised? That is having a huge disincentive effect on working families.
Nigel Huddleston
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, back in 2010, the tax-free allowance was, I think, £6,475. Actions taken by this Government since then have increased the tax-free allowance to more than £12,500, a significant real-terms increase, which means that take-home pay is higher than it otherwise would have been. When taken in combination with other measures, it is a really important move.
Furthermore, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to detract from the significant changes in national insurance, which have put money back into people’s pockets. We have eliminated by a third a whole category of taxation—national insurance—and that will help working people in this country as well.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Just to reinforce this point about the increase in thresholds, the Minister says that it has been a significant real-terms increase, but it is actually a 21% increase, which is very significant indeed. My question is on the part of the HICBCs that were announced in the Budget but that he did not quite mention, which was the plan from 2025-26 to base the benefit on the household budget rather than the individual budget. Can he just reassure the House that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be up to speed to be able to implement that part of what the Chancellor has outlined?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but he has jumped ahead to a later part of my speech. I will get on to that point in a moment, because the movement to a household budget is an important part of the announcements.
I should just reiterate the first points on the changes that we have made. Overall, we estimate that 485,000 families will gain an average of £1,260 in child benefit in 2024-25 from these changes to HICBC. And, of course, what is good for families is also good for the economy at large, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, through these child benefit changes, the economy will gain additional hours work equivalent to around 10,000 full-time equivalents by 2028-29. Going forward, we want to ensure that the child benefit system fairly rewards families in all their diversity, including those who, for example, have only one working parent. The Government will end the unfairness, for example, of single earner families in the child benefit system by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026. We shall be consulting on this in due course, as my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted. This is something, we know, that many people have been calling for.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister give us an indication of what level of household income the Treasury has in mind for that consultation? I presume that it will be much higher than £80,000; otherwise, it would be a more punitive situation. Will it be £100,00 or £120,000? What will it be?
Nigel Huddleston
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s inquisitiveness, but this is the point of the consultation. We will be having a consultation and I am sure that his views and opinions and those of others will be taken into account.
I shall now turn to how the Bill will drive investment in our economy. We all recognise that investment in the economy is crucial for economic growth. It supports everyone across the country and ensures our competitiveness in international markets. That is why, through this Bill, the Government are taking decisions for the long term to support that investment. For example, our creative industries contributed £126 billion in gross value added in 2022 and supported more than 2 million jobs.
By announcing more than £1billion of new reliefs for the UK’s world-leading creative industries at the spring Budget, we have signalled our commitment to ensuring the sector’s continued growth. For example, we will make current tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries permanent, at a rate of 45% for touring theatres and touring productions by museums and galleries; 40% for non-touring productions; and 45% for orchestras. That will ensure that our creative industries have the support they need after the unprecedented economic shock of the pandemic.
We will also further support the UK’s independent film sector through a new UK independent film tax credit at a rate of 53% for films with a budget of up to £15 million, which is worth about £80 million a year. This will support the production of UK independent films and, of course, the incubation of UK talent, which is admired around the world. This Government are committed to supporting UK businesses and these measures deliver on that.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The amendment in my name sought to address the failure of the Bill to bring in tax measures to ensure the continuation of oil and gas activity in Scotland, including at Grangemouth oil refinery. Almost 90% of levy revenue comes from Scotland, but there is precious little by way of investment in that part of the economy. A good example of that is the UK Government’s denial of £80 million to save Grangemouth, while at the same time signing a loan guarantee of £600 million for INEOS, for activity in Antwerp and Belgium. According to the response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), the UK Government have not even assessed the potential supply of that activity.
Neale Hanvey
Can the Minister not see the perversity of spending Scottish revenue abroad while jobs in Scotland are wilfully put at risk by this Government?
Nigel Huddleston
I could not disagree more with the hon. Member’s premise. If anybody has shown support for the sector, this Government have. We have shown huge support for the sector, in an appropriate and proportionate way, while also encouraging the industry to decarbonise. As I said, we are taking fiscally responsible decisions to extend the energy profits levy for one year. We are also providing confidence and certainty to businesses in the sector by legislating for an energy profits levy price floor. That is what is in the Bill. That will effectively abolish the energy profits levy if the six-month average for both oil and gas is at or below a set threshold. Doing so was the sector’s main ask in the 2024 spring Budget, and it could help to unlock around £9 billion in uncommitted investment spend, according to Offshore Energies UK, which welcomed the decision. I am sorry that he feels unable to welcome it as well.
Those measures will ensure that investment in our economy continues to grow. I will now outline some measures in the Bill’s property package. The Bill will cut the higher rate of capital gains tax on residential property from 28% to 24%, encouraging landlords and second home owners to sell their properties, which could increase revenues because there would be more transactions.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The capital gains tax cut is very welcome, but will the Minister outline whether it will come into play retrospectively? Hypothetically, if a Labour Front Bencher happened to owe some capital gains tax, would they benefit from a Conservative tax cut?
Nigel Huddleston
I think I know where my hon. Friend is heading. Of course I cannot comment on individual tax situations. His point, though, is an important one: everybody should always pay the taxes that they owe. I think that principle is shared across the House. The measure will be implemented from 6 April 2024, so some people may be disappointed that there is no retrospectivity, but as I say, it will make more homes available to purchase for a variety of buyers, including first-time buyers.
We also need to ensure that the property system is fair and working as intended. The Government are clear that where policies are not meeting their policy objectives, we will take action. That is why we are abolishing multiple dwellings relief, a bulk purchase relief in the stamp duty and land tax regime, from 1 June 2024. That follows an external evaluation that found no strong evidence that the relief is meeting its original objective of supporting investment in the private rented sector, and because HMRC has recorded high and clear instances of its abuse. We are also amending rules to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not unfairly penalised if they wish to buy their first homes anonymously, and that those in difficult circumstances do not face additional barriers to purchasing homes. We will ensure that registered providers of social housing in England and Northern Ireland are not liable for stamp duty land tax when purchasing property with a public subsidy, and exempt public bodies from the 15% anti-avoidance rate.
Finally, I turn to measures that will simplify and modernise our tax system, making it easier to engage with the tax system and closing loopholes that could be used for avoidance. The negative impacts of inefficient, complex taxes on both businesses and the wider economy cannot be overstated. That is why the Government are taking action to ensure that the system works for everyone. As a starting point, we are amending two primary VAT interest provisions in legislation to ensure that they apply to all cases intended by the policy. That will mean that the interest payments that HMRC recovers are correct, and it will save time and resources for HMRC and businesses.
The Government recognise that it is everyone’s responsibility to pay their fair share of tax to support our vital public services, so we are closing another anti-avoidance loophole—one that enables individuals to avoid tax by moving assets abroad via a company. That is one of 200 measures that we have undertaken since 2010 to close loopholes and reduce the tax gap, which now sits at just 4.8%—down from 7.5% under Labour. Yes, that is an inconvenient truth for the Opposition, who recently claimed to be so enthusiastic about tackling tax avoidance yet did not take the actions that we have taken when they were in power. Importantly, Labour failed to support the last Finance Bill, which included further measures to tackle tax avoidance. However, Labour was in good—or, rather, bad—company, because the Lib Dems and the SNP did not support it either.
It is not the first time that we have seen such—how should I put it?—distance between what the Opposition say and what they do. Recently, the Labour party even said that it would support our national insurance tax cuts, but when it came to the vote, I did not see a single Labour MP in the Aye Lobby with the Conservatives. Nor were there any Lib Dems, while SNP Members were in the No Lobby actively voting against tax cuts for their constituents.
The Government are getting on with delivering on our plan to cut taxes, grow the economy and boost investment, but the Labour party would put all that at risk and send us back to square one. Instead of taking the responsible decisions to back businesses, the Labour party wants to saddle them with new regulations. Labour’s so-called new deal for workers is in fact a bad deal for jobs, workers and businesses. The 70 new regulations from the deputy leader of the Labour party and the unions would ban flexible working, disincentivise small businesses from making new hires and unleash waves of low-threshold, zero-warning strikes.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister is quite right to point out the dangers of Labour being in charge of finances and the impact that that is likely to have on tax, but does he have the humility to accept that tax is higher under this Government than it has been for decades?
Nigel Huddleston
I certainly have the humility to accept and recognise that. Taxes are higher out of the obvious and widely accepted necessity of paying for massive amounts of intervention because of the pandemic and in response to supporting families and businesses through the cost of living challenges. We make no apology for intervening to support lives and livelihoods to the extent that it was necessary. It was absolutely vital that we intervened because not doing so would have been a disaster for the UK economy. However, the general level of taxation, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, is much lower in the UK than in many other countries that also had to significantly increase taxes and Government intervention out of necessity in response to the pandemic. We have much lower levels of taxation than Germany, France, Italy and many other countries. As I said, we had high levels of taxation out of necessity, but we are now in a position to start reducing those levels of taxation out of policy intent and choice, and that is exactly what we are doing.
To conclude, this Finance Bill absolutely rewards hard work, supports our vital industries, boosts the housing market and continues to create a fairer, simpler and more modern tax system. It delivers on the Government’s commitment to prioritise economic growth and will ensure a brighter future for our country. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the chance to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Second Reading debate.
The Finance Bill follows last month’s Budget, in which the record of the Conservatives’ time in office was laid bare. After 14 years, the Conservatives have shown what they can deliver for the British people: higher taxes, falling living standards and lower economic growth. The truth is that after 14 years, they are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality. They are out of time because whatever they say or try to do now, it is too late to repair the damage that they have done to the economy and to people’s standard of living. The Conservatives may now have implemented a reduction in national insurance—a cut that we support—but that comes amid a tax burden that is set to rise to its highest level in 70 years, and to rise in each and every year of the forecast period. The Government simply cannot escape the reality that under their plans, for every £5 they are giving back to families, they will be taking £10 in higher taxes. Giving with one hand and taking twice as much with the other—that is the reality of life under the Conservatives.
The Government are not just out of time, but out of ideas. In the Budget from which this Finance Bill came, the Conservatives performed what may be the biggest U-turn of this Parliament yet, and there is some tough competition on that. After years and years of the Conservatives opposing tooth and nail our plan to scrap non-dom status, the Chancellor stood in this Chamber last month and adopted our approach as his own. I recall the Financial Secretary’s immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), being a particularly passionate defender of non-dom status. I remember her declaring less than a year ago, during the Committee stage of a previous Finance Bill, that
“We have come to the conclusion that non-domiciled status is right”.––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2023; c. 44.]
How times change!
Despite the Government’s apparent U-turn, we have learned since the Budget through our careful analysis of the Government’s plans that loopholes remain in their approach to abolishing non-dom tax status. Alongside an unnecessary discount in year 1, there is a loophole that appears to have been intentionally designed to allow non-doms to stash money away in offshore trusts, so that they can avoid being subject to inheritance tax, as any other member of the public is. Those loopholes must be closed, because if a person makes their home and does their business in Britain, they should pay their taxes here, too. People will look at those loopholes and rightly conclude that despite the Budget’s U-turn, this Prime Minister just cannot bring himself to sort out the non-dom problem once and for all.
Richard Fuller
If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. There may be a few hundred million pounds here or there in what the Government propose doing to tighten up supposed loopholes, but as he is aware, the Labour party wants £28 billion spent on its green investment. Which taxes will he raise to pay for that?
James Murray
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. Going into the general election, we have set out very clearly our plan to invest in the transition that we need in our energy supply and our economy, and how we would pay for that—through a strengthened windfall tax, alongside prudent investment. He may scoff at what we say about the non-dom tax loopholes, but we are talking about £1 billion in the first year and £2.6 billion over the course of the next Parliament. That money should go to our public services, rather than intentional loopholes allowing some people to get away with paying hundreds of millions of pounds less in tax.
The Conservatives are not just out of ideas, but out of touch with reality. They made that very clear in last month’s Budget, from which this Finance Bill arose. At the end of his Budget speech, the Chancellor made an astonishing £46 billion unfunded commitment—leaving a gaping hole in the public finances—when he pledged to abolish national insurance altogether. Since then, Government Ministers have had countless opportunities to row back from or U-turn on that commitment, but they have been determined not to. Earlier today, the Prime Minister had three chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or tax rises to pay for his £46 billion unfunded tax cut. Each time, he refused to do so.
James Murray
I will in a second. It is quite astonishing that the Conservatives are content to go into the general election with a £46 billion black hole in their plans, and that they refuse to say whether that £46 billion commitment will be funded by tax rises elsewhere or cuts to spending. I give way to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can confirm exactly how the Government will pay for that £46 billion black hole.
Nigel Huddleston
I very rarely intervene from the Dispatch Box, but I cannot help myself this time. The hon. Gentleman and I have had multiple conversations about this. He cannot differentiate between an aspiration and a policy commitment. His £28 billion was a policy commitment; what we have laid out is an aspiration. They are two different things.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering about the possible hit to pensions or the NHS, he knows full well that those suggestions are absolutely not true, because national insurance does not wholly pay for health, benefits, or indeed pensions. He is either scaremongering or exhibiting complete and utter financial illiteracy. Total spending on the NHS is over £160 billion, and welfare spending is over £260 billion, massively dwarfing the total amount raised by national insurance. He either does not understand that, or is irresponsibly scaremongering, because he has known for a long time that national insurance and other payments are topped up by general taxation. He should know better.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his mini-speech. I feel I may have touched a nerve. He talks about people being scared; yes, I think people are scared when they hear the Government making a £46 billion unfunded spending commitment and not saying how they will pay for it. When the previous Prime Minister made an unfunded tax cut commitment of a similar order of magnitude, we know what havoc that caused in the economy, and people are still paying the price in higher mortgage payments and rent payments. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gave him a chance to rule out cuts to the NHS or the state pension, or tax rises elsewhere, to pay for this black hole. I am not quite sure if he did that—maybe he has not got the line from his boss in No. 10 Downing Street—but the truth is that until the Government rule those things out, people will rightly worry about the impact his unfunded commitment will have on the economy.
The pledge the hon. Gentleman was speaking about sounds like exactly the sort of pledge that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would approve of, because it comes to almost exactly the same amount as her Government’s unfunded tax cuts. Of course, the previous Prime Minster has been touring the TV studios and talking to newspaper journalists in recent days, saying, among other things, that people who claim that she crashed the economy are
“either very stupid or very malevolent”.
I wonder if the Minister would like to intervene to say whether he shares that view. No? He is not leaping to his feet now. I would have thought he would; I would have thought that Treasury Ministers would want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the previous Prime Minister. Instead, with their £46 billion unfunded commitment, they seem determined to be a tribute act. Frankly, whatever the previous Prime Minister says, people across Britain know what impact her time in office is having on all of us, as we face higher mortgages and higher rents as a direct consequence of her economic recklessness.
That is the context in which we are debating this Finance Bill. The context is one of a Government who are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality, and of a country that is feeling the impact of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Even a simple clause such as clause 2, which sets the main rates of income tax, highlights the impact on ordinary people of decisions taken by this Government. Although the basic and higher rates of income tax are unchanged by this Bill at 20% and 40%, the tax burden on working people is rising as a result of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold being frozen from 2021-22 to 2027-28. Those tax thresholds would ordinarily have risen this April, but instead they are in the middle of a six-year freeze. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I assume the Minister has respect for, these freezes will create 3.7 million extra taxpayers by 2028-29 and mean that 2.7 million more people will be paying the higher rate.
The truth is that, even taking into account any reductions to national insurance rates, the freezes in thresholds and the rises in council tax mean that by the end of the forecast period, the average family will still be £870 worse off. As the Resolution Foundation noted at the time of Budget, despite the reductions in national insurance, there will still be a net rise of £20 billion a year by 2028-29 in personal taxes. It pointed out that those over the state pension age, who do not benefit from national insurance cuts, will be particularly badly hit, and will face an average tax rise of £960 a year. The reality has been summed up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said following the Budget:
“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”
That is the record of the Conservatives in government.
Dr Luke Evans
There is a certain Leader of the Opposition who, when standing for their post, said that as part of their No. 1 pledge, which was for economic justice, they would increase income tax for the top 5% of earners and reverse corporation tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman’s party was voted into government, would it stand by that pledge? That too would increase the tax burden significantly.
James Murray
I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. I can, however, respond to the general point that I think he was making. We have been very clear that this is a Parliament of record tax rises. The tax burden is set to be the highest in 70 years, and we think that the tax burden on working people should be lower. However, we would only ever support tax rises if they were responsible, and done on a basis of economic security and stability.
James Murray
I will make some progress, because I have made that point quite clearly.
The tax burden has been pushed to a record high, and we have also seen a record number of changes and U-turns on tax rates and reliefs under this Government. That applies not just to personal taxation, but to tax rates and reliefs relating to businesses. Let us consider the Chancellor’s approach to the rate of corporation tax, which the Bill sets at 25% in clause 12. In July 2022, during his leadership bid, the current Chancellor pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to 15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to U-turn on what he inherited and to commit to raising that tax from 19% to 25%. He has been typical of the Conservatives in lacking any certainty, predictability or consistency, and we know how damaging that is to businesses that are trying to make investment decisions.
As the shadow Chancellor set out, if we win the next general election, we will bring back certainty by capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. We believe that the current rate of 25%—the lowest in the G7—strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. We also recognise the importance of stability and predictability in the reliefs available to businesses. We have seen a great deal of chopping and changing in capital allowances in recent years—indeed, this is a rare example of a Finance Bill from this Government that does not change the annual investment allowance or expensing regime.
We have made it clear that if we win the next general election, we will publish a road map for business taxation in our first six months in office, to give businesses the stability, predictability, and long-term plan that is so important to those making investment decisions. We have been pushing for a proper windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the North sea. The Government, despite initial opposition, U-turned on that and adopted some of our proposals with the introduction of the energy profits levy. Ahead of the general election, we have set out our plans to make the windfall tax stronger, and to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, but it is also right that we give as much certainty as possible to those companies affected.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a domestic oil and gas sector and offshore energy sector to deliver for the economy, to deliver energy security, and to bring in the investment needed for transition? After all, the North sea has powered our economy and our country for decades, and it can do so for decades to come.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we offer as much certainty as possible to those companies affected. We recognise that by its very nature, the windfall tax is expected to be a one-off levy in response to extraordinary profits, and will ultimately come to an end. We have set out that if we win the next general election, the energy profits levy will end no later than the end of the next Parliament. We also fully support the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19, and the signal that it gives, which helps with investor confidence in the UK’s offshore energy sector.
We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and we look forward to detailed consideration of its clauses in Committee. However, the wider context in which the Bill has been published lays bare the record of the Conservatives in government. That record is one of falling living standards for people across Britian, and the highest tax burden in 70 years. It is one of economic stagnation, from a party that is out of ideas and has been unable to provide the stability that businesses need. It is also one of recklessness with the public finances, both when the previous Prime Minister crashed the economy, and now that the current Prime Minister has made a £46 billion unfunded pledge to scrap national insurance. It is time to turn the page and turn a corner—time to give British people the chance to change our country’s Government by calling a general election.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I have a couple of points to make to the Minister, and a couple of responses that the shadow Minister might be interested to hear. In response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the loan charge, the Minister said that he was not minded to accept an amendment, but would always listen. I like the Minister. He will be aware that the loan charge has created significant concerns and problems for people. He will be aware that the loan charge policy has been in place for a long time and has not made the progress anticipated initially. May I say to him that it is time to draw a deadline on that policy and for HMRC to find a different way to provide resolution and, may I say, relief to those affected?
Sammy Wilson
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy has not only failed to bring in the revenue that the Government intended, but led to a number of people committing suicide because of the pressure put on them by HMRC?
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend has voiced the concern that I know will rest on the conscience of my hon. Friend the Minister, and he is right to add that. May I put a second conscientious point to the Minister—this point was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—which relates to the scoring for contaminated blood? That was not included in the Budget, which will have disappointed a considerable number of Members of Parliament from all parts of the House. It would be helpful if the Chancellor came forward with some view on that. Will my hon. Friend look at that?
Thirdly, will the Minister be encouraged by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and his analysis of the charges imposed on the Treasury by the Bank of England as a result of the quantitative tightening policies? The UK’s policies on quantitative tightening are exceptional. Few other central banks—many of which indulged in the bizarre quantitative easing policy 15 years ago, after the financial crash under the last Labour Government—do it, and it is now a real charge that has real effects on the real economy in the country. The exceptional way in which we are treating quantitative tightening charges—essentially, we take them on the books, the Treasury gets charged for it, and it has to go into the scoring that the OBR and others do—does not go on in other European countries. There is discretion on how it can be put across, and in the US the charges are absorbed but the Government are not charged. That is an important policy point, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would accept an amendment on that in Committee, although I think not.
Prosaically, or simply, HMRC has been in the headlines for not answering phone calls and for saying it would go on holiday. I am pleased that the Minister reversed that straightaway, and I know many taxpayers will be pleased about that. Many who will be looking to fill in their self-assessment forms will be surprised that they cannot download form SA100—they have to call HMRC to download a copy, whether or not they want to file it by paper. That seems a little odd, if HMRC’s phonelines are under pressure. Will the Minister, who has been responsive on points to date, look into that?
I will turn to the shadow Minister’s speech—I like him too. As he in his own mind “prepares for government”, he and his colleagues may wish to get a better grasp on reality. When he rightly talks about the importance of setting clarity for investment, it is important that those looking at investment think that those in charge of the public finances know what is going on. He talked about record tax rises under this Government. Let me ask him these questions. Did he disagree with funding of the furlough programmes? Did he disagree with the energy price support? Did he disagree with the increase in funding for the NHS? Did he disagree with record numbers of police officers? If he did not disagree with any of those, he would recognise, if he had a grasp on reality, that he would have to fund those through increased taxation or increased—[Interruption.] He has an answer, so would he like to come in? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought he had an answer.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is asking me what I disagree with. I disagree with the low growth that has been true of this Government. I disagree with billions of pounds being wasted in covid fraud and in other ways by the Government. I disagree with how the Government are now overseeing the highest tax burden in 70 years and have no plan to get the economy growing. That is what I disagree with.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Member mentioned growth rates, fraud and the record tax burden. I was making a point about the record tax burden, and he cannot respond to that challenge by repeating that he is concerned about it. He talked about low growth—he should go to Germany or France, which have lower growth than the UK. He should go to the majority of G7 countries, where he will find lower growth than in the UK. He is mistaking—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene again? No.
I am trying to be helpful, obviously. The hon. Member and the shadow Treasury team wish to be taken seriously, but he will know that the points about growth are difficult to work through, with western economies not growing as fast as they have done. The UK is growing faster on average than other countries, and he needs to give some credit for that rather than just say that low growth is the case.
More importantly, if the hon. Member and the Labour party believe in furlough, the energy price schemes, the record increase in NHS funding and more police—they supported most of those programmes—they must recognise that those must be paid for in government, and that means hard choices. What the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have done is make those hard choices. Making people feel bad about historical hard choices is not a policy for a future Government.
James Murray
We seem to be engaging in an unexpected back-and-forth. The hon. Gentleman did not mention covid fraud. As he might know, we have set out our plans for a covid corruption commissioner. Would he support that—yes or no?
Richard Fuller
Of course, everyone supports cracking down on fraud, and I would be very happy—[Interruption.] If I may, I would be happy to look at the Labour party’s specific proposals. But the hon. Member will also know that when the Labour party talks about fraud, particularly when it comes to personal protective equipment and the furlough programmes, it conflates two things. For example, with the coronavirus loan programmes, Labour is conflating moneys that have not repaid because businesses have gone bust, or because companies have not paid them back yet, with moneys that have been lost fraudulently. When I look at his proposals, I want to ensure that when Labour talks about the amounts that have been lost, they relate to actual examples of fraud and not to the ways in which, in a difficult situation where people’s businesses could have been closed, money was given out by the Treasury to others. If that is the case, I am happy to look at that.
My second point to the Opposition—before I get on to what I want to say—is that I hold no torch for the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), but when the hon. Member and his colleagues talk about crashing the economy and about people’s mortgage rates, as I think the Leader of the Opposition did at Prime Minister’s questions, may I gently urge them to look at the Bernanke review that has just been completed on Bank of England forecasting? That has a number of important points about how the Bank of England could improve its forecasting. It also compares interest rates for the seven central banks that Ben Bernanke, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, has used as his comparators—in figure 12 in the report. If the hon. Member looks at that, he will see that UK interest rates in 2019 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2020 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2021 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2022 were in the middle of the pack and UK interest rates in 2023 were in the middle of the pack. UK interest rates as we enter 2024 are in the middle of the pack. It is simply not true to say that something exceptional happened to UK interest rates in any part of this Parliament. Again, if the hon. Member wishes to be taken seriously in government, he needs to get a grip on reality, not on fantasy.
I will now turn, if I may, to the things that I would like to say. [Laughter.] I did promise the Whips that I would take only 10 minutes, so I promise to take only 10 minutes, from now. Clause 12 sets the corporation tax rate. I see my friend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) in his place on the Opposition Benches. I think that both he and I are pleased that Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members have made clear their commitments for full expensing. That is particularly important to the people of Bedfordshire because there is a potential investment pending in his constituency. I would like to put on record our thanks to the two Front-Bench teams for setting out the clear future framework for how that will work.
Let me turn to income tax rates in clause 2, because it is important to look at the history. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, the record of successive Conservative Governments from 2010 for working people in this country is strong. He mentioned the increase in the personal allowance from £6,475 in 2010 to £12,570 this financial year. That is a 21% real increase. However, my hon. Friend did not mention the change in the minimum wage, which has gone up from £5.80 in 2010 to the living wage now of £11.44. That is a 23% real increase in wages. Higher wages for working people and lower taxes for those on lowest incomes is a very strong record.
However, my hon. Friend needs to look at the higher rate threshold, because in 2010 it was £37,400, and now it is £37,700. In today’s money, the 2010 amount would be set at £59,800. In essence, there has been a 37% decrease in earnings when people hit the higher threshold. It may not be popular politically, but economically such a substantial differentiation in the way we tax people on middle and high incomes from those on low incomes has long-term implications. After the Budget, people who have retired, have been thrifty and saved money and have a private pension now find themselves complaining that, although they are getting their increase in the basic pension—or maybe not—they are being dragged into the higher rate of taxation. Successive Conservative Governments have rewarded work—they have wanted people to work hard, be entrepreneurial, and grow their businesses and the economy—so please, can we look at the ways in which that particular threshold should change?
Quite rightly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have indicated that they wish to simplify taxation on working people. That is completely consistent with the long-run approach of the Conservatives to taxation on work. The aspiration to reduce national insurance is an excellent way of looking at that. Unlike the Opposition, I would say that there is a difficulty in politics of finding times to make quite significant changes. This may be such a time—I know that Ministers will be looking at this—partially because we have quite significant issues of overall taxation that we need to reduce, but there is the opportunity for other reasons as well. Reallocation of existing taxes is easier when the tax burden is exceptionally high. I am a low-tax Conservative. I recognise, unlike some, that when we buy things, we have to pay taxes on them. But we know that this tax rate is unusually high, and we know that we will reduce that tax burden. It is a propitious time to look at ways of reducing national insurance contributions over the next five years.
The Budget forecasts fiscal drag to be £28 billion to £33 billion per annum for the next three or four years. There is an ethical and moral case for wanting to give back more money to people by reducing national insurance contributions. However, my proposal is for the Government to consider not that national insurance reductions should go directly into pay packets, but that national insurance contributions should be added to people’s long-term savings through compulsory savings schemes. Many countries have recognised that the idea of state pensions being based upon the “never, never” is not a secure way to provide for long-term pensions. We have never really grasped the nettle in this country—Singapore did it right at the start and Australia did it in the 1990s. There is an opportunity for us to build on the work that Sir Stephen Webb did in the coalition Government through changes to national insurance contributions. That would ensure that working people are the first generation to have a truly secure pension that is their money, where they do not have to rely on the vagaries of what a particular Chancellor of the day might do to pensions, and they would have only one tax on their wages during their career. Finagling people in other parties like to increase taxes, and having two taxes to increase gives them more flexibility. An opportunity would be provided to extend the savings stake—the way that people save for things—beyond providing for their retirement, so that they could, as they do in Singapore, put money into their first home. By looking in a new way at how we treat citizens in this country, we could move towards a savings state and away from a socialist never-never state. I leave my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those comments.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because it fails to make a much-needed reduction in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors; fails to reintroduce tax-free shopping for international visitors; does not establish a more progressive tax system by introducing a starter rate, in line with the Scottish Government’s approach; fails to introduce measures through the tax system that would help alleviate the cost of living crisis and reduce inequality; and fails to introduce tax relief measures to enable vital high-growth sectors, like the renewable sector, to grow the economy; and because it derives from a Budget which proposed to extend the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy, threatening the security of jobs in north east Scotland and the UK’s ability to achieve net zero.”
The Bill falls woefully short of the mark. The Scottish National party has tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading because, frankly, its provisions do not rise to the immense challenges faced by our constituents. The UK Government seem to operate under the illusion that the Tory Brexit cost of living crisis has come to an end, yet the reality on the ground, in homes across Scotland and the other UK nations, tells a different story. Indeed, a UK poll out today shows that 61% of people think the UK Government are not taking the measures required for the cost of living. The bad news for Labour is that they do not believe it is proposing the right things either.
The Bill, as it stands, is a stark testament to a Government who are—as we have heard, and I agree—out of touch, out of ideas and soon to be out of office. But let us be clear that the proposals in the Bill are insufficient to support households in Scotland, who continue to bear the brunt of disastrous decisions made in Westminster. The spring Budget brought devastating cuts to Scottish capital funding, yet there remains a pervasive silence among the Westminster parties about the true scale of cuts planned over the next Parliament to meet the arbitrary fiscal rules that they are both slavishly following. I note that the Labour Front Bench said “hee-haw” about public services funding over the coming years, despite the £20 billion hole that we know will lead to further misery in public services. There are elements in the Bill, such as the marginal increase in child benefit and the limited support for the film sector, which we can view as steps in the right direction, but they are but drops in the ocean compared with the vast needs of our communities.
For a UK Government who claim economic competence, it is astounding how little they understand about nurturing true economic growth, or enhancing productivity. Austerity has failed. It cannot be made to work, yet those in the Labour party continue to pretend that somehow it can. We agree with the Labour party that for every £5 coming out of the Budget for people, they are paying £10 back in, so the question that Labour Members must answer is: why are they not voting against Second Reading tonight? Why are they going to, once again, sit on their hands and allow the Bill to go through? As I have said, not a word on public services. The reality is a continuing decline in disposable incomes, a shameful record on inequality—the highest in any major European country—and a GDP per capita on its longest downward trajectory since records began. Moreover, the Chancellor’s measures are predicted to have a minimal impact on economic turnaround this year and it is highly probable that the Government will have overseen the worst Parliament for income growth in recent history.
Scotland has the highest wages in the UK, according to medium gross weekly incomes, thanks to the work of the SNP Government on promoting fairer wages and leading by example. However, the powers to avoid the scale of falling real incomes resides here in Westminster. That fall is unprecedented over the past six decades. Hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland and across the nations of the UK are locked in a vicious cycle of debt, with over 300,000 having missed a debt payment in the past year alone.
According to a report published recently by the Financial Conduct Authority, 7.4 million people across the UK are
“heavily burdened by their domestic bills and credit commitments.”
In January this year, nearly 6 million UK adults reported having no disposable income at all. The ongoing cost of living crisis continues to degrade living standards, with families struggling under the weight of high food prices, exorbitant mortgage rates and escalating energy costs that are pushing more and more households into debt. Food prices are about to spike yet again, and we can put that squarely down to Brexit—the love child of the Tory right, now adopted by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. A report from Allianz Trade suggests that controls to be introduced in May will increase import costs by 10% in the first year, imposing £2 billion of extra costs on UK businesses and exacerbating the cost of living crisis.
Food prices have already risen by more than a quarter since a couple of years ago owing to existing Brexit changes. This is a turbo-boost on top of what people have been facing. Where is the help for people as food bank queues grow longer and the ability to donate to those food banks dwindles? It is non-existent. Whatever the cost to households, whoever starves, “make Brexit work” seems to be the consensus of the Westminster parties, and especially this Tory Government. Even if we put aside our squandered EU membership, the fact is that they will not implement the basic food protections that other Governments have used and we have called for. This is Westminster negligence, and a failure to observe the basic values of fairness.
Particularly pressing is the escalating crisis of fuel poverty that grips many of our communities. How can it be right, in the 21st century, that there exists an energy poll tax of standing charges? In the highlands and islands, the electricity standing charge for households— the charge that has to be paid every single day, cold or warm—is 50% higher than it is in London. How can that be fair? Why have the UK Government sanctioned this blatant inequality? Should the Bill not be doing something to fix it?
This Bill could have provided for the scrapping of standing charges. The Government should be acting with urgency to start providing meaningful rebates for the people who live in the areas with the greatest degree of fuel poverty, including extreme fuel poverty—again, by the way, the highlands and islands. The irony is not lost on people living in an area that exports more than six times the amount of the electricity that it uses, and seeing massive tax returns going to the Chancellor’s Treasury while they suffer this injustice. At a bare minimum, the Bill could have ushered in legislation for a long overdue energy social tariff. Citizens Advice has reported a 14-fold increase in the number of clients seeking advice related to fuel poverty since 2019. The average fuel debt that clients present to Citizens Advice Scotland is now more than £2,300. That is not merely a statistic; it is a damning indictment of the current Government’s policies.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about fuel poverty. When I conducted a survey of Dalmarnock residents about its impact, I found that it had a hugely detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. They could not even invite family members round because their houses were cold and they could not afford to switch the kettle on to give them a cup of tea. Pensioners were going to bed together early because they could not afford to keep the heating on. Does my hon. Friend think the Government understand the dire consequences of fuel poverty for people who are living in it?
Drew Hendry
That is a very good point. I do not think that the Government understand what happens to people. I do not think they are paying attention to medical advice, such as an article in The Lancet drawing attention to the health deprivations that result from living in fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. They do not understand the effect on children’s learning and wellbeing over this period, or, ironically, the higher costs to public services as a consequence of fuel poverty: for instance, people have to rely on the NHS more because of associated health conditions. The Bill is doing nothing substantial to alleviate such dire circumstances.
Before I move on to other issues, I have to ask why the Bill has no updated actions to stop companies taking advantage of the cost of living crisis. For example, the Government are aware, as is the Financial Conduct Authority, that car insurance in the UK is now 34% higher, and that younger and older drivers have seen bigger premium increases than others. The claims rate is under 18%, premiums have increased by 34%, and average premiums for some age groups have jumped by over 50%.
Surprise, surprise: drivers in Scotland are among those who have seen their premiums rise the most. This time, however, it is something they share with Londoners. The Government cannot put that down to the fact that there are different market forces and so on, because insurance premiums have risen by only 2% in France, 5% in Spain and 6% in Italy, so what is going on? The Bill contains no action on end-of-contract scams by mobile and broadband operators either. The Government are allowing a punishing cost of living free-for-all to continue while they are distracted with feeding their culture wars and giving peerages to their pals and donors.
While the UK Government remain idle, pretending that the cost of living crisis has ended, the Scottish Government have taken proactive steps to tackle inequality and reduce child poverty. They have implemented game-changing policies such as the Scottish child payment, which has lifted 100,000 children out of fuel poverty, yet it is an uphill swim to protect families while Westminster makes the big and wrong decisions. Austerity continues to hinder necessary investments that are essential for Scotland’s burgeoning industries. Brexit has disastrously impacted on our economic activity, international standing and business confidence. Investment in the UK remains the lowest among the G7 countries.
It is common for the Tories, and indeed the Labour party, to say that there is no magic money tree when it comes to public finances, which is why they must always cut, cut, cut to follow their so-called fiscal rules. But here is the rub: the closest thing we had to a magic money tree was our EU membership, which could still be adding to our reserves. According to research by Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, Cambridge Econometrics and others, around 5% of our annual GDP has been lost because of Brexit. If we had that back, it would generate well over £100 billion per year, generating a potential tax take for the Treasury of over £40 billion per annum. We could plug the holes—we do not have to be going through this—but that is not the path that has been decided for us. The Government have hacked the tree down to mulch, and all that they and Labour can do now is promise more cuts.
The Bill fails business and industry, too. The SNP has long advocated a £28 billion annual investment and a robust green industrial strategy to harness the full potential of the green transition. Labour used to agree—indeed, its advisers are annoyed that the party is not going forward with it—but it has reversed on that policy, as was confirmed earlier. Such an approach is essential if we want to meet our climate change targets. Indeed, as we stand at the moment—with Scotland as part of the UK—it is one of the few industries that the UK could take forward with gusto.
Despite the obvious needs, what have the UK Government done? They have only recently decided to boost funding in allocation round 6 for offshore wind projects—an effort still inefficient to meet the necessary targets. Following the failure of the fifth round of contract for difference allocations to secure any new products, it is unacceptable that the Government have failed to rectify the shortfall in deployed capacity, leaving us well behind our 21 GW target for the upcoming rounds.
This Bill is a testament to the UK Government’s ongoing failure to adequately invest in the renewables sector, thereby endangering our net zero targets, jeopardising energy security and stunting the long-term growth of Scottish communities. It is time for a drastic change, and we need a Government who will be aligned with the needs of the Scottish people in the future—an independent Scottish Government.
Where in the Bill is the action to help our tourism and hospitality industries? Selective cuts to VAT would have been a mechanism that could have been deployed to help those sectors, and it could and should have been used to help struggling high streets and town centres. Where is the VAT-free shopping that business organisations were crying out for?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about VAT-free shopping. We led the charge a number of years ago on the extra-statutory concession on the removal of VAT-free shopping at airports, which is crucial to Glasgow airport in my constituency. We even managed to get the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to vote with us on that occasion, but we have still seen no action from this Government to conclude that. That is one of the excellent points in our reasoned amendment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the SNP that will be working for the people of Scotland, not this Government?
Drew Hendry
That is exactly right. This is one of the many things that the UK Government have been called on to do, but they have been deaf to industry asking for them and often begging for help on some of these issues.
This spring Budget has introduced disastrous cuts to Scottish capital funding, with the aforementioned conspiracy of silence that the Institute for Fiscal Studies identified permeating the halls of Westminster concerning the severity of cuts planned over the next Parliament. This Government’s legacy will undoubtedly be marked by the failures of their austerity measures, the calamitous aftermath of Brexit and the misguided policies—“misguided” is a very gentle word—of Trussonomics.
Austerity under the Tories has stripped our public services to the bone, exacerbated inequality and decimated living standards. This addiction to austerity, paired with the Government’s fiscal rules, has proved utterly ineffective at reducing debt, which as a percentage of GDP has tripled in the past 15 years. The House of Commons Library has revealed that the Scottish block grant is set to fall to its lowest-ever level as a percentage of UK Government spending in the history of devolution. Between 2023 and 2025, Scottish capital funding from the UK Parliament is projected to fall by 16.1% in real terms. These Tory cuts continue to wreak havoc across all areas of the UK, with councils across England on the brink of bankruptcy and many already in special measures.
Regrettably, austerity will not end with the demise of the Tory party, as the Labour party is also committed to these same spending plans and fiscal rules. Both the Tories and Labour are engaged in that conspiracy of silence. They have had the opportunity to talk about the level of austerity necessary, in their view, over the next Parliament, but their silence threatens to cripple the already underfunded public services across the UK. With an estimated further £20 billion of cuts needed, by their calculations, over the next Parliament, it is imperative that both Westminster parties come clean ahead of the general election about the level of austerity they intend to impose on Scotland and the rest of the UK. The public have a right to know the extent to which these parties plan to decimate our public services, should they come to office, and to be told explicitly which Departments will suffer the most severe funding cuts. We know that they are both in favour of increasing the privatisation of the NHS to facilitate their plans. Let’s hear the rest.
All we have here today is a zombie Bill from a zombie Government at the fag end of a zombie Parliament, with activity in this Chamber at record lows. The Chancellor’s recent spending plans not only cut funding in Scotland but extended taxes on Scotland’s natural resources, which, as we heard earlier from across the Chamber, have been funding the UK’s economy for so many years. The Government are offering little to stimulate growth in the Scottish economy, and it is abundantly clear that neither of the Westminster parties possesses the ambition required to invest adequately in our economy and reduce inequality.
In Scotland, the SNP is supporting people through the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax, which is already lower by hundreds of pounds a year than in the rest of the UK; by using progressive taxation to ensure that the majority still pay less income tax and the minority who can afford it pay a little more; by supporting working people; by ensuring a strike-free NHS with better-paid nurses and doctors, and committing to keep it in public hands, just like ScotRail, Scottish Water and more; and by helping families with 1,140 hours of free childcare, no tuition fees for students, and much more.
In Westminster, we have been given Brexit, a loss of more than £100 billion to the economy, a reduction in the available and skilled workforce, more than £100 billion of fraud and waste, ballooning and unfair electricity charges, higher fuel debt, higher food prices, higher mortgages, higher rent, higher insurance costs, and a betrayal over the £28 billion a year needed for the just transition to renewables while our natural resources are exploited to the hilt. Our ability to build new things such as hospitals and more has been sabotaged by enormous cuts to the budget for Scotland and more pressure on services to come.
Barnett consequentials are just that—consequentials of decisions in this place. They have consequences, and Scotland sees that. Scotland needs the powers to introduce our own comprehensive industrial strategy, invest robustly in high-growth industry, and effectively reduce poverty. The only path forward for Scotland is to have a Government who truly plan to fix the economy and tackle inequality, and that is through an independent Government in Scotland. I am delighted to have moved our reasoned amendment.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When I got my copy of the Bill from the Vote Office, I was a bit worried that the middle 500 pages or so had been missed out. We are used to these Bills being somewhat thicker than this.
I am slightly nervous, Minister, that at this rate the Indians might catch up with us on the length of our tax codes. I hope that a large Finance Bill will be ready this autumn so that we can keep our lead. There are some potentially complicated rules coming, including the new nom-dom rules. We could also base the new inheritance tax on residency rather than domicile, and we also face the question of how on earth we will define “household” for the purposes of the high income child benefit charge? There probably is some meaty stuff to come, but it is fair to say that this Bill does not generate substantial excitement.
There is always a risk with reasoned amendments to a Finance Bill. If we voted for the SNP’s reasoned amendment, we would not get any income tax this year, which would probably do quite a bit of damage to public services—though imagine that might be popular with a few people.
I am slightly intrigued by the fact that, at a time when we are really struggling for tax revenues and to balance the books, anyone would prioritise reducing the price of a Rolex for very rich tourists. That is effectively what reintroducing tax-free shopping does: it saves a lot of money for very expensive tourist purchases. I have never been convinced of the attractions of reducing VAT for the tourism sector, because the problem is that it is a huge boon for hotel operators in London that has to be paid for by taxes elsewhere.
Drew Hendry
I am happy to educate the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to speak to any of the tourism organisations that have been calling for this change, he will find that it is a great way for them not only to cope with some of the increased costs they have just now, which are front-loading their business, but to encourage people to come and use their facilities. It is something that the tourism industry is very keen on, and I would be delighted to introduce the hon. Gentleman to some people who will educate him further.
Nigel Mills
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not make the case for that in his own speech, when he barely touched on this issue. The point I was trying to make was that introducing that tax reduction would be a huge benefit to London hotels, which have high occupancy rates at a very high nightly rate, but then that money would have to be raised elsewhere in the country.
One of the advantages of Brexit—the hon. Gentleman might not like this—is we are now able to do differential tax rates by region. Therefore, if we wanted a tax rate targeted at boosting tourism, we could do it on a regional basis, looking at which have the lowest occupancy rates and the lowest employment rates. It would cost far less, and the reduction could be much smaller. We could boost investment where it is needed rather than where it is not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that looking at that would be more sensible than his proposal.
The hon. Gentleman is also criticising the lack of a starter rate. When we had a starter rate of income tax, from 1998 to 2008, it was for very low incomes. It was a 10p rate and it was charged on top of national insurance, which was also over 10% at that point. What we actually have now is income tax and national insurance starting at a much higher point. It is a 0% starter rate, which is a far better idea than introducing a new one, so I certainly will not be voting for the reasoned amendment, as it would be completely against the country’s interests.
The Minister mentioned the high-income child benefit charge. Strangely, the Bill increases the thresholds and promises a radical change at the start of the tax year after the next one, but it does not tell us what the Government are trying to achieve by that. We have rightly upped the starting point, but if we really want to go to a household calculation, either we should be very generous and have it start at £120,000, tapering up to £160,000—the equivalent of two incomes—or we risk making the situation worse by having a very big disincentive for second earners. If the new threshold were £100,000, rather than £80,000, a household with a second earner earning only £20,000 would be brought into the charge despite not being affected by it in the current financial year. I would not want to go down that line.
There is a very real risk that what sounds like a generous idea could have a very negative impact by discouraging second earners, whom I think we want to be encouraging with our childcare and other reforms. Before the Government publish the consultation, I urge them to think carefully about where they are pitching this. Surely there must come a point at which household incomes are pitched so high that almost no one will be paying the charge. What would be the point of all the complexity, uncertainty and cost of collecting it if it does not raise any money? We might be better off putting the 45p rate of income tax up by 0.5p, which would raise the same amount of money while losing all this complexity.
I think it would be better if, in Committee, the Minister introduced an automatic increase by inflation each year. It was a terrible mistake to keep the thresholds where they were. By far the simplest change would be to inflate the thresholds each year, so that we do not drag more people into the charge. Everyone would understand their position, which would be easier than trying to work out what on earth a “household” is for the purpose of this charge.
If we asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he would tell us that the formation and definition of households is one of the biggest areas of welfare fraud—people are pretending not to be a household to get extra benefits. It can be extremely hard to define a household and to enforce it. How much will it cost to work out who is or is not in a household? I suspect it will be so complicated to try to reintroduce a household definition within the tax regime that it never actually happens. If it does, it will probably cost more than it raises. I question whether it is sensible to retain this charge.
Turning to what is in the Bill, and given that we now have a large range of earnings, what is the Minister’s advice to people who are not sure whether they will earn more than £80,000 because they do not know what bonus they will receive in this financial year? Should they stick with the simple route, as many people have, of disclaiming child benefit so that they do not get caught by this tax at the end of the financial year, for which they need to save in case they have to pay it—it is a bit of shock when they get there—or should they go back to claiming child benefit on the off chance? Should they put the money in the bank and see whether they are entitled to it and, if it turns out that they have not earned more than £80,000, get to keep and spend some of it? We seem to have a position in which many households will not know until very late in the financial year whether they are caught by this. If they disclaim it, they will lose a benefit to which they are probably entitled; and if they do not disclaim it, they might receive a bill that they do not have the money to pay. We need some certainty on that position.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. I am also concerned about families who have stopped claiming child benefit and are no longer on the system, but who find, because of the new rules, that they are actually entitled. How can they make sure that they get the full amount of benefit to which they are entitled?
Nigel Mills
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We are in a complex position. My question to the Minister is whether we could have a more generous allowance in this financial year for retrospective claims. People have not understood this change and, if they have not already claimed, I suspect that they are already missing out on several weeks of benefits. Could we be more generous so that, if someone finds out towards the end of the tax year that their household is entitled, they can make a back claim? Child benefit is meant to help households with the extra costs of having children. There is a good reason why child benefit has been around for many decades. It would be wrong to deprive households of it because they are unsure how much they will get and do not want the uncertainty of big bill later in the year. There are ways that we could be a bit more generous in the transition; for example, we could allow people who are in that situation to make a catch-up claim later in the financial year.
With those few remarks, I happily support the Bill, and look forward to voting for it on Second Reading shortly.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
After years of economic chaos, unfair tax hikes and millions of families suffering from the cost of living crisis, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill today.
The Bill is yet more evidence that this Conservative Government have finally run out of ideas. For millions of families and pensioners facing soaring mortgage and rent payments, sky-rocketing energy bills and eye-watering food prices, the measures in the Bill will barely touch the sides. No real help with the cost of living, no plan for economic growth, no real support for our NHS and public services, and no end to this Conservative barrage of stealth taxes—is this really the best the Government have to offer? Thanks to this Government, the British public have endured the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s. More and more people across the country are rightly saying that enough is enough. Instead of more empty promises, what they want is a general election as soon as possible, to get this tired Government out of Downing Street and our country back on track.
Recent weeks have seen desperate attempts from the Chancellor to convince people that he is cutting taxes, in a veiled attempt to deceive the British public, but everyone can see this for what it really is: a cynical deception that will be wiped out by frozen thresholds, the soaring cost of living and years of unfair Conservative tax hikes. Over this year and next, someone on average earnings will still be £383 worse off because of the Government’s freeze on the tax-free personal allowance. Despite that, the Conservatives now expect people to be grateful for their giving back just a small amount of what they have taken way. That shows that they are totally out of touch.
Meanwhile, the Government are completely failing to use their collected tax revenue in a fair way. For example, they have shown no interest in investing in the NHS. The economy cannot be fixed without fixing healthcare. We need to cut waiting times. We need to allow more of the 2.6 million people who are economically inactive due to ill health to return to work. On doorsteps across the country, people tell us time and again how they cannot get a GP appointment, expect an ambulance to arrive on time or see an NHS dentist. But instead of properly addressing this crisis, the Chancellor merely plugged a hole that he had blown in the NHS budget in the first place.
That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to deliver serious investment for our NHS, recruit more GPs, fix our cancer services, bring down waiting lists and help people get the quality care they so desperately need. Unlike this Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats will always stand for protecting our health services. The Chancellor either does not understand the damage done by his cruel cuts to public services or just does not care.
The Bill fails to introduce a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers. That revenue could be used to fund energy support for the most vulnerable—to double the warm home discount or launch a proper home insulation scheme. It could be used to invest in British farming and bring down food prices for the long term. The legislation also fails to reverse tax cuts for big banks, a measure that could fund support for vulnerable mortgage-holders and renters. Worst of all, the Bill and the preceding Budget take none of the vital steps we need to grow the UK economy, such as launching an industrial strategy, reforming business rates and the apprenticeship levy, or reducing trade barriers for small businesses.
The Government have not just wrecked the economy; they have abandoned any strategy or plan for growth. Their lack of joined-up thinking has dire consequences for industry. Recently, we have seen the long and proud history of train manufacturing in the north-east jeopardised, with the Hitachi rail factory in County Durham put at risk of closure due to the Government not signing off an order from FirstGroup. That jeopardises some 800 jobs. The abandonment of the industrial strategy has real consequences for people across the country.
To conclude, although the Liberal Democrats welcome some measures in this Bill, such as changes to the high-income child benefit charge and the provision of tax reliefs for the creative industries, we simply cannot support a piece of legislation that fails to propose the solutions that we need to get our economy moving. In his spring Budget, the Chancellor could have proposed a fair deal for the British people and begun stimulating economic growth. Instead, he gave us more of the same: another underwhelming set of announcements from this Conservative Government, which is out of touch, out of ideas and nearly out of time. Right across the country, voters are sick and tired of this Conservative Government and are ready to vote for change at the next general election.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
As I highlighted in my contribution to the spring Budget debate last month, I support the measures that the Government are taking to grow the economy, boost productivity and ensure long-term prosperity for families. Today, I will focus on two clauses in the Bill, which will have an extraordinarily positive impact on the art and culture sectors in the Cities of London and Westminster, as well as across the country.
First, clause 16 amends the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to permanently set the rate of credit to 45% for touring theatrical productions, and to 40% for non-touring theatrical productions. The rates were due to taper to 30% and 35% respectively in April next year, but will now be set permanently at 40% and 45% from that date. The Bill increases the tax relief available for theatre productions.
Secondly, clause 17 increases the tax credits available for orchestral companies and also amends the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to permanently set the tax credit rate at 45%, instead of there being the taper that was planned for the end of this financial year.
The performing arts sector plays a crucial role in the economy of the west end. According to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s arts and cultural businesses in 2023 were based in the Cities of London and Westminster. That equates to around 2,500 businesses and thousands of jobs. World-renowned venues, including the Theatre Royal, Dury Lane, the London Palladium, the Royal Opera House and the Royal Albert Hall, attract audiences from not only around the country, but across the globe. The Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre recently produced a study that underscored the importance of the theatre sector to our economy. Their research showed that UK theatres generate £2.39 billion in gross value added, supporting more than 200,000 jobs and generating a total turnover of over £4.4 billion every year. I am in no doubt that this uplift in tax credits will have a positive impact on actors, musicians, costume designers, set creators, singers and those in a whole host of other jobs that rely on a strong and prosperous performing arts sector.
As we know, the past few years have been difficult for this industry; it first dealt with the shock of the covid pandemic, which closed all shows, and then slowly emerged out of the crisis and rebuilt its businesses and audiences. This Government have worked tirelessly to support the creative sector in the Cities of London and Westminster, and I was proud to work with the performing arts sector and others, such as UKHospitality, to secure the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund to support large and small performing arts businesses throughout the dark times of the pandemic. I learned from that experience, and the whole pandemic in general, just how connected the west end economy is. It is a jigsaw of complementary pieces: theatres, restaurants, hotels, cafés and bars. During that time, we learned that for every £1 spent in the theatre, an incredible £5 was generated for hospitality and other businesses. The tax clauses in the Bill will not only support the performing arts, but have a positive effect on the wider hospitality and leisure sectors, which will benefit the UK economy as a whole.
While I fully support the Bill and the included changes to tax relief, there is one specific issue that I wish to raise. It concerns the new definition of theatre production that was introduced in the Finance Act 2024. The Society of London Theatre, UK Theatre and theatre companies based in the two cities have told me that immersive theatre companies will now not be eligible for the relief that the Bill offers, due to the new definition of theatre production. The new, narrow definition of an audience means that immersive theatre companies such as Little Lion Entertainment, based in the west end, will be ineligible for the tax relief provided in the Bill. Little Lion Entertainment has been a recipient of theatre tax relief for the past 10 years. It employs 350 people in London and Manchester, and during its time it has welcomed more than 2 million patrons to its performances. Yet because of the change in definition, it fears for its future and that of the entire immersive theatre industry. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider looking again at the definition of theatre production, so that companies such as Little Lion Entertainment are not excluded from the fantastic support that the Bill will provide.
I am proud of the Government’s continued support for the performing arts in the United Kingdom. The Bill will continue ensure that our world-renowned theatres and opera productions flourish, and will safeguard them for future generations.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am interested in clause 19, which sets out how the energy security investment mechanism will operate: the energy profits levy will cease if the six-month average prices for both oil and gas fall below certain thresholds. That provision follows on from the Chancellor’s announcement in his spring Budget that the energy profits levy would be extended to 2029, though it would be disapplied when energy prices return to normal. My interest in the issue stems from my role as a constituency MP—activity in the North sea energy sector is vital to the local economy—and from chairing the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group. I have no particular issue with the mechanisms in clause 19, though I am worried that the current short-term approach to fiscal policy for the oil and gas sector undermines other Government objectives—in particular, the objective of enhancing the UK’s energy security, which would bring new, well-paid jobs to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, and the objective of delivering our net-zero targets.
I acknowledge that the Chancellor has an unenviable role and faces a significant dilemma. He is, in many respects, between a rock and a hard place. He needs to balance the books, and to support those families who continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis. It is thus understandable that he looks to energy companies to pay more as oil and gas prices have risen. They have been at very high levels; however, it should be pointed out that they have now fallen back to long-term averages. There is a significant risk that in pursuing such a course, he could imperil the inward investment that is needed to create long-term, sustainable jobs in coastal communities for those very people who are struggling to make ends meet.
The North sea has been the UK’s economic saviour for nearly 60 years. Some might say that we are nearing the end of that particular story. That is not the case. The North sea is transitioning from being a source of fossil fuels to the long-term home of renewables. That transition needs to take place as quickly as possible, but in a smooth and seamless way. It requires a stable and long-term fiscal policy, which I am afraid we do not have at present. The decision to extend the levy for a further year was unexpected by industry and presents a significant further challenge to investor confidence.
Energy companies are making investment decisions on projects that quite often have timescales of the order of 40 to 50 years. The fact that in the UK there have been four fiscal changes in the past two years deters investment and deflects it elsewhere. Such businesses are globally footloose, and they will go to countries where the fiscal regime is favourable and has a large degree of certainty about it. In the past, the UK has ticked that particular box, but we are not doing so at present. It should also be emphasised that, as well as operating worldwide, those businesses have interests in a wide variety of energy technologies—not just oil and gas, but the low-carbon businesses of today and tomorrow: offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon capture, usage and storage. If they find the fiscal regime unfavourable for oil and gas, they will invariably not invest in those renewables, which are so vital for our future.
The initial feedback following last month’s Budget is that those concerns are well founded: investment decisions are being delayed and funds could well be diverted elsewhere. Offshore Energies UK, which provides the secretariat for the British offshore oil and gas industry APPG, has identified that £200 billion of investment that was awaiting the green light may not now happen. Cornwall Insight concludes that prolonging the levy
“could weaken investor confidence, at a time when the UK is seeking record levels of investment to deliver the transition to net zero.”
We are at risk of imperilling the next chapter of the North sea—an ongoing story that can not only deliver economic regeneration, but provide over the remainder of this decade 50 GW of offshore wind, 10 GW of hydrogen, and four carbon capture, usage and storage clusters, as well as supporting the home-grown oil and gas industry and helping us to meet our decommissioning commitments. In short, it could unleash an enormous amount of economic activity that can cascade right around the UK. To be fair to the Government, clause 19 does seek to address those concerns, but I urge them to map out a long-term strategy for offshore energy, building on the success of the 2021 North sea transition deal. They are now adopting a similar course in the nuclear sector. We need to get back to doing the same in the North sea.
It is appropriate to comment on the Opposition’s alternative proposal to extend the windfall tax. There is a real worry in the energy industry that that could exacerbate the worries that I have underlined. Offshore Energies UK has highlighted that those proposals could lead to the loss of 42,000 jobs and the wiping out of £26 billion-worth of economic activity. A concern that I hope the Opposition will allay is that they are looking at removing the capital and investment allowances that are vital to securing inward investment.
We are where we are, and I fear that some damage has been done. However, there is work to do to rebuild the UK’s reputation as a prime destination for investment in the energy sector, and we need to get on with that task without delay. The industry has noted the Government’s commitment to honour the sunset clause, and I urge the two Ministers on the Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)—to provide the further reassurances that are needed to reinforce that message, both this afternoon in their responses and as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
The importance of ongoing and meaningful dialogue between the Government and industry cannot be overemphasised. In the period from 2012, after the last windfall tax, up to 2021, when the North sea transition deal was agreed, that interaction was very much taking place. It has been lost over the past three very eventful years, but it needs to be restored as quickly as possible. If it is, we can still embark on a new golden era for the North sea: an era of home-grown energy transition, not an outsourced one; of reindustrialisation, not deindustrialisation; and of enhanced energy security and economic prosperity.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out in his opening speech, this Finance Bill and last month’s Budget are nothing but the last gasps of a dying, desperate Government. Neither does anything to address 14 years of Conservative economic failure, and as always with this Government, it is working people who pay the price, because taxes are still rising. The British people, already facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, will see tax rises in every single year of the forecast period. As much as the Government try, they simply cannot hide from that record: after a decade and a half of Conservative rule, people have less money in their pockets.
Unable to defend his own Government’s record, and unable to offer any plan to get the country out of the economic mess that his party has created, this Chancellor has resorted to undeliverable promises. The Chancellor ended his Budget last month with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance, which would put our economic stability at risk. That is even bigger than the unfunded tax cuts announced by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) in her Budget, which added hundreds of pounds to people’s mortgages.
In contrast, the Labour party has consistently said that we would reduce the tax burden on families. That is why we opposed the current Prime Minister when he wanted to increase national insurance two years ago, and it is why we supported the measures announced last month to bring national insurance down by an additional 2p.
Although on the surface this Bill leaves the basic and higher rates of income tax unchanged, let us be clear: this is a Government who have raised the tax burden to record levels, and taxes are continuing to rise. Because of the tax choices that this Chancellor has made, households will be, on average, £870 worse off. His decision to freeze tax thresholds will create 3.2 million new taxpayers by 2028, and 2.6 million more people will be paying higher rates. For every £5 that the Government are giving back to families, they will be taking an average of £10 in higher taxes under their plans, and they expect the British public to thank them for it.
While we will always call out the Conservatives for pickpocketing the British taxpayer, we do welcome their recent pickpocketing of Labour policies. Labour has long argued that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here too. However, the Prime Minister himself has said that scrapping the non-dom tax status would somehow end up costing Britain money, and the Chancellor previously tried to argue that the non-dom status supports jobs and that reforming it would damage long-term growth. I am delighted to say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have finally come around to the Labour party’s way of thinking, but it is not quite what it seems. I am not denying that Conservative Members have come a long way after years of opposing our plan to scrap the non-dom status, but there are still some gaping loopholes in the Government’s plans.
The discount in year 1 is unnecessary and unjustified, and particularly concerning is the loophole that will allow non-doms to exploit offshore trusts so that they can avoid inheritance tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North made clear, these loopholes must be closed. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will commit to closing these loopholes, so I wait with bated breath to hear what he has to say on this policy. If not, will he accept that the Conservatives are once again putting the interests of non-doms before those of ordinary British taxpayers and British businesses?
Let us take corporation tax, which clause 12 sets at 25%. All this Chancellor has had to offer British businesses is uncertainty. Despite promising to cut corporation tax from 19% to 15% in his 2022 leadership bid, he has increased it from 19% to 25%. In contrast, our shadow Chancellor has committed to capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate for the whole of the next Parliament, and we would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness.
The Opposition will be supporting the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19 of the Bill before us, as it will help investors get the confidence they need. Likewise, we are committed both to strengthening the windfall tax to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, and to giving as much certainty as possible to the companies affected. That is why our shadow Chancellor has made it clear that, under Labour, our one-off, time-limited energy profits levy will cease to apply by the end of the next Parliament.
We will not be opposing the Bill today, but we will be looking closely at the detail in the specific clauses in the coming weeks. However, let us be under no illusions: this is an exhausted and directionless Conservative Government who are out of ideas and out of time. All they have to offer are U-turns, unfunded promises and an ever-growing tax burden on working people and our constituents. In contrast, the Labour party’s offer to the country will be carefully costed and fully funded, and we will always put working people and British businesses first.
The Government have failed to reduce the tax burden, failed to boost business investment, and delivered only stagnation and chaos, whereas our economic plan is built on the pillars of stability, investment and reform: stability brought about by iron discipline, and guarded by strong fiscal rules, robust economic institutions and certainty on corporation tax; investment, working with the private sector, so that we can lead the industries of the future and make work pay; and reform, starting with our planning system, to tackle vested interests. The British people deserve better than this. The British people deserve change. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is now time to call a general election as soon as possible.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions to the debate on this Finance Bill.
Before I address some of the specific points raised, let me briefly reflect on what this Bill is seeking to achieve. It is a Bill for a Budget that rewards work, and it sends a clear message to working people across the country that we support them. We want their work to pay and we want them to have more money in their pocket at the end of the working day. We want to continue to make this country a great place in which to live, work and invest; and to provide our key growth industries with the support and incentives they need to continue to thrive. Taken together, these policies will drive economic growth and productivity for years to come by focusing on workforce participation and stimulating business investment.
Despite going through an incredibly difficult time these past years, with a global pandemic and a war in mainland Europe, our economy has now turned the corner. Inflation is down from its peak of 11% to 3.2%; real wages are consistently rising; and, despite high interest rates, our economy is growing, because of the action that we have taken over the past few fiscal events and the plan that we have put in place—it is always important to have a plan, Madam Deputy Speaker—and this Bill continues our work to execute that plan.
The Bill will support hard-working parents by increasing the high-income child benefit charge threshold and taper, taking 170,000 families out of paying that tax charge, and with almost half a million families gaining an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made thoughtful remarks about our intention to move to a household basis. We will absolutely take those remarks on board, as he mentioned, and we will be consulting on this issue shortly and his points will also be taken on board in that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) pointed out that the Bill will encourage investment in our world-leading creative industries—a key growth sector for the UK—with a new tax relief for UK-made independent films. It will permanently increase the rates of tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, backing British talent in film and on the stage, and we will always champion our creative industries, which remain the envy of the world. She raised points about specific challenges, particularly on immersive audiences. Production will qualify for theatre tax relief if the main purpose of the audience is to observe. Some level of audience participation will not necessarily disqualify a production, but it cannot be the main purpose. Further guidance will be issued by the Treasury, and I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be happy to meet her to discuss the specific issues her constituents are facing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has been a consistent champion for the oil and gas industry, and quite right too. He acknowledged that the Bill will provide more certainty to investors in the oil and gas industry, and the finance industry that lends for investment, by putting the energy security investment mechanism into legislation. The ESIM operates on the basic principle that it is only right that when prices of oil and gas come down to normal levels, so too should the tax on exceptional profits. That gives certainty to industry and also brings more fairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made a typically constructive and, perhaps, creative speech, and made a number of points. In particular, his support for our national insurance contribution cuts was much appreciated. He is right to highlight an under-appreciated policy on auto-enrolment, which has seen 10.3 million people brought in to saving for a pension, with 86% of private pension savers now participating more than they were before. We will look closely and work with him on his specific suggestion relating to national insurance contributions to boost savings. We all want the savings culture in this country to grow and grow, and we are always open to suggestions.
The national insurance contributions had a separate Bill, but they continue to be a subject of debate in Treasury discussions. The Opposition’s suggestion that our ambition to remove the double tax on work is some kind of unfunded policy must be addressed. Let me be clear: this is an ambition; it is obviously not happening overnight. Let us look at what we have done over the past six months for hard-working people across the country: we have cut national insurance contributions by 30%, all while increasing pensions by 8.5%, and providing record funding for our NHS. Indeed, having an ambition in public policy is not new. In 2010 we set out a long-term ambition to raise the personal allowance to £10,000, which we did not just meet but exceeded, and it is now over £12,500, as acknowledged by my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for North East Bedfordshire.
It is important to set out a direction of travel for the British people, and to show ambition for what we want to do in government. Not only do Labour Members not have any long-term ambitions, but none of their ambitions seem to last very long. They talk about change, but the only change that the Labour party offers is a change in its own policies, week after week after week, and that’s just weak! Labour’s policies are so weak and vague that even its righteous moral compass cannot find a direction. However, there are a few glimmers of what a Labour Government might look like—what five years of hard labour might look like. For example, we know that under Labour’s embattled deputy leader and the trade unions, 70 new regulations will hamper the ability of businesses to hire, stifle their ability to grow, reduce job opportunities, and unleash waves of low-threshold, zero-warning strikes on hard-working British people. Labour calls it a new deal, but let us face it: it is a raw deal for business and workers across the country.
I have not even mentioned the things that the Labour party is doing today where it is in charge, so let us just quickly go through those: 20 mph zones, limited rates relief and longer NHS waiting lists, all in Labour-run Wales; a bankrupt council, adult social care budgets cut and council tax up by 21%, all in Labour-run Birmingham; and knife crime up, relentless National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strikes and a cruel ultra low emission zone tax on motorists, all in Labour-run London. The House will forgive me if I will not take lectures from the Labour party.
To conclude, we are delivering a Finance Bill that will see us move forward with the Government’s plan to support long-term growth, encouraging people into work, boosting investment and ensuring that hard-working taxpayers keep as much of their money as possible. We on the Government Benches choose aspiration over envy and ambition over declinism. For those reasons and more, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Clauses 1 to 4; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses (income tax charge and rates etc) | 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. |
Clauses 12 and 13; Clause 19; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses (corporation tax charge and rates etc and energy security investment mechanism) | 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. |
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)
That the draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.
Proceeds of Crime
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Recovery of Cryptoassets and Investigations: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Terrorism Act 2000 (Certain Information Orders: Code of Practice) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
Retained EU Law Reform
That the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.
Plant Health
That the draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
Income Tax
That the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2024 UEFA Champions League Final) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.
PetitionS
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. I note the letter from the Paymaster General today, but people have waited far too long for justice and this inquiry, and need to be compensated. It has been a year since the recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, and people need to have the money they are entitled to.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow Central,
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.
[P002952]
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, due to the Budget failing to provide for any allocation of money to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. The final compensation recommendations were made by Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood public inquiry, in April 2023. The House voted in December 2023 to establish a body to pay compensation in an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has made very clear throughout her campaign, with two victims of this scandal dying each week while waiting for the Government to act, justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Washington and Sunderland West,
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.
[P002955]
Midge Hall Railway Station
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
May I say how grateful I am to the Speaker for granting this important debate, and to the Minister for responding? The topic is a train station called Midge Hall, which is to the west of Leyland. It provided a much-loved local service, but unfortunately, during the Beeching cuts, it was designated for closure. What happens now for the people of west Leyland is that a train comes along to Midge Hall station and stops, and the passengers peer out at the platform, but they cannot get off, and no one can get on. This has been described as nonsense, and the people of Leyland and the broader communities of South Ribble have said to me on many occasions that they agree.
Let me examine, with the House’s permission, why I am trying to fix this situation. Midge Hall was originally closed back in the ’60s. It sits on a line that goes directly between Preston and Liverpool. I was not around on this planet to understand the rationale for the closure at the time, but there has subsequently been a significant development, in the form of a trading estate not too far a walk from the station. There has also recently been a wonderful brownfield development of homes on the old Leyland test track, where the heavy goods vehicles used to be whizzed around in circles. You can imagine the size of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Houses are being built there, and the ultimate plan is to have up to 2,000 people living there, within a very short walk of Midge Hall station.
Let me return to the train station. Why does the train stop, allowing passengers to peer out at a platform they can only dream of using, then carry on? It is because the line switches to a single track there, so the train has to stop for the exchange of a safety token. This means that there is already dwell time at the station, because the trains already stop there. We are looking for an opportunity for investment in new station platform access and buildings. There is a precedent. Recently, near Liverpool, a train station of a similar age and ilk was reopened and connected to the Merseyrail network. The station works cost approximately £13 million, so even with some cost inflation, thanks to Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, we are not talking about an unachievable amount of money to allow passengers to get on and off a train where it already stops to exchange a token.
Let me talk about the broader issues, because it is not just that nonsense that I am trying to right. There are businesses within walking distance that are not served well by public transport, and approximately 1 km south of the site, within easy access of an active travel walkway and cycleway, the Government have a planning application for a third prison at Ulnes Walton. That decision is with the planning inspector, who, extraordinarily, reopened the planning inquiry just to focus on the issues of transport and infrastructure, and the servicing of the new prison. I politely suggest to the Minister, and Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, that reopening Midge Hall station will be important in addressing some of the issues that are being considered by the Planning Inspectorate, given the station’s proximity to this new development site.
But that is not all. I am a Conservative and a realist; I understand that we need to use taxpayers’ money well. The issue is not just use of the existing train and platform. There is an opportunity to make the Preston-to-Liverpool train service zing even more. As the Minister well knows—he is a dedicated and passionate advocate of the railways—when Merseyrail was created, it made a decision to have trains running on a third rail, an electric rail that runs alongside the track and supplies electricity to the trains. The point where Merseyrail turns into Northern Rail—where Liverpool turns into Lancashire—is at Ormskirk, which is a wonderful town. The line that the trains use stops at Ormskirk, because buffers have been put up. Those buffers are purely administrative; they demarcate the point to which Northern trains run the service, and from which Merseyrail trains run the service. Anybody using the line from stations in my patch—from Croston or Rufford, for example—who wants to go to Liverpool gets the train to Ormskirk, stops, gets out, toddles down the platform, past the set of buffers, waits for the Merseyrail train to come, then gets on that and continues their journey to Liverpool.
Previously, with the technology available, it was expensive to try to run trains directly from Liverpool to Preston because of the question of how we would supply electricity to the trains. Installing the third-rail infrastructure is expensive; given the need to store overhead electricity, it is not a cheap job. Here, the miracles of modern science and wonderful engineers in the UK and around the world come to the rescue, with the recent innovation of battery-powered trains. Merseyrail is already starting to run battery-powered trains to solve problems like this one. When the third rail ends, trains continue their journey on standard rails, with no additional electricity needed. They go to their station, come back, pick up the third rail and their charge, and carry on.
My argument to this House, and to the Minister, is that removing the buffers at Ormskirk and installing battery trains on the line will improve the service, allowing for a direct connection from Leyland, Lostock Hall, Preston, Croston, Rufford, Ormskirk and the stations beyond to Preston or Liverpool. Furthermore, this innovation will improve the usage of the line, which will result in greater footfall at Midge Hall, which will further improve the case for allowing people to get the train from there.
For context, if somebody who is on the Midge Hall side of Leyland wants to get a train to Liverpool, they walk all the way across Leyland to the main Leyland station, which picks up a line that goes via Wigan, then comes in through the east of Liverpool. There is enormous support in South Ribble for a direct service between Preston and Liverpool. That would cut journey times and carbon emissions, and open up leisure opportunities involving Liverpool’s fantastic nightlife, which has been highlighted wonderfully this weekend, after the warm welcome that all Liverpudlians gave to visitors to the Grand National. All those opportunities are unlocked by infrastructure.
As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the idea behind the northern powerhouse—a passion of many of us in this Chamber, not least you—is to grow the economics of the north of England through agglomeration economics, which is, in part, the idea that better joining up communities creates a larger spread, which allows for economic growth. Infrastructure is the tool that connects those communities to deliver economic growth and a northern powerhouse. What is not to like?
Katherine Fletcher
I have spoken about how trains already stop at Midge Hall station, which has a signal box and a signalman, and how passengers can see a platform but cannot get on or off. I have spoken about the opportunity to further improve the line by creating direct trains between Liverpool and Preston by removing the buffers at Ormskirk that currently prevent trains from running straight through. I have spoken about battery-powered train technology, which would allow trains to run from Ormskirk to Preston without spending enormous amounts on transport infrastructure. But there is one final part of the picture.
Rosie Cooper, the former West Lancashire MP, is wonderfully articulate about the public transport gaps in central and west Lancashire, and one more thing that Beeching removed that would make Midge Hall and the Liverpool to Preston connection sing if they were reinstated is the Burscough curves. For context, the railway line from Preston to Ormskirk and Liverpool crosses the railway line from Southport to Wigan. Historically, two curves allowed trains to go directly from Southport to Preston or Liverpool.
I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore). If he wanted to visit me in Croston, he would have to get on a train from Southport to Wigan, walk across to a different station in Wigan, get a train to Leyland or Preston and then get a train down on a different line. In the 21st century that feels more like a game of logic than a piece of transport infrastructure. Although I accept that is a larger task than reinvigorating an old platform or removing the administrative buffers, it would be remiss of me not to talk about it in the context of this scheme and the case for Midge Hall.
I have spoken to the stakeholders, and they all suggest that the first important step is a feasibility study. A feasibility study on reopening Midge Hall station was conducted in 2019 and showed a potential issue with dwell time. However, thanks to this Conservative Government, we have replaced the hated Pacer trains, which took a long time to stop and a long time to start. There is a case for looking again at the opportunities for reopening the station without affecting the timetable.
I was with Network Rail executives at the Midge Hall site on Friday, and they had no objections in principle to the scheme. They could see the support for the railway, with two packed carriages heading down for ladies day at the grand national.
Will the Minister consider doing a feasibility study? Will he consider finding the funding to open Midge Hall, and to supporting us to do so? Will he help me to work with both Northern Rail and Merseyrail to get rid of the buffers at Ormskirk and to introduce a battery train service to reinvigorate the line and the broader region? And does he consider reopening the Burscough curves to be feasible? Although that is separate from the two issues I have raised today, it is an important part of improving rail infrastructure across west and central Lancashire.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) for all her efforts to improve rail connectivity in the areas mentioned in the debate. It is great to have her as my constituency neighbour, working really hard on this issue, which is important to our constituents for all the reasons she highlighted. She has continually campaigned on Midge Hall railway station since she was first elected, and she is not letting her constituents down today.
Connectivity between regions is as important as connectivity within regions. Liverpool is in Merseyside and Preston is in Lancashire. We thank the Department for Transport for the extra funding going to both areas—they are getting about half a billion pounds to spend from the money that would have been spent on HS2. The temptation is always to spend such funding in a single area, but connectivity between the areas is important because of all the economic activity that goes on between them. That should be further enhanced by people being able to move between the areas by an easy train journey, rather than a complicated journey that they would be less likely to make.
Connectivity is also important because we have an education triangle in the area and people living within it find it hard to get around it. There are universities at both ends of it, which people should be able to get to easily. However, people living in the middle of the area find it incredibly difficult to get to a mainline station, so they make car journeys rather than take the train. That is a retrograde step when we think about our carbon footprint.
We are working on the issue. There are a huge number of stakeholders in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, including businesses and those in the education sector. The Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers’ Association, which is one of the rail passenger forums, has continued to support our efforts in making the connections that are incredibly important to our constituents.
I thank the Department for Transport for its efforts in prioritising regional connectivity, but connections between regions might need a ministerial steer. When people in the affected communities think about their journey to work, college or university, they do not think about who their political representative is; they just know the journey is difficult and want someone to step in to resolve the problem. My hon. Friend and I are doing everything we can to resolve that problem for them. It is a really important time to seize the opportunity to improve the quality of the life for our constituents. I know my constituents in Southport want to see these improvements, as do my hon. Friend’s constituents in South Ribble.
I am sure the Minister is aware that we will continue to campaign for these concerns to be resolved until we see a feasibility study that will, I am sure, unlock these projects and make them a reality, making life easier for our constituents. I hope the Minister has taken that on board. We need a conversation about connectivity between areas because of the passengers affected in those blackspots. Rather than the money being spent on great services within each area, helping connectivity between our constituencies is equally important.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on securing this debate on the merits of reopening Midge Hall railway station and providing direct services between Liverpool and Preston. I appreciate her tireless work in campaigning for the transport needs of South Ribble and the wider region. I also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) for the work he does in the same vein for his constituency.
My Department prioritises investments in our roads, railways and public transportation systems that meet the needs of our growing population, enhance connectivity and drive economic growth. Transportation is the lifeblood of any thriving community. It connects people to opportunities, goods to markets and services to those in need. Lancashire has seen tremendous growth and development in recent years, but with changing demands. That is why I am proud to be part of a Government behind Network North, a significant £36 billion programme of transport investment across the country. This will not only address our current challenges, but lay foundations for a sustainable, prosperous future.
Turning to the pitch for Midge Hall station, the Ormskirk-Preston branch line currently accommodates an hourly service, which is interworked with the Colne and Blackpool South services. The single-track operation is, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, token-controlled between the Midge Hall and Rufford signal boxes, meaning that trains currently stop at Midge Hall, south of Midge Hall Lane, to exchange the token with the signal box operator. Trains going southbound are required to stop at the token exchange point and receive the physical token, or hand it over if they are going northbound. The complete process from the closure of the Midge Hall Lane level crossing to the reopening of the crossing takes approximately two minutes for a northbound train and three minutes for a southbound train, with the train dwelling for between seven and 10 seconds. My hon. Friend mentioned that trains therefore stop at Midge Hall for the token exchange, but there are currently no platform facilities to allow passengers to alight.
How can we help, as we have been asked by my hon. Friend? On 26 February we announced allocations for the £4.7 billion local transport fund for local authorities in the north and midlands outside of city regions. This investment will deliver an unprecedented long-term funding uplift and is the first transport investment of its kind for these areas. This fund will empower local leaders to support the transport projects that matter most to their communities, helping create jobs, grow the economy and level up the country. Of course, we will need the support and co-operation of local communities to make this a success. Hon. Members should let their voices be heard, champion the improvements their constituents are calling for, and work with their local authorities to turn this vision into reality.
I am sure that my hon Friend welcomed the news that Lancashire County Council has been allocated £494 million from this local transport fund, to be paid over seven years, starting next year. Local transport authorities have the freedom to choose from a range of projects, such as building new roads, installing or expanding tram lines, or improving train stations. We will shortly publish advice for local authorities to help them make the most of this opportunity.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently met the leaders of Lancashire County Council to discuss a number of local transport schemes, including the reinstatement of the Burscough curves, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) has championed. Indeed, I believe that he has met his local transport authority to the same end.
The Secretary of State stressed that these projects—the projects that we have heard about from my hon. Friends—could benefit from the local transport fund, but it will be for the council to determine whether it is prioritised for investment. We have written to each local authority, making it clear that they will be expected to consult local MPs—such as the champions we have heard from today—as they develop their plans for spending their LTF allocation. I encourage my hon. Friends to work closely with the council and advocate for the work needed at Midge Hall and the Burscough curves. I know that they are looking to me to play the lead in making the case with them. I am very happy to do so and to help sell the case that they have made so eloquently this evening.
On the second point from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, about extending train services beyond electrified routes, I agree that new technologies have the potential to decarbonise the rail network while unlocking additional destinations, bringing environmental and service benefits to passengers and local communities. To help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment, we will electrify additional lines and deploy alternative traction technologies, such as battery, as she mentioned, where it makes operational and economic sense. The Government are supporting the development of battery and hydrogen technology in rail through innovation funding and research. This includes work on safety and wider issues that will have to be considered before rolling out this technology more widely.
Since the start of 2019, my Department has provided around £4.75 million in funding through its first-of-a-kind competitions, which are run by Innovate UK, to help decarbonise the railway. That includes £750,000 to facilitate trials of the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train, which was showcased at COP26. Earlier today, the Minister for technology and decarbonisation, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), launched the latest round of transport research and innovation grants, offering organisations and academics the chance to win their share of a £1.3 million fund to seek solutions to some of transport’s greatest challenges.
My Department has also helped to get innovations off the ground by supporting trials, including approximately £2.15 million of rail network enhancement pipeline funding for the UK’s first fast-charging, battery-only train. Remarkably, a recent test train travelled a record-breaking 86 miles on battery power alone. We hope to see the first scheduled passenger service later this year. It is that type of technology, which we are investing in, that will allow us to reach our 2040 target to take all diesel trains off the line, and will be the type of solution that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble has rightly called for.
I was pleased to see that some of those new technologies are already being deployed in the area. Headbolt Lane station, which the Secretary of State opened last year, is the first station to benefit from battery technology on the new class 777 trains, removing the need to extend the third rail beyond the existing Kirkby station. Of course, the matter of further extension of the Merseyrail services, either over the Burscough curves or from Ormskirk towards Preston, is a local one. Merseyrail is a devolved concession, with key strategic decisions made at a local level by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. It is right that local leaders, not Ministers in Whitehall, decide whether such projects are the best way to meet local needs. It is that ethos—more power and more investment in local hands—that is driving the Government’s new approach to transport, and that has seen us double the Liverpool city region’s sustainable transport settlement to £1.6 billion.
I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble for securing the debate, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Southport. I assure them both that I take on board their points about local public transport needs. The fund is made available, including for business cases, for projects such as those we have heard championed this evening. I want to see those projects being invested in, so I have great hope and optimism that we can assist my hon. Friends with their campaigns. I assure them both that my door is open to them to discuss wider transport opportunities that will benefit their constituents, and I will do what I can to help sell the case for their rail projects.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024
(9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024.
The legislation amends the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 so that recycled carbon fuels—RCFs—are eligible for support under the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme. The RTFO scheme places an obligation on fuel suppliers to drive the supply of renewable fuels. In practical terms, it helps deliver the E10 in petrol and biodiesels.
The amount of renewable fuel that should be supplied is a percentage of the volume of relevant fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. That obligation is met by acquiring certificates that are issued for the supply of sustainable renewable fuels. Those certificates can be redeemed at the end of an obligation period, as well as traded between parties. The value of the certificates provides a revenue stream for producers of renewable fuels and provides demand for their products in the fuel market. The RTFO scheme has operated successfully since 2008, but it is important that it continues to adapt as new technologies and opportunities for emission-reducing fuels are developed.
We committed to supporting RCFs in the Government’s transport decarbonisation plan and this statutory instrument delivers on that goal. It is the product of two consultations with industry and in-depth working with industry experts and across Government Departments. By broadening the available feedstocks for eligible fuels, the instrument will help to maximise the greenhouse gas savings that can be achieved under the RTFO scheme and encourage the development of a new industry.
What are these new fuels? RCFs are fuels produced from fossil wastes that cannot be avoided, reused or recycled, and that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to petrol, diesel or kerosene. To date, the RTFO scheme has only supported purely renewable fuels, but emerging technologies and production methods mean that it is possible for fuels produced from fossil wastes to contribute to emissions reductions to a similar degree as renewable fuels.
For example, municipal solid waste—such as the greasy pizza boxes that we all know, or dirty yoghurt pots—can be processed using advanced techniques to form alternatives to fossil diesel and jet fuel. Producing those fuels can be a more sustainable and green way of utilising the wastes compared with their alternative end-of-life fate, which would usually be incineration in an energy-from-waste plant or being sent to landfill. The UK is leading the way in developing many of the technologies required to create those fuels, supported by grant funding from the Department for Transport via the future fuels for flight and freight competition, and more recently the advanced fuels fund.
Renewable fuels already contribute one third of transport’s emission reductions from the current carbon budget. Widening eligibility to include RCFs will ensure that such fuels continue to make that important contribution as part of the transition to the electrification of road vehicles.
The Government have also committed to introducing a mandate for sustainable aviation fuel. That will come into effect from 1 January 2025 and will operate in a similar way to the RTFO scheme but for the aviation sector. Introducing RCFs into the RTFO scheme now sets a helpful precedent for the forthcoming mandate, and including RCFs in both schemes is important as production processes mean that many facilities will produce road fuel and SAF at the same time.
Supporting RCFs under the RTFO scheme will also increase the range of feedstocks eligible for support and encourage the innovation needed to increase deployment of low carbon fuels in harder-to-decarbonise vehicles, such as heavy goods vehicles. RCF production utilises many of the same processes and technologies that need to be developed to increase the efficiency and capability of chemical recycling. Providing extra investment into those processes will lead to wider waste management benefits in future.
Recent amendments to the Energy Act 2004, made via the Energy Act 2023, permit RCFs to be included in the RTFO scheme—as well as in other renewable transport support schemes, such as the forthcoming mandate for sustainable aviation fuels—provided that they cause or contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions. The change to the 2004 Act recognised that RCFs can play an important role in decarbonising different transport modes, including harder-to-electrify vehicles such as heavy goods vehicles and airliners.
On the statutory instrument’s specific content, it amends the RTFO order to add wastes of fossil origin as an eligible feedstock for fuel production. Importantly, it also designates RCFs as development fuels, which can be used to fill a sub-target within the RTFO scheme designed to encourage the supply of novel and strategically important emerging technologies for fuel production. As a development fuel, qualifying RCFs must also meet additional eligibility criteria that ensure that only fuels that comply with existing fuel standards can qualify. That mitigates any air-quality or compatibility concerns, as the fuels will essentially be chemically comparable with transport fuels that are already in use today—indeed, they will often be indistinguishable from them.
The measure will allow RCFs to claim one development fuel certificate per litre of fuel supplied, which is half the amount for similar eligible renewable fuels. That recognises the fact that truly renewable fuels remain more valuable, while still rewarding emission savings from RCFs. To ensure that we mitigate any unintended consequences, the measures also introduce detailed sustainability criteria that ensure that support is provided only to fuels that are produced from genuine, non-recyclable wastes, and that they provide carbon emissions savings of at least 50% compared with traditional fossil fuels such as petrol or diesel. The criteria ensure that the policy complements the waste hierarchy and avoids incentivising the creation of wastes, while still delivering emissions savings compared with the alternative likely end-of-life fate for different waste streams.
In conclusion, as I have said, fuels supplied under the RTFO scheme currently deliver about one third of all domestic transport carbon savings under the current carbon budgets. However, it is vital that we expand the range of feedstocks that we use if we are to continue to grow their contribution and meet our net zero goal. RCFs have the potential to deliver emissions savings across the transport sector while also supporting the efficient handling of waste, and provide an opportunity for a valuable, emerging UK industry, which we should all support. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for introducing this delegated legislation. As we all know, transport has the highest carbon emissions of any sector, so decarbonisation should be a key priority. The Government first consulted on the amendment in this order in 2021, so why has it taken until today for us to consider it? Nevertheless, Labour supports this legislation.
The RTFO order is a key policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transport—and, might I add, it was introduced by a Labour Government. The extension of the order to include recycled carbon fuels is welcome; after all, RCFs can be as much as 50% less polluting compared with fossil fuels. By 2033, the change is projected to result in the supply of more than 1 billion litres of additional low-carbon fuel, resulting in a saving of more than 15 million tonnes of greenhouse carbon dioxide equivalents. Crucially, the increase in the number of qualifying fuels in the RTFO order will contribute to lower costs for general road fuel consumers.
I welcome the caveats for RCFs in the order; thankfully, the Government recognise that they are not renewable. I am glad that RCFs will receive only rate 1 certificates per litre of fuel, rather than full credits, and to see the publication of the technical guidance on the specifics of how fuel suppliers can fulfil their obligations.
The exemption of small businesses that employ fewer than 50 people is welcome, but it raises a number of questions on which I seek the Minister’s clarification. Are the Government confident that recycled carbon fuels can perform the same action as ethanol, or are they to be diverted exclusively to sustainable aviation fuel? If the latter, what are the Government’s intentions for the RTFO-supported fuels that currently go into petrol? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the change on UK fuel products that trade internationally?
More widely, why is there a nuanced understanding of the necessity to decarbonise here, but not in the recently published national networks national policy statement, which allows the inclusion of residual emissions in new projects? Why has the Prime Minister rowed back on the Government’s commitment to vehicle electrification by moving the petrol and diesel vehicle ban back to 2035? Where is the Government’s commitment to rail freight, hydrogen and biogas?
Overall, Labour supports this delegated legislation and the necessary wider decarbonisation of our public transport, but we must ensure that the Government have assessed the impact on the UK’s wider fuel sector.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell.
It has taken far too long, but I welcome this move by the Government. If there are to be incentives for producing renewable fuels, they should apply to as broad a range of mechanisms and technologies for producing said fuels as possible. Expanding the eligibility to include recycled carbon fuels is a logical step, especially given how much the technology has advanced and is advancing all the time in that field.
Reducing the amount of waste going to landfill at the same time as reducing the carbon footprint of the energy used in the transport sector is, on the face of it, a no-brainer, particularly for hard-pressed local authorities in England that have seen their budget for waste management slashed over the last decade. The Lords debate on this SI last month saw several points raised about the inclusion of such feedstocks under the RTFO scheme, which would help with the development of sustainable aviation fuels.
I will not repeat the points that have already been made about SAF, but the consultation on a price support mechanism for SAF must start soon—in fact, it is a legal requirement on the Government under the Energy Act 2023, which states that it must open within six months of Royal Assent. To date, we have had no word on when that consultation will begin, unless it has been published today and I am none the wiser—I apologise if I am. I have submitted a named day question asking when they plan to meet their obligations, and if the Minister wants to reveal that in his response, I will happily withdraw the question at the Table Office.
We need SAF because aviation is not going away any time soon; I should say that I represent Glasgow airport and many of the 23,000 people whose livelihoods depend on it. We must do more to encourage modal shift on to rail and public transport, but no one is building a tunnel under the Atlantic any time soon—although perhaps the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip could add that to his bridge or tunnel over or under the North channel. We need to develop the fuels of the future, and the SNP very much support that, in line with the SAF mandate that the Government are going to bring forward.
In addition to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield and my point about a cost-based support mechanism, I did not hear the Minister talk about maritime. I would be keen to explore how maritime can gain from renewable transport fuel obligations, if not now, then in the near future. As a sector, it is almost as difficult to decarbonise as the aviation sector, so I am keen to hear about it.
On that basis, and unless the Minister says something extraordinarily poorly in response, the SNP will be voting for this statutory instrument.
Anthony Browne
I will try to avoid saying something so terrible that the Opposition parties change their mind on this legislation. I am glad that there is cross-party support for the measure, and I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for that. I can answer some of the questions that have been raised, but some of the answers they will have to wait for.
Both hon. Members asked why the SI has taken so long. It is a very complicated policy. We had to ensure that there were no unintended consequences and work with the industry on the details of it, because there are interplays between different types of fuel that have impacts in other areas. We had to analyse all that, but we finally got there and we are introducing the measure today.
The hon. Member for Wakefield asked whether RCFs can be used for SAF or road fuel. They can be used for both sectors; indeed, as I said in my introductory remarks, if we speak to the oil producers, the production technology is very similar, so it is much easier for them to co-produce those fuels.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North asked a lot of questions about sustainable aviation fuel. I am the Minister for sustainable aviation fuel as well, and the legal requirement is to publish the revenue certainty mechanism by 26 April, which is next Friday. I do not think Governments should break the law— I will just put it like that.
The answers to many of the other questions that were asked will come out of forthcoming strategies. We have one on the low-carbon fuel strategy that will come out later this year, which looks at the whole range of low-carbon fuels, the interactions between them and how we maximise their benefits across all modes of transport and indeed other uses. There will also be a strategy published later this year—it is no secret; it is public knowledge—on how we decarbonise the maritime sector, which is a complex sector with many different uses. Many of the more detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked on maritime will be covered in that strategy, rather than in this Committee.
I think I have answered all the questions; if there are others, I encourage hon. Members to ask them. I should have said at the beginning, Mr Rosindell, that it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—it is great to see you here. I thank the Committee members for their time and consideration, and I thank the Clerks and the staff for the work they have done.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024
(9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The draft order was laid before this House on 11 December. Under section 103 of the Postal Services Act 2000 the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has the power make payments to support the provision of the post office network. The power is subject to conditions, one of which includes the cap on the total amount of funding that can be given to the Post Office in any given financial year. The current cap, set in 2011, is £500 million and we propose to increase that to £750 million. Raising the cap on funding that can be provided to the Post Office does not reflect a funding commitment. It is simply an enabling power to allow the Government to provide appropriate funding to the Post Office when needed.
The rationale for the increased cap is simple: we must avoid a situation where the Government cannot legally provide the funding that the Post Office needs for its essential activities. As all Members will be aware, there are important areas where the Government currently provide funding to the Post Office to enable it to maintain its delivery of key services across the UK.
First, there is funding for providing redress for the victims of the Horizon scandal, one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in living history. The victims must get the justice and redress they deserve. There are a number of redress schemes to which the Government are contributing funding, as well as funding associated with delivering redress schemes. It is essential that the process is not held up at any stage.
Secondly, the Government provide significant and vital funding to support the post office network. Post offices are, of course, the beating heart of our communities. Through the network of over 11,500 branches, post offices deliver essential services across the United Kingdom. There are currently over 6,000 rural branches—54% of the total network. Over 3,000 of those are described as the last shop in the village, providing vital retail, mail, parcel and banking services in one place, helping to sustain thousands of rural communities.
Such services are hugely valuable to individuals and small and medium-sized businesses in urban and rural areas across the United Kingdom. It came as no surprise to see that in the most recent Local Shop Report from the Association of Convenience Stores, post offices are identified as a type of service considered by the public to have the “most positive impact” on a local area. The Government have provided significant financial support to sustain a nationwide network—more than £2.5 billion in funding to support the network in the past decade alone. The Government remain steadfast in their support of the network and have committed to maintain the annual £50 million subsidy to safeguard services in the uncommercial parts of the network until 2025. Without that funding, many post office branches would be unsustainable.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister is making a powerful case for increasing the cap to make sure that Post Office Ltd continues with the very valuable service it provides for the community. He mentioned the Horizon scandal at the start of his speech. Is it the case that the cap we are debating today is for additional services for the Post Office to maintain the standards it has at the moment, or will some of that money go to victims caught up in the Horizon scandal? Is it a bit of both or will there be separate funding exclusively for the Horizon scandal? If all the money in compensation were taken up by the increased cap amount, there will not be enough money left over to maintain the standards of Post Office Ltd.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is, in my right hon. Friend’s words, a bit of both. It is about maintaining services, including rural services. On improving the technology, of course we need to replace the current system. It is also about compensation, and the means of delivery—the administration—of the compensation. It is important to note that not all the compensation provided—we have set a maximum budget of £1 billion for compensation—is provided through these means. There are separate means, through the group litigation order process and the new compensation process for the newly overturned convictions, which we anticipate overturning by July. They can be funded through separate means, so it is not all through this particular process, but some of it certainly is.
The Government will provide targeted investment funding to the Post Office, as the retail sector faces challenging conditions. It is still feeling the effects of changing consumer behaviour arising from covid-19, and the impact of cost of living pressures on consumer confidence arising from a range of factors, including inflation and high energy and supply chain costs, in a fiercely competitive market. As such, the Post Office is experiencing pressures as the business attempts to operate in this challenging commercial environment while meeting the cost to right the wrongs of the past.
Further pressures have also arisen through work to replace the outdated Horizon IT system. While this is a Post Office-led programme, it is essential for the future of the company and the network, and the Government have already committed to providing £103 million to support the development of the replacement system and to ensure the Horizon system is maintained before the replacement is rolled out. We provided funding to meet the company’s immediate needs for the programme and we are working closely with the Post Office to understand what funding may be required beyond this. These three areas are critical to the Post Office’s future and the current cap risks Government not being able to provide the Post Office with the funding it needs for essential activities. Having taken into account the Post Office’s current forecasts and the inflationary context since the previous cap was set in 2011, the Government considers a new cap of £750 million to be reasonable, sensible and proportionate.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for outlining the details and explaining why this statutory instrument has been brought to Parliament today. Since the exposure of the Horizon scandal, Labour Members have sought to work with the Government while applying the necessary scrutiny to ensure the most effective process for the wrongly accused sub-postmasters to receive the justice and compensation they deserve.
We will continue to provide the necessary scrutiny and critique where necessary, both in the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill as it continues to progress through Parliament, and this piece of secondary legislation. I hope the Minister will not have too many objections. As the Minister has pointed out, the cap has been raised by the Government from £500 million to £750 million, and we do not oppose their reasons for doing so. I would, however, like to press the Minister on a few outstanding points.
The annual limit on the Government’s Post Office funding stood at £160 million until 2011, when the cap was raised to £500 million, and has remained unchanged. We can see the rationale, given the context of what has happened recently, of increasing the cap to £750 million. As the Minister has laid out, the Government have pointed to the range of factors that risk breaching the current £500 million spending limit: the focus on the compensation for sub-postmasters relating to the Horizon scandal, the funding for the replacement of the Horizon IT system, and the ongoing financial demands to keep the branch network operating given the cost pressures and the economic climate.
It is good to hear the Minister highlight the 6,000 rural branches. In discussions that I have had with sub-postmasters since I took on this position, it is very clear that there are huge pressures, and we have seen the closure of a number of post offices in different communities. I am sure the Minister will understand the unease many will feel about this uplift, given the recent scandals and the role of the Post Office in that context. That is not to say that the network of sub-postmasters, who have been doing such a phenomenal job around the country, is at issue. It is about management, leadership and many of the issues that have been exposed in the recent scandals, such as the removal of the chair and the other recent issues that have come through over the course of the inquiry hearings. That is what the public are hearing about regularly.
It would be helpful if the Minister provided some assurances. He has mentioned compensation, and his answer to the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire was helpful. Can he explain roughly what those allocations might be, perhaps later if he is not able to explain today? Should that uplift be used, does he have in mind the kind of amounts intended for the compensation scheme, the Horizon replacement scheme and the wider network? Will those allocations strike an appropriate balance in providing that? Will that be sufficient or will there be a need to provide further uplifts?
The other issue that sub-postmasters have raised with me in discussions is a general concern about a bonus culture at the Post Office, as well as the wider culture at the senior management level and the tick-box attitude to sub-postmaster engagement. That is a snapshot of impressions that I have received, but it would be useful to know what discussions the Minister is having with the broader organisation, as well as management, about how that uplift will be used, and to receive an assurance that the uplift is going to be used properly and effectively.
The public will want to know that the uplift—the Minister may well be able to answer this right now—will not be used to provide bonuses and increase remuneration for people in senior management. As we have heard recently in the public domain and in the media, as well as in a Select Committee hearing in February, pay and remuneration issues have come up quite a lot. It would be helpful if the Minister can reassure us that this uplift is not about that.
I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of another point I want to make. It is a wider point that has come up—I know he is doing a lot of thinking on this—about reform of the Post Office and tackling the wider sets of issues about institutional culture, the governance of the organisation and learning the lessons of what has been exposed through the Horizon scandal. Of course, there is much more work to do in following up the outcomes of the inquiry report. While we support the uplift, I hope that the Minister can address some of those questions. If he is not able to address all of them today, I hope that he will be able to do so subsequently.
I would like to ask a few questions about Fujitsu. As the Minister has sought the uplift in relation to the compensation programme, I would like briefly to turn to the specific issue of funding and his assurances about seeking to recover funds from Fujitsu, given its role in the Horizon scandal. As we all know, the tech giant’s faulty Horizon IT system is at the heart of the Horizon scandal. Its senior executives have already accepted moral responsibility, but it remains unclear what role it will have in the compensation process. As I think most Members will agree, it is only fair that Fujitsu at least contributes to the compensation funding, rather than leaving the British taxpayer to foot the entire bill. This is particularly pertinent given that Fujitsu has held Government contracts worth more than £3.4 billion since 2019. Many have raised this issue over the past weeks and months. I raised it on Second Reading of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, and my colleague Lord McNicol raised it in the Lords when this SI was debated.
Based on previous Government responses, I think it is fair to say that the Government do intend to seek payments from Fujitsu, and we look forward to working with the Minister and his team to continue the pressure to make this happen as quickly as possible. However, we remain somewhat in the dark over how much progress has been made. It would be really helpful if the Minister outlined whether he has a timeline in mind for when payments will be made, how much progress has been made, and whether he requires cross-party support in getting the job done, with the total cost of compensation likely to be upwards of £1 billion. If the Minister is not able to provide further answers today, could he provide them in writing?
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing and look forward to working with him to provide the necessary support to the post office sub-postmasters and their network to ensure that it is stabilised and gets the support it needs. The compensation programme is there to support victims as quickly as possible. I also look forward to working with him to ensure that Fujitsu is made to pay for what it is ultimately responsible for.
The Chair
I remind Members that the scope of the Bill is setting a new cap on spending of up to £750 million. I call the SNP spokesperson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. The Scottish National party is happy to support the measure before us. I would like to place on record our strong support for the post office network and everybody who works in that network to provide the services it does. Post offices provide an absolutely vital public service at the heart of each community in which they are located.
Post offices are certainly at the heart of those communities. While I certainly would not underestimate their importance in the urban communities that we serve, they have a particular significance in the rural communities that we serve, where they may indeed be the last commercial premises in a settlement. With the retreat of banks, post offices have all too often become the cash handlers of last resort for people and businesses. It is absolutely vital that the existing level of service and coverage provided by the Post Office is not diminished in any way, and that the Post Office is, wherever possible, in a position to expand both coverage areas and the services provided from each post office.
We wholly accept that the subsidy is required in order to provide that level of service. However, it remains a matter of regret that in recent years there has been a reduction in the services that the Post Office has been allowed to offer, affecting the business that can be transacted at any post office, particularly with the retrenchment in the financial services products that the Post Office is able to offer. That has placed additional pressures on operators, and has arguably sometimes made it less attractive to run a post office operation. I certainly do not think it could be argued that it has done anything to reduce the overall levels of subsidies required to support the network.
As I say, I am happy to support this measure on behalf of my party, but I would seek assurances from the Minister, in common with Opposition spokespeople, that this revised cap—albeit a significant uplift in the cap—will not impede the delivery of compensation for anyone affected by Horizon, should sudden rapid progress be made, in terms of the amounts that need to be paid out and the number of settlements. I also seek assurances that the level the subsidy is capped at will not impede the ability of the Post Office to carry out business-as-usual operations. If it looks likely that either or both of those scenarios should transpire, we will be back to look at increasing the subsidy cap, should that be required.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. First, I congratulate the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on his promotion. Since the explanatory memorandum was laid, he was recognised by the Prime Minister, so well done to him on that. On the wider point about Horizon, he has been a deft Minister and a doughty champion for postmasters and sub-postmasters. I am conscious there is an ongoing inquiry and that the Government are already legislating. Many of the comments made here today echo people’s concerns about what has happened.
I rise to speak about the rural network. The Minister set out that there are about 11,000 offices, about 6,000 of which are rural branches. I am happy for the Minister to clarify, but it is my understanding that a current subsidy of about £50 million goes to rural post offices; and I do not believe that has changed over many years. As a consequence, and with a combination of rising prices and similar, in trying to be efficient the Post Office is looking for opportunities to try to keep services going—to the expense of some of my constituents.
The SNP shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon, already referred to how, with bank branches closing, the Post Office is increasingly picking up that usage by many customers. That lends itself to expecting money from the banks, whether through banking hubs or some other way of helping with equipment, but I think we should understand and get some transparency about what is happening with the subsidy we are voting on today. I am conscious that most of it is to do with Horizon, but not exclusively so, and that is where I think some more transparency would be helpful.
In my constituency, there is a village called Kelsale, which is about a mile away from Saxmundham. The latter is a small market town where there is a post office combined with a pharmacy, unlike in Kelsale, where there is an outreach service undertaken by the current sub-postmaster—that is just about to change—in the heart of the village hall in a secure setting. During the service’s one session a week, there are on average 22 transactions. Yet, because of Kelsale’s distance from Saxmundham—apparently, there is a bus every other hour—that service is being dropped. I have already met the Minister and I appreciate that he has been diligent in raising the matter with the Post Office, but I will do so again to try to get an answer about transparency.
I know that the Post Office is already saving money by switching the outreach service to a mobile van. I am pleading for a simple stop on the route for an hour a week, and recognise that elsewhere on the outreach service communities are getting fewer hours during which a sub-postmaster will attend. I understand and appreciate that we are dealing with about seven or eight transactions a week, or at best 30, but that is what the subsidy is there for and, in particular, why I am singling out Kelsale. It is also about recognising that not every constituency can be considered in the same way.
The Chair
Order. I remind the right hon. Member that the scope of the order covers the increase in the cap and not specific issues in her constituency.
Dr Coffey
As a consequence, one of the things I also want to highlight is that I do not think the Post Office gives adequate responses to Members in its discussion of the subsidies and how they are being used. That really matters—not just that it answers the Minister but that the Post Office is accountable in the process. Instead of just putting “strictly private and confidential” on letters and information I already had, it needs to show what that subsidy is costing.
Ultimately, I am here today to vote for the motion because I believe the Minister knows that the Post Office needs more money, but I want to make sure that that money is being well spent and is being put there for the purposes for which we vote. One of those is maintaining rural branches. With the 50% increase in the cap from £500 million, we are talking three quarters of a billion pounds that is going to be made available to the Post Office in subsidy for branches. I believe that rural branches, particularly in the community of Kelsale, deserve a modest proportion of that in order to keep post offices operating right across the country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support, as everyone has, the increase in the cap. I believe that the Government need to do more to support our post office network, particularly in communities that are harder to reach, be they rural communities or poorer communities, which of course rely on their post offices.
We have seen the destruction of the banking network, and the post office network has picked up the pieces. It would be interesting to know what the Minister is doing to pursue banks for the additional costs that the Post Office has had to pick up. The reality is that every single post office—not just the banking hubs, which there is an arrangement for banks to contribute to—now effectively operates as a bank. People go in to pay in or take out cash, pay in cheques and so on, but apart from the meagre amount that can be charged for each transaction, there is not a huge contribution to this subsidy from the banks. I believe it is time for the Minister to go to all our public banks and ask them what they are contributing to this subsidy, whether it is £750 million or we can leverage more. That is what the best of public-private partnerships is about: the state putting in money and leveraging money from the private sector when it expects us to pick up the pieces. I think we could be doing a lot more on that.
I am also deeply worried that when post offices shut but there are other people willing to come forward to run them, there can often be barriers in the way. Very often, the post office will not be eligible for subsidy any more. The subsidy will be reallocated to another service—an outreach service, for example. Ovingdean village post office in my constituency was in that situation. It shut and a new buyer came along and wanted to reopen it, but they were ineligible for further subsidies because the subsidy line on that post office had ended and been rediverted to other post offices. That has left the village with no post office at all. That is an example of where the subsidy could be better spent; we should ensure that it is not just a one-way track where post offices get subsidy or do not.
I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the direction in which he sees the £50 million subsidy going—clearly, it needs to increase—and how is it allocated. I believe that everyone should be able to access a post office within a 10-minute walk or drive, depending on whether the setting is urban or rural, at least once a week—there are mobile post offices. What conditions does the Minister look at when subsidy is allocated? Does he look at the journey to the nearest post office? Does he look at the number of people using the post office? In a number of towns in my area, all the branch post offices have shut and there is only one post office left, often in WH Smith, and the queue runs out the door and around the corner. People have to wait hours —well, perhaps “hours” is an exaggeration, but it is not unheard of for people to have to wait 45 minutes in a queue during peak times to get the parcel service that they need, particularly at Christmas time. Where is the subsidy being spent to relieve that congestion? We used to have Crown post office services, but Crown post offices have been completely abolished in most of those areas.
Hon. Members have spoken extremely well about how we ensure that the costs of Horizon are paid partly by Fujitsu, but the Minister said that some compensation schemes are covered by the uplift, although others are not. Will he give us more detail about that, and explain why any are being covered? Should we not have a direct line from the Treasury to such schemes because, as he said, we have seen the biggest miscarriage of justice, and we need to ensure that the schemes do not eat away at the subsidies that should be paying for our Post Office, rather than our having a separate Treasury-funded scheme through which we go after the culprits. Recent responses from some managers and Fujitsu people show that we need to go after them individually and corporately.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank Members for their important contributions, all of which I shall cover, if I think I can.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked how the money is being allocated. As I said, this is a cautionary raising of the cap, rather than money specifically going out today. She also asked how the 2025 funding package is being spent. There is the £50 million annual subsidy for uncommercial parts of the network and £190 million to meet the costs of participating in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and delivering redress to postmasters. Some £103 million helps the development of a replacement for the Horizon IT system, but she might be reassured to hear that there are zero pounds for bonuses.
On our engagement with the Post Office, I meet monthly with the chief exec and other members of the board. I met today with the National Federation of SubPostmasters in one of its meetings to constructively challenge the Post Office management, which I attend on a monthly basis. I also meet the board itself—I did so recently—including the non-executive postmasters on it. I meet postmaster victims, as I did today. I was delighted to host Lee Castleton and others in Parliament today, where they met the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is important that those meetings are held, such as the one I did last week at Fenny Compton for a BBC programme.
The engagement is about not only righting the wrongs of the past, but the future. The post office network has a bright future, with revenue opportunities that are very much around access to cash and how the banking framework can bring more revenue into post offices. It is crucial not only to increase revenue, but to reduce costs at the centre. It is important that the Post Office itself reduces central costs so that more of the money that flows into the organisation as a whole goes to the postmasters themselves to create more profitable businesses.
The shadow Minister referred to governance. We decided to part company with Henry Staunton and the Secretary of State was absolutely right to do what she did. We hope to see improved governance with a new chair, whom we hope to appoint shortly.
We have been clear, certainly for the past 14 or 15 months in which I have been in this post, that Fujitsu has not only a moral responsibility—it accepts that, as it said before the Select Committee—to own up to how it contributed to what happened, but a financial responsibility. It will contribute significantly to the compensation bill, and we have already had conversations about when that will happen. The right approach is for the inquiry to hear all the evidence, after which we can decide how blame is apportioned and who is culpable.
The inquiry’s evidence sessions are due to be concluded by the end of this year, with the report published early next year. By that point, we will know the full extent of the compensation bill, and that is the right time for final conversations with Fujitsu about how much it should contribute. I appreciate the cross-party support for those conversations. We will have ample opportunities in debates such as this, as well as those on the Floor of the House as we debate the convictions legislation, to press the case publicly with Fujitsu that we expect a significant contribution to be made. I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for her support and kind words.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon, talked about the reduction in services at post offices. He was right: there is no doubt that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of money generated at the post office level compared with 10 or 15 years ago. Letter volumes are a part of that, as are Government services, driving licences and passports, but what has happened is largely due to consumer behaviour, not our interventions. We do not think it is right for us to dictate to our citizens how they should access Government services.
I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon and other members of the Committee do not go to a post office when they renew their passport or driving licence; they probably renew online. It is far more convenient for people to do that, so we should not dictate to our citizens how they access vital public services. It is very important, of course, that we find other sources of revenue for the Post Office, which I will talk about again in a second.
The hon. Member asked whether the cap would impede delivery if there was a flood of new applications for redress. No, absolutely not. This is just one of the mechanisms by which we deliver compensation. The other mechanisms are through the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which is separate, and the GLO scheme. We do not feel that the cap, as a separate means of delivering compensation, will in any way prevent the right money going to the right people.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for her engagement on the matters important to her. She is right to point out that the subsidy for the uncommercial parts of the network is £50 million. We are trying to make sure that the uncommercial parts become more commercial, to deliver more services—particularly around parcels. The Post Office is moving to parcel hubs. I think 8,000 post offices up and down the country offer their customers at least three different options for sending parcels—Royal Mail, Evri or DPD —and that number is increasing. A range of different parcel carriers can provide services, and those are all revenue opportunities for post offices.
Banking is a lucrative source of revenue for the Post Office and is getting more lucrative. As my right hon. Friend said, bank closures have saved banks around £2.5 billion a year, and that number is increasing, so it is only right that a significant proportion of that saving should go into the Post Office network and improve remuneration through the banking framework. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that the banks should be more generous in their negotiations with the Post Office. Those conversations are progressing reasonably well, but we are keen to make sure there is a better deal for the Post Office and that significant amounts of revenue flow into post offices through that source.
Additionally, Government legislation on access to cash means that banks are forced to leave behind in the communities they abandon banking facilities that include post offices and banking hubs. There will be between 500 and 1,000 banking hubs rolled out over the next few years. There are 40 already, but another 60-odd are in the pipeline, so there will be significant numbers of banking hubs around the country, which represent opportunities for postmasters, who tend to get the first bite of the cherry to operate those hubs.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The banking hubs are particularly good where banks are leaving, but communities already bereft of their bank have not had the opportunity for the post office to come in, so there is still work to be done. Does the Minister agree?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, I do. There can be timing differences, and we urge the banks to put those facilities in place before they leave those communities. Banks are separate commercial entities, and we have legislated to say that they must provide services such as access to cash in those communities. We have made those steps, and they are resulting in significant numbers of banking hubs being rolled out across the country, which are opportunities for our communities and our postmasters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned the Kelsale outreach branch, which we have met about. We are keen to support her campaign to ensure those communities are still well served. She is right to point out that there should be transparency around where that money goes. A £50 million annual subsidy is going into the Post Office every year, some of which, potentially, will be provided through the raising of this cap. It is also about the Horizon IT inquiry and redress, and the IT system. The key message we have for Post Office Ltd is that it should be reducing costs at the centre to ensure that more of that subsidy, and more of the income resulting from the services provided by post offices, is going to the postmasters to make those post offices more financially viable, so that we see fewer closures.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown asked about what criteria we apply when talking about which post offices to put where. There are clear criteria. There are around 11,700 post offices across the country, and 99% of the population should be within three miles of a post office. The hon. Member mentioned a 10-minute drive; three miles in 10 minutes is probably on the same page, depending on where we are talking about—sometimes in north Yorkshire it takes longer than that. Those access criteria were set in 2007-08, during a previous Administration.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown wants to increase the subsidy. I hear what he says, but I do not know where he is going to find the money—perhaps he could talk to the shadow Chancellor about that. As far as the Government are concerned, we are providing a significant amount of money to the Post Office to ensure that it is sustainable. However, we want it to be independently viable, and that is about driving revenue while reducing costs at the centre. That is our clear strategy. The hon. Member also asked whether all the money for all the schemes is coming through the raising of the cap. No, it is not. There are other schemes and methods of getting money into payments of redress: the GLO scheme and the Horizon convictions redress schemes.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office, and are working closely with it to ensure that the company receives the funding it needs. The Post Office needs to continue righting the wrongs of the past from the Horizon scandal, to go on providing essential services across the UK, and to invest in the future through programmes such as the replacement for the Horizon IT system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024.
British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 View all British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 April 2024 - (17 Apr 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on all clauses and amendments.
Clause 1
Acquisition of British citizenship: persons born in Ireland
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “persons born in Ireland” and insert “Irish citizens”.
This Amendment changes the section heading of the new section 4AA inserted into the British Nationality Act 1981 by clause 1 to reflect the change made by Amendment 2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to “is” and insert “An Irish citizen”.
This amendment means that Irish citizens who fulfil the requirements in subsection (2) of new section 4AA (changed by Amendments 3 and 4) are entitled to be registered as British citizens under new section 4AA, rather than just persons born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 who fulfil those requirements.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “Northern Ireland” and insert “the United Kingdom”.
This amendment and Amendment 4 change the residence requirements for the new route to British citizenship in the new section 4AA, so that the requirement is that the person has lived in the United Kingdom for the five years before their application, rather than in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “Northern Ireland” and insert “the United Kingdom”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, leave out “persons born in Ireland” and insert “Irish citizens”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “Citizenship (Northern Ireland)” and insert “Nationality (Irish Citizens)”.
This amendment changes the short title of the bill, to reflect the change made by Amendment 2.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 7, in title, line 1, leave out from “provision” to end of line 2 and insert
“for Irish citizens who have been resident in the United Kingdom for five years to be entitled to British citizenship;”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
This amendment changes the long title of the bill to reflect the changes made by Amendments 2, 3 and 4. The Committee has the power to consider these amendments, and the consequential changes to the long title, by virtue of the Instruction given to it by the House of Commons on 5 March 2024.
Gavin Robinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Harris. I thank all hon. and right hon. colleagues for taking the time to attend this Public Bill Committee. I am pleased to move amendment 1. In the course of my remarks I hope to provide context for the Bill, but I shall not regurgitate the commentary from Second Reading; it would not be in order to do so. However, I hope that it contextualises the nature of the amendments under consideration.
This Bill has a long, long past. The opportunity has arisen—and it is one that I have seized—to resolve an issue that has been long in gestation and hopefully is soon to be delivered. My colleague in the other place, Lord Hay of Ballyore, commented last year that this conundrum was first raised in this House in 1985, which was just before my first birthday. For a decade now, he has passionately been an advocate for the changes outlined in the Bill.
In doing so, Lord Hay has sought to complement and support the sustained and unparalleled efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). As a Member of this House since 2001, my hon. Friend has consistently and relentlessly—and with what some might say is characteristic fervour—tabled questions, pursued debates, encouraged Ministers and expertly tilled the ground to make it so fertile today. His labour has not been in vain, and over the course of the last number of years he has collected the support of colleagues from right across the political spectrum in the House of Commons.
The essence of the Bill is this. Colleagues throughout the House will recognise that the Belfast Agreement sought to address issues of identity. Although it was accepted and acknowledged that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom was constitutionally settled, those with a competing aspiration could avail of Irish identity, and the Government of the Republic of Ireland afforded them the opportunity to obtain Irish citizenship.
In Northern Ireland, some hold citizenship singularly, while others happily enjoy dual citizenship of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. However, what was not settled was reciprocation in the other direction. This Parliament will know the history and relationship of our intertwined relations, and this Bill seeks to provide the final piece of that relational jigsaw. In my view, anyone who is born in the Republic of Ireland but lives in the United Kingdom and satisfies the residency test should be able to avail themselves of British citizenship.
Those who say, “Sure—just apply for naturalisation in the normal way,” fail to recognise or respond to the special relationships that our nations have had. From 1801, our nations were united. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland accorded the same citizenship protections to us all. When partition occurred in 1921, the right of those resident in the Irish Free State to avail of UK citizenship was contained and delivered through their dominion status. It was only when the Irish Republic was established and the British Nationality Act 1948 came into effect in the following year that those entitlements were lost. Since 1949, that means that anyone who was born in the Republic of Ireland but lived and worked in and continued to contribute to the UK has not been able to avail themselves of British citizenship as their forefathers did.
I mentioned my colleague in the other place, Lord Hay of Ballyore, whose lineage perhaps best illustrates this point. He was born in Donegal in April 1950—some 15 months after the law changed—yet has lived for the overwhelming majority of his life in Londonderry, Northern Ireland. He served on his local council from 1981; he was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998, and served as Speaker of that Assembly from 2007 to 2014, when he was elevated to the House of Lords. To this day, a decade later, he remains a peer of this realm and a legislator in our Parliament, yet he is not a British citizen.
The question is this: should anyone in that situation—anyone who has served our nation practically, materially and productively—be expected to pay a naturalisation fee of £1,580 and complete a Life in the UK citizenship test? The notion that they should is, to my mind, offensive, contrary to the spirit of reciprocation offered through the Belfast agreement of 1998, blind to our history and ignorant of the legal reality. We enjoy a common travel area between our nations, and Irish citizens moving throughout the United Kingdom are already exempt from immigration formalities. They enjoy a range of related rights to work, vote and study, and access education and healthcare as though they were already British citizens.
On Second Reading, I highlighted my appreciation not only for the courteous and pragmatic engagement on this issue of the Home Office Minister and his officials, but for their willingness to engage with me in a way that has brought us to this point today. The amendments before colleagues this morning were flagged as a potential on Second Reading, but were going through the process of parliamentary procedure. Though the initial drive for this legislation was to recognise those living in Northern Ireland, as I said on Second Reading and will say again today, as a Unionist, I have no principled objection to—in fact, I am delighted with—the Government’s approach that these measures should not be confined solely to Northern Ireland. There should be no restriction or import placed on geographical location.
Amendment 1 will replace a reference to “persons born in Ireland” with “Irish citizens”. Similarly, amendment 2 will ensure references to Irish citizens, as opposed to those born in Ireland. Amendments 3 and 4 will replace references to Northern Ireland with the entire United Kingdom. Amendment 5, again, will change “persons born in Ireland” to “Irish citizens”.
All amendments are within the confines of the spirit of the Bill and apply to those who are resident within the United Kingdom and satisfy legally the residency test. The Bill will apply to those who have and proudly hold their Irish heritage, who will be able to attain British citizenship throughout the United Kingdom irrespective of where they live, provided they satisfy the residency requirements. The approach will move the import of the Bill at inception beyond the confines of our 1.9 million people, and the Irish nationals who reside with us in Northern Ireland, to the entirety of the UK—a catchment of 60 million people—and the Irish nationals who live in our communities throughout the United Kingdom.
That is a hugely welcome step. It is not where I started on this journey, but, seeing the door opened so welcomingly and productively by the Home Office Minister and his officials, it is something I can rationalise as a huge step forward. We cannot predict the future, but if this is the culmination of an almost 40-year parliamentary pursuit to close the circle and formally and thoughtfully recognise the ability of Irish citizens living in our communities and as part of our country to attain United Kingdom citizenship, I think it will be a job well done.
In moving amendment 1 and having spoken to the import of the subsequent and consequential amendments, I hope that as a Public Bill Committee we can resolve that, in common with most private Members’ Bills, this Bill—although small in impact and narrow in scope—will make a huge difference for those who are a part of our country and we will be able to get, as I have said, the final piece in this jigsaw.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East on his success in the ballot and on bringing the Bill as far as this stage. I am delighted that after nine years of trying in the ballot, he has finally had this positive result with lucky number 322—that may be a hint for all of us.
The issue at the heart of the debate is straightforward. This Bill is an important acknowledgment of the special relationship between our nations and a worthy follow-on from a debate that we held recently on the value and recognition of the contribution of the Irish diaspora to our life in the UK.
Following the Good Friday agreement, the Government of the Republic of Ireland offered people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to attain Irish citizenship, but what was not settled was an agreement for citizenship rights in the other direction. Questions about citizenship for Republic of Ireland nationals living in the north and wishing to become British have been left up in the air for too long—nearly 40 years, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Long-term residents of Northern Ireland from the Republic should be recognised as citizens of the UK —if that is their desire—without the need for a citizenship test and the need to prove their intention to stay in the UK. We need to streamline the process and to be welcoming to them as well.
The Opposition’s support for these amendments, which broaden the scope of the Bill, is certain. The amendments make it much more inclusive and fair. First, we support amendments making British citizenship available to Irish nationals regardless of how they became Irish and not only to those born in the Republic of Ireland. That is clearly a practical and sensible change to the Bill, and we support it.
I extend our support to amendment 2, which removes the requirement for Irish nationals to have been born after a certain date to qualify for this route to citizenship. We also support amendment 3, which alters the residence requirements for the new route to British citizenship, so that those wishing to gain citizenship can have lived in any part of the United Kingdom for five years and not only Northern Ireland. That obviously widens the scope of the Bill to constituents in all our constituencies, including those in London, from 31,000 people in Northern Ireland to about 270,000 people. This amendment addresses concerns about possible discrepancies across the United Kingdom and ensures equality, which we welcome.
We support the amendments, but we remain concerned about the Government’s implementation of this new route to citizenship. Specifically, I would like to mention the issue of fees. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has made previous recommendations that fees should be waived for Irish citizens seeking naturalisation in the UK. When it comes to getting an Irish passport or getting a British passport, there is an enormous difference and discrepancy. On Second Reading, the Government indicated that a dedicated route for Irish citizens would reduce the burden for applicants, creating a more straightforward route to British citizenship, which could lead to lower fees. Can the Minister confirm today whether that decision has been taken, and if not, when are we likely to know by?
It is worth pointing out that the fees for registration or naturalisation are currently in the region of £1,500, a not insignificant sum. A slight reduction is noted in the Library briefing, but that still leaves the fee as £1,431, so I ask what provision, if any, the Government intend to make for individual exemptions to the usual fees under the new system—assuming that it is introduced, which I firmly hope it is. Lastly, we are pleased to hear that the Life in the UK test will not be a requirement for the new route.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I say in closing that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has put forward strong and persuasive arguments in support of the Bill and been tenacious in pursuing it. The Government’s support, given the passing of the amendments in front of us, will, I hope, be welcomed by Members who represent Northern Ireland’s communities in this House, and beyond. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I am happy to add my party’s support to these amendments and this Bill.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my friend, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), on his efforts in stewarding the Bill to this stage. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment to the Privy Council, and on the responsibilities he has assumed as the head of his party. We wish him well in that regard. As was said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), he has campaigned tenaciously and constructively for these changes, working with colleagues from Northern Ireland in both Houses to make the arguments.
As a fellow child of the 1980s, I recognise that these measures were being campaigned for just before the birth of the right hon. Member for Belfast East. As a child of 1988, it is fair to say that the campaign was going on a few years prior to my birth, which puts into perspective the way in which Members in this House and the other place—and campaigners more generally—have been making the argument to have a more inclusive approach to citizenship. I thank them for their efforts to shine a light on the issue, and for being so persistent in helping us to get to this point. I am delighted to be the Minister responding to this debate, and to be able to commit the Government to taking the Bill forward with complete backing.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill reflects the unique position that Irish nationals hold with regards to the United Kingdom. I am confident that the Bill, with these amendments, will make a real difference to those Irish nationals who also wish to be British citizens, with a bespoke registration route in place.
We have debated in a number of proceedings related to the Bill the arguments behind the amendments, so I do not intend to re-rehearse those now. However, I believe that they help the Bill to be more inclusive and ensure that it is even fairer in its ambitions than it was when the right hon. Member for Belfast East drafted the original iteration Bill with the Clerks. Ultimately, the amendments will mean that the Bill applies to all eligible Irish nationals resident in any part of the UK. It is not just confined to those born at a certain time in Ireland, and resident in Northern Ireland. That is right and fair. British citizenship is about ties to the whole of the UK, not just one of its constituent parts.
The specific issue of fees, which has come up previously, is something that is under active consideration as part of a wider piece of work. It is being carried out in the usual way when it comes to fee setting for borders and migrations services. There have been some strong representations that have helped to inform my thinking on that, from both the shadow Front Bench and from the right hon. Gentleman. I hear those strong arguments and the Government will come forward as soon as we are able to and give certainty around the fee provisions related to the Bill.
There are regulations, and the way in which such matters are handled goes through a standard process that we in this House are well accustomed to. I am happy to continue the conversations about the issue of the fee externally to this debate and the passage of the Bill, because it is important we hear those arguments and make appropriate decisions. That is the spirit in which we are taking the Bill forward, with good solid cross-party support. I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their support.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on introducing the Bill, which I think is long overdue. Does the Minister agree that, given that the Bill is tidying up something that should have been done a long time ago, it is important that he looks carefully at the fee structure? No doubt the Treasury will have its own view; we all know that it will be less flexible. I urge the Minister to fight hard in the corner of this long overdue legislation, and look carefully at the review of fees.
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend has got to the essence of how I am approaching the specific question around fee setting. He makes some very eloquent arguments about the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced about and the spirit in which it will proceed through the House, which I hope will be reflected in the other place. As I have said, I am very cognisant of these arguments. My right hon. Friend touches on a very important point in saying that this is a very long-standing campaign. People feel very passionately about this change. It is a common-sense change. I think we need to reflect on those factors when making the decision about fees which, as I have said, is being carried out as part of the wider way in which we review fees and charges and the way in which that is done.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I place it on the record that I have the privilege to serve on the Defence Committee with the right hon. Member for Belfast East. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on being elevated to the King’s Privy Council and to wish him the best of luck with his leadership of the Democratic Unionist party, albeit achieved in very difficult circumstances. A number of people have paid tribute to his tenacity. As many Ministry of Defence witnesses can attest, there is no doubt about that whatever. He is a dog with a bone and he never drops it, so I am delighted that he has been elevated in that way and we wish him and his legislation Godspeed.
Tom Pursglove
I am not sure I could have put it better than my right hon. Friend. I find it very difficult to say no to the right hon. Member for Belfast East. He goes about his business in this House impeccably— always with good humour, always in an incredibly polite way, but also very persuasively. I think that that is as relevant to the question about fee setting as it has been to the Bill itself and the substantive change that we are bringing about. With that, I again thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their support for these measures and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the remainder of its stages in this House and in the other place.
Gavin Robinson
It is not often that we get to speak having heard such obituaries, but to be able to do so is a great opportunity, because most people do not get to reflect on obituaries offered. I thank everyone so much for all the contributions that have been made. I greatly appreciate it. The Minister and I entered this place at the same time—I think I have a couple of years on him, and a few more grey follicles, but it is not much in age terms. This has been a very encouraging process. It shows, despite the differences that we sometimes have on the Floor of the House, in Committee sittings and so on, just how productively parliamentarians can work together when there is positive and common cause. That is not something seen very regularly in the public sphere, but I think this process encapsulates the best of what we can do.
The process of arranging a Public Bill Committee has been interesting as well. A couple of colleagues across the Committee Room here today are fellow travellers in the private Member’s Bill process. We are supporting one another, and I am very grateful for their being here.
I want to mention a number of others, including the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire. He has been a long traveller on Northern Ireland issues and has taken a keen interest in them. There is also my friend, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. Spartan-like, he stands up and speaks positively to this Bill.
It is hugely encouraging to have my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Belfast South, with us today. She is somebody who approaches constitutional politics from the opposite side from me, but we have never been opposites in a personal sense. We have always worked well for the collective good in Belfast, so I am really encouraged that she is with us today and that she is giving her support for something that I think is open and not coercive in any way; it is open for anyone to avail themselves of it should it pass.
To the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, I will make two points. I am delighted that she is here —that is not one of the points. A word to the wise: 322 was the number that I used on each of the nine occasions, so although it came up on the ninth occasion, that is not to say that it is in any way more lucky than another. I have recognised through the process of this Bill that fees will come separately, as part of a fees order. I agree entirely with the thrust of the comments that the shadow Minister has made, and I appreciate the way in which the Minister has engaged on that issue as well. He recognises the position I have adopted; I do not believe there should be a fee over and above passport fees.
There is an administrative argument as to what else should be additionally placed upon that, but I am quite comfortable with the Northern Irish Affairs Committee report and its comments and recommendations to Government. It is helpful and instructive for officials for the Opposition spokespeople to indicate their support, but I know that the Minister has never been difficult in this, and has always engaged very helpfully on it. It does not form part of this Bill, Mrs Harris, and therefore it is probably in order for you to rule me out of order for referring to it in any great detail.
I give huge thanks to all hon. and right hon. colleagues who have turned up this morning for the thoughtful way in they have engaged with this Bill, and I thank you for your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Clerks are often left out of the thanks, so I thank the Clerk to your immediate left. She has been hugely helpful over the last number of months, despite tenacity bordering on some sort of possessive contact about what was happening next. I also thank the officials from the Home Office, who similarly have had to bear my contact and questions. They have been hugely gracious and helpful.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to “is” and insert “An Irish citizen”.
This amendment means that Irish citizens who fulfil the requirements in subsection (2) of new section 4AA (changed by Amendments 3 and 4) are entitled to be registered as British citizens under new section 4AA, rather than just persons born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 who fulfil those requirements.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “Northern Ireland” and insert “the United Kingdom”.
This amendment and Amendment 4 change the residence requirements for the new route to British citizenship in the new section 4AA, so that the requirement is that the person has lived in the United Kingdom for the five years before their application, rather than in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “Northern Ireland” and insert “the United Kingdom”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, leave out “persons born in Ireland” and insert “Irish citizens”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “Citizenship (Northern Ireland)” and insert “Nationality (Irish Citizens)”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
This amendment changes the short title of the bill, to reflect the change made by Amendment 2.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 7, in the title, line 1, leave out from “provision” to end of line 2 and insert
“for Irish citizens who have been resident in the United Kingdom for five years to be entitled to British citizenship;”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
This amendment changes the long title of the bill to reflect the changes made by Amendments 2, 3 and 4. The Committee has the power to consider these amendments, and the consequential changes to the long title, by virtue of the Instruction given to it by the House of Commons on 5 March 2024.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
Flood Recovery Framework
(9 months 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
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Flood Recovery Framework.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I look forward to the debate, which is important because flooding remains a highly topical issue for many of our constituents who have suffered the appalling consequences of flooding this winter. I regret to predict that many more may suffer that fate during the years ahead as climate change provides more rainfall events of more persistent duration and at unpredictable times of the year.
However, I am not here to forecast the weather or to dwell on the causes or impacts of climate change. There are plenty of other opportunities to do that, not least through the work of the Environmental Audit Committee —which I have the honour to chair—and our latest, recently launched inquiry on climate and security. The consequences of flooding for national infrastructure are one of the issues being considered.
I will offer a few initial words of context on the flooding challenge we face. The Met Office’s “State of the UK Climate” report in 2022 confirmed how the UK has become wetter over the past few decades, albeit with significant annual variation. The third UK climate change risk assessment in 2021 identified flooding as one of the most important climate change adaptation challenges facing the UK. Six of the 10 wettest years on record in the UK have occurred since 1998, and this past year has seen the most rainfall for any 18-month period in England since Met Office rainfall records started in 1836.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. My constituency saw devastating flooding to homes and businesses during Storms Babet and Henk. Each time such storms occur, the same areas of Broxtowe are severely damaged. Does he agree that we must act now, not just to compensate, but to ensure that we mitigate against that level of damage occurring in the future?
Philip Dunne
I will go on to talk about multiple flood events involving the same properties, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is an obligation on the Environment Agency, as the lead on this issue, to identify preventive measures that can be taken to stop flooding of properties. Few things are more devastating for a householder than to see their home get flooded, but one can barely imagine what it must be like to live through that multiple times. Most of us in the Chamber do not need to use our imaginations to know what that means—we have seen it at first hand in our constituencies, as my hon. Friend has just identified.
About 5.7 million homes and businesses in England are at risk of flooding, and more than half of the best, most fertile farmland in Britain is on flood plains. That is particularly relevant in the River Severn catchment, which crosses Shropshire. The River Severn Partnership—whose parliamentary caucus is ably chaired by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who I am pleased to see in his place—has formed to work with local authorities and MPs along the length of the catchment, and with the Environment Agency and others, to seek holistic solutions to adapt to those conditions and reduce flood risk.
Flood risk is a real and present danger. Latest estimates suggest that, by the end of this century, the River Severn will be 0.85 metres higher on average across the year and up to 1.5 metres higher during winter flood levels, although it is expected to be lower in summer, with 25% less water available for abstraction by as soon as 2050. In the past three years, we have already experienced three of the five worst floods ever recorded along the River Severn and, as yet, no climate allowance has been built into the considerable defences installed.
Regrettably, the River Severn catchment accounts for a disproportionate degree of flood events. In February 2022, 44 of the 80 flood warnings put out nationally were for the River Severn. Even when the catchment is not at the centre of storm events, we are often affected in Shropshire. Properties along the River Severn have been flooded twice in the past six months. In October, Storm Babet flooded 109 properties internally and 28 businesses, and in January, Storm Henk flooded 74 properties and 32 businesses. Those figures almost certainly understate the impact, as some people do not report to their local authority or insurer for fear of losing access to insurance in the future.
Putting in place the right preventive measures to reduce the risk of flooding is what the River Severn Partnership is all about, but that is a discussion for another day, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to intervene on that topic, given that I mentioned him.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
This is the first time in 19 years that someone has encouraged me to intervene on the, so I am very grateful. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend—my constituency neighbour—who has been one of the most active in the caucus of 37 MPs along the River Severn, which I chair, and I very much welcome his debate. Does he agree that it is essential that we work in collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continue to lobby the Treasury on the £500 million business case we submitted to finally manage and maintain Britain’s longest river?
Philip Dunne
I am very pleased to have created a first in my hon. Friend’s parliamentary career, and I am sure it will not be the last. I invite him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate to discuss the work of the River Severn Partnership; I would be happy to support it. We did indeed submit proposals to the Treasury—in fact, to the Chancellor himself—on the River Severn Partnership bid for significant funding to look at a whole range of remediation and adaptation options upstream, going as far as the source of the River Severn in Wales.
This morning’s debate is about ensuring that the right support mechanisms are in place for those who have been affected by flooding. A range of measures offer financial and practical help, including schemes for householders, businesses and farmers. Some are of long standing, such as the Bellwin emergency relief scheme, and others were introduced more recently by the Conservative Government in 2017 through the flood recovery framework to provide more targeted support.
However, the support is a complex patchwork, as one glance at the House of Commons Library briefing for this debate shows: there are several elements of support, with different eligibility criteria, applicable to different entities that have suffered flood damage. Home and business support is primarily managed through local authorities under schemes for which the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has lead responsibility. They include the community recovery grant, council tax reductions, the business recovery grant and business rate reductions.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
In my constituency, flooding has been absolutely appalling for the past 18 months. As my right hon. Friend said, the level of rainfall has been virtually double the average virtually every single month. I have the broads in my constituency, great swathes of which are still under water, and the water table is very high. That leads to multiple problems, including groundwater from the amount of rainfall and erosion. My right hon. Friend spoke about the patchwork nature of the schemes and the lack of co-ordination. What can be done to bring together the stakeholders—the water companies, the county councils, the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency—so they work in a more co-ordinated fashion? At the moment, the response is often slow and there is a lack of funding, so there should be an overarching body that co-ordinates the response far better.
Philip Dunne
I am very grateful for that important intervention from my hon. Friend, who is a valued member of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right to point out how complex it is to get to grips with the situation, given that different responsibilities fall in different places. I encourage him to consider the work being led by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham in the River Severn catchment in creating a partnership involving all the local authorities in the area, the Environment Agency and the non-governmental organisations that have an interest in the issue, such as the Wildlife Trust and the various broad and fen groups, as well as the internal drainage boards, which have a vital role to play. In many cases, such groups find it hard to come together regularly; there may even be a role for an enterprising and experienced MP to provide some leadership in order to cut across some of those institutional boundaries. I commend that partnership model to my hon. Friend.
Daniel Kawczynski
On that point, I would like to ask my right hon. Friend for his views on one matter. Now that we are out of the European Union, we do not need, for the first time in my life, to comply with the common agricultural policy. That means that we can, for the first time, pay farmers and landowners to hold on to water. My right hon. Friend referred to how our friends and neighbours across the border in Wales will be pivotal in helping us to do that. I would like to put on record the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, has made very positive statements about that in his local newspaper. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a huge opportunity to strengthen our Union between Wales and England?
Philip Dunne
My hon. Friend tempts me to conclude my speech before I get to the point about farmers and sustainable farming incentives. There are provisions in the existing support arrangements, post the CAP regime, which will allow for mechanisms to help reduce flood risk.
My hon. Friend referred to the cross-border challenge. He will know that, on the English side of the border, in Shropshire and Herefordshire, there is a developing partnership with the equivalent counties of Powys and Monmouthshire, on the Welsh side, to provide practical schemes to allow them to co-operate across borders, which has been a problem. As we know, the environment is a delegated matter, but the environment, as we also know, does not respect administrative boundaries. The situation is a bit of a nonsense, and the responsible bodies can grapple with it only by working together. That includes the Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities, as well as the UK Government and English local authorities. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw that issue out.
I was going on to talk about the support arrangements for farmers and about the internal drainage boards, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) referred to. Those support arrangements are managed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Measures include the welcome introduction of a farming recovery fund, as a swift response to Storm Henk, with its eligibility criteria recently and pragmatically extended.
I should put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a partner in a farming business. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Water and Rural Growth is here to listen and respond to the debate. I know he cares deeply about water management issues, and has throughout his time in Parliament. I hope to suggest some pointers to him regarding the challenges facing farmers with flooded land.
I have just mentioned my entry in the register, and my farm is on the Herefordshire-Shropshire border. Part of it is within the Severn catchment and, as it is on the watershed, part of it is in the River Wye catchment. We have fields that, even this morning, in the middle of April, are still too wet to work. They have yet to dry out sufficiently, having effectively been waterlogged since last autumn. We did not have a specific flood event in the fields through either Babet or Henk, other than at the margins, but the water table has risen to such a level that we have not been able to get machinery on to some of our fields.
Before I turn to the specific farming measures that I would ask the Minister to look at, I would like to touch on the impact on properties, and particularly homes that have been flooded or are at material risk. Like many others in the House, I spent time earlier this year with homeowners, business owners and farmers in my constituency who had had their lives turned upside down by the impact of flooding. Some have been flooded more than once in the past year alone. I sympathise enormously with those who have had to deal with flooding, however it has affected them, having seen the damage and disruption it causes.
I visited one couple in Highley on the banks of the River Severn a couple of days after Storm Henk, who were still only able to access their home wearing waders, because flood waters had reached as high as the door handle on their back door. The heartbreaking devastation of that impact on their home was matched only by the anger and frustration of being told in the days that followed that they might not have been part of a sufficiently serious flood in their area to be able to access financial support, since fewer than 50 property owners had at that time come forward to report internal flooding of their properties across the local authority of Shropshire. That seems an arbitrary threshold. When visiting their premises, it was difficult to explain why the support mechanism did not apply to them, not least because it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to invoke the mechanism at all.
The threshold is determined by local authority boundaries on a map rather than by the river system or catchment that has flooded, and it can take weeks or—as in the case of Storm Henk in Shropshire—months to establish whether the threshold has been reached, given the reluctance of some householders to report a flooding incident for fear of the impact on their subsequent insurability. Flood Re has significantly reduced but not eliminated that issue.
I appreciate that the eligibility criteria for the flood recovery framework is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I urge him to impress on ministerial colleagues in DLUHC, as they undertake a review of the scheme this year, that they should consider how to improve access to the scheme to make it more fair. It is at present hard to comprehend why access can be denied to someone whose home or business is on the wrong side of the local authority boundary when, just upstream or downstream on the same river, properties affected by the same storm are awarded financial support.
As part of the review, I also urge Ministers to look at the per-property limits for support, as those are likely to leave people subject to multiple floods without further help once their property has reached the upper limit. If a property has changed hands between floods, the new owners might not be eligible for support even if their property has been flooded.
My second point concerns the administrative burden of implementing support under the flood recovery framework, which falls on local authorities. Everyone in this House is aware of the pressures that councils are already under, with limited resources for flood and water management. When a flood occurs, the community bands together incredibly quickly to support each other. I pay tribute to the efforts of local volunteers, flood action groups and local councillors who do so much to help when flood warnings are issued. Support from the local authority to help with prevention and then clean-up remains vital.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, is making a great speech in a really important debate. On Boxing day 2015, we had the greatest flooding event in a century in Leeds on the River Aire catchment. All council members—I was a member of the council at the time—went to help the clean-up operation. Since then, the West Yorkshire flood risk partnership has created a new partnership between the local authority and local businesses. Local businesses are supporting, for instance, tree planting in the Upper Aire catchment and have been a full partner in the flood alleviation scheme on the River Aire. Such partnerships can help prevent future flooding and also come together when a flooding event happens to ensure domestic and business recovery.
Philip Dunne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend because we have worked together on the Environmental Audit Committee for some years—for making that point. He perhaps was not in the room when we talked about a similar partnership that exists in the River Severn catchment. He is absolutely right that when a flood event happens there is a sense of community spirit that comes together and acts—it is unfortunate that it should need to do so—as a mechanism to drive those who want to try to do something about it to form flood action groups, which have been a very successful community-led initiative across the country and are well supported at a national level by the flood action group and the Environment Agency. Those are good examples. My hon Friend the Member for North Norfolk referenced what should happen in Norfolk; he might like to look at the York experience as well.
On the burden on local authorities, Shropshire Council has one and a half full-time equivalent members of staff to deal with flooding issues and they do a great job. But asking them to take on the additional work of helping more than 50 households deal with the impact of flooding, and the significant work needed to act quickly to remedy flood damage or prevent recurrence, places a considerable burden on the team. That inevitably takes immediate priority over their long-term work to create lasting flood prevention schemes in their locality. They cannot do both tasks at once. I therefore urge the Minister to look at including provision within the flood recovery framework to award a revenue funding amount—perhaps as little as £50,000 to £100,000 per managing entity, which at the moment would be the local authority —to enable it to recruit suitable resource to help staff the activation and deployment of funds under the scheme, so that this time-critical support can be provided to those who properly need it.
I turn to flooded farms, for which the Minister does have some responsibility. The farming recovery fund has been a useful means of support to farmers in those counties declared eligible, but, as the Minister knows, that does not apply to Shropshire, despite it being in the same river catchment as Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, which are eligible.
I must tell the Minister that in a meeting with farmers and National Farmers Union representatives in south Shropshire last week, it was made clear to me that many farmers in Shropshire were affected by Storm Henk, and many more have been affected by the volume and duration of rainfall we have had since Storm Babet last October, yet they remain ineligible for the farming recovery fund. That is hard to fathom given that there are waterlogged farms across the county. I appreciate that the scheme applies to all land parcels that are flooded contiguous to a river that had notably high river level gauge readings during the 10 days following Storm Henk in January, provided that they registered under the rural payments service.
Payments of between £500 and £25,000 will have been a much-needed lifeline after the impact of the storm, compounded by the wettest March in over 40 years. Many colleagues raised similar concerns about the initially narrow scope of the support for farmers affected by flooding, and I commend the Minister for acting quickly to remove the limit—land had to be 150 metres from the centre of eligible rivers—so that all land flooded was covered as long as it was contiguous to an eligible river, as the NFU and others had called for.
I hope that today the Minister will be able to address whether further steps can be made and whether he would be prepared, in parallel to DLUHC’s review of its flood support measures, to encourage DEFRA officials to undertake a review of the criteria for support for farming businesses, so that badly affected counties, including Shropshire, will not miss out in future.
I encourage the Minister to speak to officials and ask them to take a holistic approach to the way in which farmers are encouraged through the sustainable farming incentive, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, to undertake work to alleviate flood risk downstream; I am thinking of the various measures to slow the flow in upland areas to create wetlands and the like. Yet when land becomes flooded from major events or waterlogged through persistent rain so that it is less usable to grow food, the support mechanism may not be there to access.
I also hope the Minister might listen to calls from the NFU and others to change the way in which farming support becomes available. For example, there is some confusion during exceptionally wet weather, when many acres of farmland may be flooded without 50 properties suffering the same fate, whether farmers apply through the flood recovery framework if their home or business premises are flooded or the farming recovery fund if the impact is on flood water on farmland. Are they, or should they, be eligible for both schemes? Because the scheme is new, it is not crystal clear where they should go. Providing a means of aligning the different schemes or understanding in what circumstances which scheme applies would be extremely helpful to everybody.
Given the recent wet weather and, as I have explained, that the water table rises, farmland can flood in the absence of significant named storms. I ask the Minister whether his Department would review, alongside the review undertaken by DLUHC, the workings of the flood support schemes that apply to flooded farmland.
There has rightly been a refocus on food security recently, given the threats we face in a volatile world. I know my farm will have lower yields this year as a result of the planting conditions this winter. I suspect the same will apply in many areas of the country. We will therefore see either a reduction in available home produce or an increase in prices—or both. That will be in large part down to the impact of weather conditions, for which I can readily see the Minister is not responsible. Finding mechanisms, however, to ensure that farmers are there to plant next year and are there for future years to produce the food on which we all rely is really important. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to support farmers in these challenging times, just as we ask our farmers to support our country in times of uncertainty.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for securing this debate, and particularly for his words on farming. I too had a meeting with members of the National Farmers Union a fortnight ago. At the outset, I thanked them very much for sparing the time to raise their concerns with me. One of them said that this was no problem at all, because he was fed up with staring at the walls. I take that as slightly tongue in cheek; I am sure that farmers remain very busy even in times when their fields are flooded. It illustrated the point, however, that this has been a very challenging eight months for many farmers. In a place like rural Devon, this is illustrative of just how much flooding affects our communities.
My postbag is never short of people reporting flooding. It is especially true in eastern and mid-Devon, where our residential properties have really suffered of late. Sadly, there is a feeling among councillors that when a flood hits, many people are caught on the back foot. Indeed, it seems a little bit as if authorities are caught on the back foot. Often, local councillors are unclear what support might be forthcoming from central Government.
I support the idea of a flood recovery framework, which I was very keen to hear more about just shy of a year ago. On 9 May last year, several communities along the River Otter, including Newton Poppleford, Ottery St Mary and Tipton St John, were hit by very serious flooding, which saw several homes flooded and the school at Tipton St John forced to close for several days. Despite the huge damage and disruption, the local authority had no idea what support would be coming down the track from central Government. This came at a time when the council was already grappling with a budget deficit and was at risk in provision in other areas.
I visited Newton Poppleford the next day, on 10 May, and spoke to the village’s district councillor about what could be done. He told me that there was a sense from people whose properties had been flooded that they did not know what support would be coming, and so would be left to battle with the clean-up for days and weeks after by themselves. The right hon. Member for Ludlow is absolutely right that in these circumstances communities tend to rally and people come together to support their neighbours, but when they feel like they are doing that alone and in the absence of any support from Government, it is a crying shame.
I wrote at the time to the DEFRA Minister responsible for flooding, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), saying:
“Speaking to community leaders and councillors, there is a sense that we need a framework to provide post-incident support to those who experience this kind of flash flooding.”
She replied to me a month later and explained that the flood recovery framework was a potential avenue of support. Later in the letter, however, she went on to say that despite 113 properties having been affected by the floods on the River Otter,
“the scale of the flooding does not reach the required level to activate the Flood Recovery Framework and give access to central Government funding.”
We might say that there need to be thresholds with central Government funding; we might even say it is fine that this does not meet that threshold. When Storm Henk, however, hit our shores earlier this year, the same Department set out that local authorities must have 50 or more properties affected to qualify for emergency funding.
Hon. Members can imagine the frustration of people in the River Otter catchment, in places such as Newton Poppleford, on hearing that news, because when the storm hit in May last year it did affect more than 50 properties—indeed, 55 properties were damaged by flooding in the village of Newton Poppleford alone. It may be that the criteria have been revised since the flood recovery framework was launched and since the DEFRA Minister responsible for flooding wrote to me last May, but surely the Minister can imagine how the situation looks to people who live in the Otter valley.
At this point, we perhaps need to zoom out and think about how much bigger an issue this will be in the decades to come. More extreme weather and expanding house building would see the number of properties in high-risk areas of England rise from 325,000 today to more than 600,000 in 2055. That is what the National Infrastructure Commission projects the increase will be if no further action is taken.
The flood recovery framework is a good idea, but its extension is not broad enough at the moment. Local authorities do not know enough about it or have sufficient access to it when flooding strikes. When flooding is anticipated and the Environment Agency is warning communities about flooding, sometimes the only thing on offer to local residents are unfilled sandbags. That was the comment from my constituents in Axminster: all they were being offered, as they watched the water level rise up through their gardens to surround their homes, were unfilled sandbags. Prevention is not where it needs to be. Central Government need to deal with the harms caused by flooding, so that people can have faith and trust in their authorities.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), with whom, in May, I will have had the privilege of serving for the last 19 years. This may be one of the last times—I hope it is not the last time—that we will be in a debate together, because my right hon. Friend is standing down at the next election. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to him and all the work that he has done, in a very collegiate way, with me and other Shropshire MPs. Over the last 19 years, there has not been a cigarette paper between us; the only time we have ever disagreed was over the referendum on our membership of the European Union. Apart from that, we have been as one in fighting collectively to secure resources for Shropshire.
The devastation that flooding causes, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is an extraordinarily emotive issue. Towns such as Shrewsbury were built at a time when we were fighting with the Welsh; they were fortifications that were built along the border. Shrewsbury therefore has a beautiful castle, and we have more listed buildings than any other town in England—that is our USP. It is a beautiful, historic town. Of course, the problem is that, for fortification and defence purposes, it was built right in the middle of a river loop. We would not do that now, obviously, because of the consequences of flooding. That is the historical context that we are grappling with.
In February 2019, I brought the then Secretary of State for DEFRA, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), to a very flooded Shrewsbury. The anger, misery and frustration from the business owners that the Secretary of State met was palpable. We met with a local butcher, a local hairdresser and local residents. Those people are now being flooded annually. When I became MP for Shrewsbury 19 years ago, floods happened perhaps every five or 10 years. That is why I invited the Secretary of State to see at first hand the difficulties that we were facing.
As a result of the visit, we secured £50 million to help us with some small flood defence schemes, as well as an intention to set aside resources and work together to find, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow indicated, a long-term solution to managing the River Severn—Britain’s longest river. I have formed a caucus of 36 Members of Parliament who have the River Severn flowing through their constituencies. If there is one thing that I have learned as a Member of Parliament over the last 19 years, it is that it is difficult to achieve anything when operating in a silo by oneself. My strongest advice to the next generation of politicians who come in at the next election is if they really feel passionately about something, they should form a caucus and go in mob-handed and with large numbers to lobby DEFRA and the Treasury. That is why we have that caucus of 36 or 37 Members of Parliament who represent communities all the way down the River Severn.
Bizarrely but fortunately, our local Shropshire Council has done the same thing, reaching out to all the councils further downstream to form a consortium of councils that represent communities all the way along Britain’s longest river. We are therefore in a unique situation. We have a parliamentary caucus of all the Members of Parliament representing the communities in Parliament and we act collectively and in tandem here in the House of Commons. Our council has also taken control and is leading and managing, in a collaborative spirit, other councils along the River Severn to promote the River Severn Partnership and its work with the Environment Agency.
I want to thank the Minister for coming to Shrewsbury just before Christmas for an extremely welcome visit. He had the opportunity of visiting the Frankwell flood defences right in the heart of Shrewsbury and meeting the Environment Agency and River Severn Partnership representatives who included Mark Barrow and others from Shropshire Council. I was extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks and his thanks to the hardworking people at the Environment Agency who do so much to alleviate and help my local residents. I hope that he will get a chance to visit Shropshire again before the end of this Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow said, after four years of work we have finally submitted a business case to the Exchequer. We are not just asking DEFRA for a little bit of the money that has already been allocated to the Department, competing with other communities for that money: no, we are doing something different. We feel so strongly and so passionately about the issue that we are going above DEFRA and putting a business case directly to the Treasury. We are not pleading for money. We are not pleading for the £500 million required to tame Britain’s longest river. Rather, we are putting a methodical, carefully scripted and watertight—if hon. Members will pardon the pun—business case, worked in conjunction with the River Severn Partnership and the Environment Agency, which explains why and how Britain’s longest river can be managed and tamed for the benefit of all the communities in the catchment area, for that £500 million.
The Chancellor has asked me to continue to engage with one of his most senior civil servants, Simon Finkelstein, and I have had the opportunity of presenting that business case to him in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. The Chancellor has said to me that we are unique, to his knowledge, in the sense that we have created a cross-party caucus and that our councils are operating as a consortium. Some other Member of Parliament may contradict me here—I would be interested to see what they are doing—but according to the Chancellor, there is no other project of this kind, where all the MPs and councils along a river are working together to put forward a business case to manage it holistically. I think that is extremely important.
It is important to point out that the business case outlines a gross value added uplift for the west midlands and our region of between £100 billion and £150 billion, if we tame the River Severn. You do the maths, Mr Efford—I am sure your maths is better than mine—but that is for an investment of £500 million. Yes, some people say to me, “My goodness me, £500 million sounds like a lot of money. Crikey! Are you realistically going to extract that much from the Treasury?” Well, look at the business case: for an investment of £500 million, we get a GVA uplift of £100 billion to £150 billion.
Where will that GVA uplift come from? I can take the Minister to hotels in my constituency that cannot get insurance because they flood every year—all the goods have to be thrown out and cannot be replaced through insurance. I can take him to huge areas of land in my constituency that are ripe for development, such as the brownfield sites that we simply cannot touch because of flooding. I can take the Minister to many residents who are flooded every single year, or to see the council so that it can explain the sheer cost of the clear-up every single year. I believe that Shropshire Council, just in the last flooding alone, spent £2 million on clear-up. If we add that up along the whole of the River Severn, we start to see how that number grows.
Only a few of us here in the House of Commons have done business studies at university and worked in the international commercial world. I am one of them, and I am very proud to have come from commerce into the House of Commons. I am passionate that more people from business come here. As somebody who has studied business studies and worked in commerce, I feel very strongly that lobbying Government should be done from a commercial, business-case perspective. That is why I very much hope the Minister will look at our business case and work in conjunction with us to secure that funding from the Treasury.
We need a holistic solution to managing the River Severn, which could of course be replicated across the whole of the United Kingdom. If we succeed on the River Severn, and we demonstrate that we can manage and tame a river by paying farmers and landowners further upstream to hold on to that water, they will be incentivised. A key concept of emotional intelligence is interdependence. From an interdependence perspective, we need to give a financial incentive to people further upstream to hold on to water by paying them for that.
Of course, we have all built little flood defences in our constituencies, but think about how counter-intuitive it is to say, “I am going to protect myself and push the problem further downstream and let you deal with it.” That is not interdependence—“I’m alright, Jack. I’m going to protect myself, but you can deal with the problem.” No, that is wrong. We have to think in a more interdependent way for the whole of our communities. Hold on to water further upstream, and pay those farmers and landowners to protect the whole of the area.
If we succeed in Shropshire and on the River Severn, it would not just be a prototype for the rest of the United Kingdom; it could be a massive export opportunity. I went to places in the world when I worked in commerce, as I am sure the Minister has, such as Bangladesh and others. I have seen not only the sheer devastation of flooding in countries such as Bangladesh, but the sheer number of people who have lost their lives as a result of flooding in communities and societies even more vulnerable than our own. I would like to see greater collaboration between the Minister’s Department and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on how our aid budget is used for scientific research and technology development, not only to help ourselves here in the United Kingdom, but for that work to then be either exported or given in international aid to other countries. I would be interested to see if the Minister agrees and if he can give any additional information on that.
Finally, I pay tribute to Mark Barrow from Shropshire Council, who takes the lead on the River Severn Partnership. He has been enormously supportive to me, my team and the River Severn caucus here in the House of Commons. Having represented a border community, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has done, for the last 19 years, I am extremely cognisant of the importance of the Union, as I have already alluded to. I am one of those politicians who fundamentally believes in the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should not cut up the individual parts of this island, but do everything conceivable to bring it together. I believe that this is one of those projects where working in conjunction with our friends and neighbours across the border in Wales could send a very powerful signal that we will transcend the artificial borders between us and work collaboratively to find solutions for helping our residents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. This debate is clearly about risk, who carries that risk, when it is shared, and who pays for it. I will start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). He has worked on issues to do with rivers for a considerable time, and that is really appreciated.
Flooding has been on the agenda I have had to deal with in York since I first came to this place. York floods—it is part of our history—but this year we had the greatest floods since 1872. We had more water for a more sustained period of time, and of course that had a devastating impact on part of our city. The mitigation that was put in after the Boxing day floods in 2015 has had a massive impact on our city, preventing flooding along the River Foss and the River Ouse, and I am grateful for that. The conclusion of that work is welcome. There is a bit more work being done on water storage; eyes are turning upstream to address the upper catchment and the water storage issues, which must be looked at.
The Minister has come to my constituency and seen for himself some of the challenges that our city faces. I want to talk about one cell, as the Environment Agency terms it, that floods with great frequency, impacting the businesses there. Yes, those businesses trade well in the summer, when the sun is out and people come down to our riverfront and enjoy that space, but their frustration is that the logic on which the flood recovery framework works—or does not work, in their case—means that it looks not at individual businesses and the cost to them, but at a much broader geographical area.
I met the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Minister in DLUHC, to look at the framework and why it does not work. In his letter to MPs on 8 January, he set out that the Government were going to trigger the framework, but there is no logic to say how it will be triggered or not triggered, so we need some consistency to ensure fairness. He also listed a number of counties where the framework would apply, and stated that authorities had to have more than 50 flooded properties to be eligible. That means that it does not apply to everyone. For us the story is bittersweet, because we no longer have 50 flooded properties, but none the less, for those properties that do flood—usually businesses—it is incredibly costly. I urge the Minister to look at a per-capita scheme rather than one that focuses on a geographical area and is not applied in a logical fashion.
I have met Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency and City of York Council to look at what is happening in our city. We have a major choice to make. Do we shut water out and have the continual battle of keeping it away, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) suggested, or do we learn to live with water? It is a very difficult choice, given the climate changes we are seeing; Members from across the House have articulated how much more frequent flooding is and the extent to which water levels are rising. I have praised our flood defences, but we know that we do not have long in relative terms until they will be challenged. What do we do at that juncture? We have been looking across the globe, as the hon. Member mentioned, but this is very real for us now. We have to make strategic choices about how we manage water, while remembering that flooding is not our greatest threat—drought is—so we also need to think about what we are doing on storage for the long term. York does not have one river; we have two. Of course, many of our towns and cities were built along rivers, which were traditionally trading routes. We have to deal with that.
I have several requests of the Minister. First, can we have some consistency in the application of the flood recovery framework? Secondly, can it apply to all businesses affected? At the moment, businesses, and some property owners, are carrying all the risk. Thirdly, can the suspension of council tax payments and business rates for the owners of flooded properties for the period that they cannot trade be not optional, but determined from the centre by the Government? That would really help, and it has not happened yet in York. I have been meeting with the council to urge for that. However, that transfers the risk to local authorities, and they have got no money at the moment. They are having to balance their books with other risks, so I ask that that comes down from the centre. I discussed that with the DLUHC Minister, the hon. Member for North Dorset, earlier in the week.
Can we also have another look at insurance? The Flood Re scheme has been a real success. My constituents have certainly praised it, and it has meant that they are eligible for an insurance scheme that they can afford. However, the clock is ticking on Flood Re. It is only a 25-year scheme; it ends in 2039. We need to think about what happens after that, because the risks are increasing and there will still be need and demand. These issues need to be addressed now, or certainly by the incoming Government, to ensure that we have resilience built into our insurance system.
We also need an insurance scheme for businesses. There is no reason why businesses are in the “too difficult” box. We need minds to come together to work that through, and I call on the Minister to have those discussions, because it is not working at the moment. There are businesses in my constituency that are uninsurable. They are not insured and not getting flood recovery framework funding; they are out there on their own, forgotten by this Government. I really hope that the Minister has a response to that.
I am conscious of time, so the last issue I will address is that of sewage in our water. The effluence coming into our water system is making things even worse for businesses. Last year in York, we had 1,414 sewage releases. That is going to increase. Having an open sewer running through the middle of our city is obviously massively unpleasant, but we need to look at our whole drainage system. Running our system off Victorian sewers is not the way forward.
Daniel Kawczynski
Sewage going into rivers is an important issue that has not been touched on. I hope the Minister is aware that Severn Trent recently announced a special programme to clear up the water around Shrewsbury, but this should be a cross-party issue. The Lib Dems have, I am afraid, tried to politicise it by putting on their little leaflets, “Local Tory MP votes to pour sewage into the River Severn.” That is extremely inappropriate, given the talk about anger with Members of Parliament and the denigration we all face. That is an issue that I have faced, and it has been really unpleasant. We have to be very careful about what we say on this issue.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the point I want to make is that we need a strategic plan for managing sewage in our country. Clearly, the Victorians got it right and got on with the job, but we have turned our eyes away from the sewage system for the best part of 200 years. We really have to turn our eyes back. We have to think about hygiene and good sanitation. At times as I walk around wonderful medieval York, it feels that we are trying to bring that experience even more to life with the state of our rivers. I urge the Minister, and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), to have a plan for sewage.
Sewers are underground, but that does not mean they can be ignored. Increasingly, we are seeing the impact of that. Here in London, the Tideway project is an incredible investment; we need to see that across the country, including in the north, so I urge such investment to be part of the plan. It would take away some of the difficulty if there were fresh water running through our cities, even when they are flooded.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Two more Back Benchers want to speak. I want to bring in the first of the Front Benchers at 10.38 am in order to give them 10 minutes each and Mr Dunne two minutes to wind up.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Efford. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has championed these issues for some time, and I pay tribute to him and thank him for his contribution.
We talk about the weather an awful lot in this country, because it is never boring, although we sometimes wish it was, and that is especially so for those who live in England’s wettest county. Yes, we have to keep our breathtaking lakes topped up, but there is a limit, and we fear that we may have reached that limit. I simply want to ask the Minister briefly whether he will he keep a close eye on the flood relief schemes in Kendal and Appleby, and listen to local residents to ensure that those schemes are completed in accordance with the wishes of the residents and businesses there.
We do not blame the Government for the weather, but the flood recovery framework is a welcome attempt to help us cope with the consequences, and I want to focus my few moments on the Government’s failure to use the framework well to defend farmers. Cumbria did not qualify for any of the support coming through the framework, despite the fact that farms across our county are still dealing with the consequences of Storm Henk.
The complaint of farmers across the country is that, despite having the building blocks of a reasonable scheme in the form of the flood recovery framework, in practice the Conservatives have left farmers, families and businesses to fend for themselves, threatening their livelihoods and our food security. The Government response has been sluggish, acquiescent and inadequate. Farmers tell me that they feel that the Government simply do not care.
To be fair to the Government, they activated the flood recovery framework after Storm Babet in 2023 and Storm Henk earlier this year, but to qualify for funding at least 50 properties have to be affected by internal flooding, and many communities in Cumbria—Meathop, for example—are much smaller than 50. There are further concerns about the Government’s cut-off date for grant payments and whether resilience measures can be built in time, given how hard it is to bring things on stream.
I have worked very closely over the past several years with farmers in the Lynster Farmers’ Group, the Grange-Over-Sands Golf Club, businesses and other residents to try to tackle the flooding caused by channel movements in Morecambe bay and the silting- up of river channels, which has led to flooding in the Winster and Lyth catchments. All those problems are exacerbated by increased heavy and persistent rainfall and storm events. The farmers have called for more effective, proactive collaboration, with a plan for management and investment. Although that has had my active support, to date the Government and their agencies have failed to act. Incidentally, it is highly likely that that failure to take action may have contributed at least in part to the subsidence of the track and the shocking derailment of a train on the Furness line near Grange station last month. That event could easily have led to serious loss of life. Storm Babet led to farmers’ crops rotting underwater after a devastatingly wet 2023. That flooding means that no planting is possible this year in many areas. Grazing is limited and spring lambing is much harder.
At the same time, 100% of those farmers will lose 50% of their basic payment this year, and only one in eight will get anything from the sustainable farming incentive. The Government’s policies mean that our farmers simply cannot afford to endure the consequences of these unprecedented flooding levels. Meanwhile, farmers do not receive compensation when the Environment Agency effectively floods their fields to protect downstream houses and villages, despite the harm to crops and livelihoods. That is all happening against the backdrop of huge cuts to the Environment Agency’s budget since 2015, which have reduced its capacity to meet basic flood management requirements. There has been a litany of incompetence and poor choices, and farmers are paying the price.
It is not just farmers. The Government’s failure to tackle these issues means that Britain’s fragile food security is at even greater risk. We already produce only 60% of the food we eat in this country. We have the madness of a Government with an agricultural policy that actively disincentivises the production of food, and our flood recovery framework not being used for its express purpose and failing to protect land that could and should have been producing food to feed us. On top of that, lower crop yields will mean higher prices in our supermarkets and higher prices for animal feed, pushing up costs for consumers who are already under unbearable pressure. In short, the flood recovery framework is just that: a framework. The fact that it exists is to be welcomed, but the Government are dragging their feet, underfunding it and bogging everyone down in bureaucracy.
We say we need a proactive management plan for the Environment Agency to control watercourses and defences, and we should bring forward the funding we need to keep our farmers farming. We say that the environmental land management budget must be increased by £1 billion so that farmers are rewarded properly and provided with the support they need to transition to the new scheme, recognising that farmers should be rewarded for the service they provide in protecting places such as Kendal, Appleby-in-Westmorland, Staveley and Burneside from flooding. Investment in new schemes to support farmers in delivering natural flood defences is absolutely essential. Let us remember that this is, at least to some extent, about producing food to feed us all. Surely that must be considered a public good.
The failure to protect our farmers from flooding and to adequately compensate them is dangerously undermining our ability to feed ourselves. A country that cannot feed itself is destined to fail, and a Government who cannot protect and support their farmers in order to do that must be removed.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on something other than defence for the first time in five years in either Chamber. Flooding is a great subject on which to reopen my account, given how important it is to my low-lying Somerset constituency.
Somerset is no stranger to water, so I hope the Minister understands that when Somerset MPs grumble about flooding, it is never unreasonable or alarmist. We are very used to water being on the fields and coming into our homes relatively frequently, but sometimes it happens more than is acceptable. When that happens, it is important that the Government listen.
As has been mentioned—I will not go back over this winter—fields have been underwater for months, which means they will not be as productive this summer as they would have been. They are not ready to be used, so farmers will need support. Some homes in villages in my constituency have been flooded four or more times in the past five or six months. Is this the one-in-100-years winter about which all the worst-case scenarios are written? My suspicion is that it is not and that such events are increasingly common.
In the brief time I have available—three minutes or so—I want to make a couple of points about what is playing out in my patch. My suspicions are similar to those expressed by others. The first concerns big housing developments built upstream. I do not want this to become a nimby argument against a development that is needed, but I am far from convinced that, in the just under 10 years in which I have been an MP and during which time these developments have been built, the full consequence of the speed at which water comes down from Shepton Mallet and Wells and down the rivers beneath was properly modelled.
If that was modelled, I am certain that the capital improvements to watercourses downstream were never made, to allow for that increased speed of water as it comes off the greater amount of tarmac upstream and into the valley beneath. The villages that are worst affected—Coxley, Croscombe, North Wootton and others —sit immediately beneath a number of new housing developments in Wells and Shepton Mallet.
My second point is on the Environment Agency budget. The operations team in my constituency tells me that it has about 60% of what is needed as an operational budget for the Wessex area. Clearly, there is an argument to give the EA more money, but everybody argues for more money. I was on the radio this morning saying there should be more money for defence. There cannot be more money everywhere. My suspicion is that the Minister needs to be clearer with the EA on its priorities. Some of that will be politically difficult. There are things the EA does around environmental matters, for example, when in extremis—I argue we are there—its priorities should be the operational management of waterways and flood defence, at the risk of some of those other activities. I wonder whether the Minister could offer some thoughts on that.
There is also an issue around local authority budgets and highway maintenance. ’Tis the season for middle-aged politicians in suits to crowd round a pothole and point at it earnestly. I think the Minister and the roads Minister could do a roaring trade, going round the country pointing earnestly at clogged-up culverts, because that is definitely an issue in my constituency. If he wants to road-test that photo opportunity, I am only too happy to host.
We need support for farmers whose livelihoods have been challenged, and also for homeowners. The grants are there, they just have not been forthcoming. In the west country, there has been a lot of politicking, with the Lib Dem county council blaming Conservative-led central Government, and Conservative central Government blaming the Lib Dem county council. If all that hot air dried out the fields and homes, we would be doing some good. The reality is that we are changing nothing with the arguments. It would be great if the Minister could confirm in his summing-up whether that money is available.
Finally, in three seconds, there is a point about resilience. Government cannot do it all. Flood Re is fantastic, but the more we can invest capital in flood defences, pumping infrastructure, watercourse improvement, and thus ease the pressure on the Environment Agency’s revenue budget, the better.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This has been an enjoyable and informed debate. I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) who is hugely respected for his knowledge of environmental issues. The years he has devoted to further and create better policy are admired. I am grateful to him for bringing this debate to the Chamber and lending his expertise on flooding, I hope not for the last time before the end of this Parliament. Of course, I completely agree about the complex patchwork of support.
I would also like to mention the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I completely agree with his comment about being caught on the back foot when flooding occurs, and the difficulty in getting urgent support out there. I cannot resist the opportunity to mention sustainable urban drainage systems; I managed to get it into a “Politics North” programme the other day. There are ways to build homes and mitigate flooding, but that requires a different Department to answer questions. If the hon. Member is a keen supporter of flood recovery, he should have a look at sustainable urban drainage.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) was really interested in the River Severn Partnership, which sounds fascinating. I would be keen to know how the business case goes and get a little more information on that. I agree that it cannot operate as a silo. Water does not care about which Member of Parliament it is or which political party they are in, or even which boundary; water will go its own way. I am quite interested in the sound of that.
I am interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is definitely one of the hardest-working Members of Parliament from any party, has to say and her level of knowledge. If at any time I want an invite to York—
Emma Hardy
Thank you very much. I would really like to—it would be great to go and see that.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the importance of food security. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) in a debate that is not a defence debate. There was an amusing Twitter account on politicians pointing at potholes that I used to look through and giggle at; it is nearly as good as the Twitter account on angry people in local newspapers, which I highly recommend.
The effects of flooding are profound and lasting. When we talk about property or farming flooding, we must bear that in mind. I highlight that the people least able to afford it are the people who are often the most badly impacted, because they are the ones who do not have insurance. I understand that the framework is under review and the Government expect to complete it, but can the Minister tell us if they are consulting stakeholders? The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management was not aware that the review was happening, nor was the National Farmers Union.
As has been mentioned, the lead local flood authorities, the county or unitary level councils, must have 50 or more properties affected by internal flooding to qualify for emergency funding, but that was not always the case. I have two written parliamentary questions waiting for answers on this: when was the current threshold increased from 25 properties, and what assessment was made at the time to make it 50 properties? It always seems slightly odd when people come up with these rounded numbers and say, “It is 50 properties.” Why is 50 the magic number? Why is it not 48 or 53? Why have we chosen an arbitrary number and said that it must be 50 properties?
As the Minister will understand, flooding is the result of natural features in the landscape, not local authority boundaries. Any threshold will therefore exclude councils where areas of flooded homes are split across council boundaries. The threshold of 50 can mean that if two councils are impacted and there are 49 properties in each council boundary, they do not meet the criteria because they do not have 50 properties in one council boundary. They are arbitrary numbers. I return to my written parliamentary question and ask again: why was the threshold increased? Hopefully something a little more sensible will come out of the review.
As the MP for and a resident of west Hull and Hessle, I know only too well the scale and impact of flooding on thousands of properties. For some councils, the scale of flooding is a challenge; they must deal with grant applications from hundreds of property owners. The Government’s cut-off date for grant payments is mid-2025, and councils are concerned about the capacity of the industry to install property resilience measures in the funding window and, importantly, the availability of qualified surveyors. A CIWEM survey found that only a third of risk management authorities have a full complement of staff to deliver surface water management, and three quarters of RMAs are struggling to recruit new staff. Greater flexibility on the deadline for claims would be helpful to avoid the risk that councils have to step in and fund the costs of householders who could not claim within a specified period.
As has been mentioned in the debate, I will mention the impact of that on affected farmers. The NFU informs me that its members have struggled to get any information on the flood recovery framework schemes and eligible areas before they closed for applications. It said that a significant number of farmers have missed out on the deadline and have been turned away by their respective councils, which are either not aware of the scheme or believe that farmers can access only the farming recovery fund. Another thing that came up in the debate was understanding which scheme applies to whom and who needs to apply for them.
I will also mention bureaucracy. The application process is littered with difficulty. I have left out some parts for the sake of brevity, but to be successful a homeowner must apply to their council to check that they are eligible, if they know that the council has the funds to begin with; decide whether they want to undertake flood recoverability or flood resilience measures; pay for a pre-installation survey, the cost of which can be claimed back, but which must be paid for up front; and obtain three quotes for the proposed work—the grant will cover only the cost of the cheapest quote. Once the quote is approved by the council, the property owner must sign a memorandum of understanding setting out the responsibilities of both the homeowner and the council, get the work done in line with the specific conditions of the scheme—again, paying up front—and get a post-completion survey done and submitted to the council, at which point the council will go through the survey. Only if all the criteria are met will funds up to the value of £5,000 be transferred to the homeowner. The whole process takes about 18 months, with no guarantee for the homeowner that the council will release the funds. That is difficult both for the local authorities to administer and for households to access. Will the Minister therefore look at streamlining and simplifying the process?
I am aware that I am running out of time, but I am always keen to discuss flooding and I hope for more debates on the subject. I want to quickly mention that while we need a more effective and equitable flood recovery framework, what we actually need is fewer properties flooded in the first place. The number of properties to be better protected from flooding by 2027 has been cut by 40% and 500 of the 2,000 new flood defence projects have been abandoned, according to the recent National Audit Office report. That means that 136,000 fewer homes will be protected from the risk of flooding.
I have asked parliamentary questions about where the abandoned flood defence projects are and have yet to receive a clear answer. I have been told that they are not abandoned and that some have just been deferred. I have therefore gone back to the Department asking how many projects, if not abandoned, have been deferred and how long the deferral process will be. To say that the answer has been evasive would be kind. We want to know how many of the flood projects promised by Government are on track to be delivered and where are the ones that are not. Residents have a right to know. The Government seem to be hiding behind language at the moment. That is not fair and it is not transparent.
The Government have committed more than £5 billion for new flood and coastal defences by 2027, but they are failing in their delivery while also failing to maintain the defences we have. Labour has a plan, not only to ensure that budgets committed to flood defences are used to the maximum effect, but to bring together all those involved in flood prevention and resilience to ensure that everyone works together to protect our communities, farmers and businesses now and for the future. Labour will establish a flood resilience taskforce that co-ordinates flooding preparation between central Government, local authorities, local communities and emergency services. It will ensure that vulnerable areas are identified and protected, and provide accountability for the progress of the projects. It will be chaired by a DEFRA Minister and bring together senior civil servants, Ministers from across Government—including a new Minister for resilience, who would sit in the Cabinet Office—regional flood and coastal committees and other frontline agencies, including the Environment Agency and fire and rescue services. It will work with the Environment Agency to ensure that its formula to protect communities considers potential damages to rural communities and farmland when identifying areas to protect.
DEFRA appears to have given up. Its flagship flood defence scheme is slipping further and further behind, and it has lowered its targets for maintaining flood defences. That is symptomatic of a Government who are out of ideas and know that time is up. Labour has a plan and the energy and commitment to make the changes this country needs to meet the challenges of increased flood risk in the face of a changing climate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for securing this important debate and all hon. Members who have contributed. It has been good to hear about everybody’s experiences of the flood recovery scheme roll-out and how it is helping their constituents, while also hearing about some of the challenges, which I hope to address in my speech. I also thank my right hon. Friend and other colleagues for sharing their experiences with me when I met them through the River Severn caucus just last month. That follows on from my first ministerial visit to Shrewsbury, to see the case being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for more funds for the wider River Severn catchment. I assure him that his case is noted and that conversations are happening with the Treasury.
The Government and I sympathise with all Members’ constituents, households and businesses that have experienced flooding. Through visits to Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire, Northumberland and Cumbria—to name but a few of the counties I have visited over the course of the last few months to see at first hand households, businesses and farms that have unfortunately been flooded—I understand the impact those experiences have on people.
Climate change means that the number of people at risk from flooding is, unfortunately, likely to grow. The storms we experienced over the autumn and winter brought that into sharp focus, as more than 5,000 properties were flooded. More importantly, however, nearly a quarter of a million—241,000—properties were protected as a result of the continued investment in flood defences. The Government are acting to drive down flood risk from every angle. Our long-term policy statement published in 2020 sets out our
“ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk.”
We continue to invest public money in this important area. The Government are investing £5.2 billion between 2021 and 2027 to better protect communities across England from flooding and coastal erosion. Since 2010 Government investment has meant that more than 600,000 properties have been better protected, which is a significant achievement, but we all recognise that there are homes and businesses that still suffer from flooding.
To pick up on the point kindly made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I am pleased she recognises that since the Boxing day floods in 2015 in her constituency, businesses and homeowners across Yorkshire have benefited from Government support and funding that has specifically gone into York. It was good to visit her constituency, where I saw at first hand some of the improvement measures that have been implemented, particularly in relation to the Foss barrier.
Through the visits I have made, I understand the impact on people of such experiences, whether it has been damage to or loss of property, over the autumn and winter following Storm Babet, Storm Henk, Storm Ciarán and the wet period that we have experienced. That is why, following Storm Babet and Storm Henk, the Government announced a significant package of support for areas in England that experienced exceptional localised flooding. Together, the Departments for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and for Business and Trade activated the flood recovery framework at speed following those storm events. That provides the community recovery grant, where eligible local authorities receive funding equivalent to £500 per flooded household to support local recovery efforts.
The business recovery grant provides up to £2,500 to eligible local authorities for each eligible small and medium-sized enterprise that has suffered severe impacts of flooding that cannot be recovered from insurance. Under the council tax discount and business rate relief the Government have reimbursed local authorities for a minimum period of three months for eligible flooded properties. Alongside that framework, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has implemented the property flood resilience repair grant, which offers grants of up to £5,000 per property to install flood resilience measures.
To pick up on the point kindly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey)—it is good to see him contributing in a Westminster Hall debate after being so eloquent and efficient in his role for many a year in the Ministry of Defence—I assure him that Somerset County Council’s residents are eligible to receive money through the property flood resilience repair grant due to the threshold of 50 units being met. I think 106 properties were flooded in Somerset. His constituents are able to receive that money.
Darren Henry
In Nottinghamshire we had Storm Babet and Storm Henk in quick succession. The Minister mentioned that businesses were able to receive grants, but they were not able to receive them twice. Had the storms happened in two separate years they would have done. What are the Government doing to address that?
Robbie Moore
I thank my hon. Friend for consistently raising that point and others with me in my role as Minister. I assure him that all measures and schemes will be reviewed. Having requested a visit from me to come and see some of his businesses in Stapleford, I look forward to coming very soon to address the flooding issues that he and his constituents have experienced.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is aware, Shropshire County Council, which includes his Ludlow constituency, is eligible to receive funding following Storms Babet and Henk. The Government have recently opened the farming recovery fund, currently in nine areas, to support farmers who have suffered uninsurable damage to their land as a result of Storm Henk. Farmers will be able to receive grants of up to £25,000 towards reinstatement costs for farmland adversely affected by exceptional flooding. I fully recognise right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns about the announcement that the Department made last week. I assure all Members, and indeed those outside this place, that Ministers are actively reviewing the Department’s announcement last week.
My right hon. Friend also voiced some important questions about the schemes. He rightly raised the concern that holding the eligibility count at the lead local flood authority level, which is unitary or upper-tier councils, poses a problem for some local authorities, and that the threshold of 50 internally flooded properties as an eligibility criterion could be considered unfair to smaller local flood authority areas. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that that will be reviewed.
Let me address the concerns raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) that the threshold was actually increased. Following flooding in 2020, and on the back of representations from local authorities, the flood eligibility criterion was reviewed. Previously, the eligibility criterion set by DLUHC for the flood recovery framework to be activated was 25 internally flooded residential units over a district local authority area. Following feedback, that was reviewed and reduced to a threshold of 50 properties, whether commercial or otherwise—not just residential properties—over a unitary authority area, which is a bigger geographical area. The threshold was therefore reduced, not increased, as the hon. Member wrongly claimed.
Emma Hardy
I believe that that was the point I made: the threshold had gone from 25 to 50. I am happy to check Hansard and correct any mistake if I made one— I am not sure that I did—but that does not resolve the point that I was making, which was about where the arbitrary number of 50 came from. If there are 49 properties on each side of a border, there will be no actual impact. It has been increased, and there has not been a consultation to explain exactly why.
Robbie Moore
I reassure all Members that the threshold was changed so that we could get much more support out to business and households. As I have already said, however, I have asked for alternative geographical boundaries to be considered for future activations, and discussed with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities the appropriate threshold for future events. That is under review with stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union. I spoke to the president of the union at several events in previous weeks, so the union is aware. Unfortunately, I think that the shadow Minister slightly misquoted that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow also asked about extra funding to staff local authorities so that they can deliver framework schemes. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is considering that matter as part of the post-activation review that is currently under way.
I thank all Members for their contributions. I look forward to further conversations with Members regarding this important matter, to ensure that the Government are getting as much support as possible to those impacted by flooding.
Philip Dunne
I am encouraged by the Minister’s closing remarks. Before I address them, I thank all Members who took part in the debate, including those who intervened and have since left. I particularly welcome my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), making his inaugural speech from the Back Benches following his period as a Defence Minister. It is good to see him here.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to the lack of fairness that results from the way the thresholds and criteria are implemented. I am pleased that that was picked up by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and specifically the Minister, who mentioned the review that is being done. What he said in his concluding remarks about the “alternative geographical boundaries” and looking at the level of the threshold was helpful. I will not repeat the spat across the Chamber about who said what to whom, but the fact that it is being reviewed is very welcome. The staffing allowances being offered to local authorities that undertake the work will also be helpful.
I should mention the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who gave a compelling account of the problems that have been occurring in York. I particularly welcome her welcoming the defence measures that have made York a safer place to live.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Exclusive Economic Zone: Maritime Safety
(9 months 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
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maritime safety breaches within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and I welcome the Minister to his place. He knows that I hold him in high regard as a very effective and diligent Minister, so I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I was a little disappointed to hear that I was not getting a reply from the Attorney General or one of her staff. In fact, when I think about it, that change highlights one of the problems we are dealing with: this is an issue in which many Government Departments have an interest but for which nobody has overall responsibility. One thing that I hope we take away from this debate is a determination that somebody takes charge of the issue.
Essentially, I want to bring the House’s attention to a matter that arises from an ongoing conflict between fishing boats that operate static gear and those that operate mobile gear. There can only be better ways of resolving those conflicts and tensions than the ones that I am about to describe for the House.
There are two particular, well-documented incidents that I want to place on the record for the benefit of the House and for the Minister’s consideration. The first took place on 11 June 2020, and involved the Shetland-registered whitefish boat the Alison Kay. Skippered by James Anderson, it was fishing 30 nautical miles to the west of Shetland. Mr Anderson describes the roots of what was about to happen thus:
“The incident occurred on the 11th of June and when the vessel in question shot his gear”—
that is the Pesorsa Dos, which is a Spanish-owned but German-registered vessel—
“in the area he knew we were fishing. He chose to put his gear at risk. What he decided to do was to shoot nets”—
those are gillnets of quite industrial magnitude—
“in an area known to be used by trawlers and then subsequently tell the trawlers they can’t fish here now because his gear is now there! This is simply unacceptable terms for us and we have no intention of moving away when we have every right to continue fishing.”
This is an area of sea that has been fished for decades, if not centuries, by Shetland fishermen, so we can understand Mr Anderson’s strength of feeling. The skipper of the Pesorsa Dos then proceeded to tow a rope tied to a float across the bow, which was a clear attempt to foul the Alison Kay’s propeller or steering gear. It was an act of the most incredible recklessness for which there can be no excuse. It could have led to injury or death, or the loss of either or both of the boats. Of course, it was avoided because the skipper of the Alison Kay took evasive action.
The Pesorsa Dos is a Spanish-owned gillnetter that is flagged in Germany through SeaMar, a company based in Schleswig-Holstein. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency was made aware of the incident but declined to investigate because it said that it happened outside the 12-mile limit, and the 12-mile limit is the extent of its jurisdiction. That takes us into that area of sea between the 12-mile limit and the extent of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Notwithstanding the MCA’s describing the incident as extremely “concerning” and saying that the
“consequences could have been extremely serious”,
it was declared that the responsibility lay with the German investigating authorities, as that was where the Pesorsa Dos was registered—Germany was the flag state.
We pursued this matter in correspondence with the German authorities but, bluntly, they were not interested, even though Germany is the flag state. Why would it be? This incident involved a conflict between a Spanish vessel and a Scottish vessel in waters hundreds of miles away from the closest point of German waters. I do not believe this sort of behaviour was ever anticipated when the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—the governing statute—was entered into, but this is the reality with which fishermen in Shetland and other parts of the United Kingdom are now having to deal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the Minister knows, I represent the constituency of Strangford, which has a large fishing fleet. The right hon. Gentleman has secured a vital debate and clearly outlined the two incidents. Does he agree that the sovereign rights that exist for our fishing fleet mean that the standards we set in that zone apply to every fishing vessel, not just British ones, and that we must enforce on any vessel the appropriate safety measures rigorously and authoritatively, with extended powers if warranted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? In other words, all vessels are subject to the same laws.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that is something with which I have no difficulty agreeing. The vessels are all subject to the same laws; the difficulty comes when we try to enforce them. In fact, the Irish Government have taken a rather more novel and, shall we say, direct approach from which we could probably learn some lessons.
The then Fisheries Minister, now the Attorney General, convened a Zoom call for me which had, while not exactly a cast of thousands, at least a dozen people on it. One by one, each of those people explained that although they understood the seriousness of the situation it was, in fact, always somebody else’s problem. At the end of the call, it was agreed that there would be further consideration and action would be taken, but I am afraid to say that, years later, we have heard effectively nothing since. It seems to just go from Department to Department, and is always too difficult for somebody to deal with.
For my constituents and for the fishermen working in Shetland’s waters, it continues to be a problem. On 16 October last year, the Defiant, a Lerwick-registered whitefish boat, skippered on that day by Magnus Polson, was working 18 miles east of Unst—again, within the area of water between 12 and 200 miles—when it experienced a similar incident, involving the Antonio Maria, a Spanish-owned but French-registered longliner. Mr Polson established where the long lines were and that he could operate safely without coming into conflict with the static gear, but 15 minutes later the skipper of the Antonio Maria altered his course on to a direct collision course with the Defiant. The longliner came dangerously close to the port side of the Defiant, whose crew saw two crewmen appear on the Antonio Maria and one throw a rope into water—designed, we presume, to foul the propeller. Mr Polson explained that
“due to close proximity and the endangered safety of our boat, I had no choice but to begin hauling back our gear to make room.”
A few weeks ago in Lerwick, I met the other skipper of the Defiant, Robbie Jamieson, who showed me the screen grab of the course that he had plotted in the wheelhouse of the Defiant. He also showed me where the long lines had been laid by the Antonio Maria. It was clear that the course along which the Defiant was going to tow its gear was not actually going to come into conflict with the long lines that had been set by the Antonio Maria, and would have moved somewhere to the south of them. When I raised this with the Fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), on 19 October, he described it as outrageous behaviour, and said he would certainly raise it with his ministerial colleagues. Again, we have heard precious little since. Everybody knows that it is mad, reckless and dangerous behaviour, but somehow nobody ever seems to have an answer for how to stop it.
The Maritime Coastguard Agency has forwarded its report to the French authorities for investigation. The incident happened in October, and we are now well into April and have had no response. The Shetland Fishermen’s Association has asked for the opportunity to have sight of what was sent by the MCA to the French authorities, but it has been told that it cannot have that. I wonder whether the Minister might raise that again with the MCA, because I do not see what the MCA would have to lose by publishing the report. Frankly, it would go a long way towards restoring some trust and confidence between the fishing fleet and the MCA.
Essentially, the difficulty lies in the terms of UNCLOS and the decision to vest authority for investigation and prosecution with the flag state. I do not believe this was something envisaged at the time UNCLOS was agreed, but it is now the reality with which my constituents have to live and deal. This will keep happening unless and until it is stopped. As I see it, it can stop only in one of two ways: there either has to be meaningful action to deal with it, or we wait until there is a fatality when a boat goes down and a life is lost. When that happens, all the people who come up with the good, worthy and complicated reasons as to why it is somebody else’s responsibility will be left looking pretty shame-faced and embarrassed. I do not want any one of them to turn around and say, “I wish somebody had told us about this.” They have been well warned by me today and on many previous occasions.
What can we do? There are a few quick and easy wins. The executive officer of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association said shortly after the Antonio Maria incident that there was a need for a streamlined process of reporting, with an individual designated within the MCA to receive reports. This sort of thing happens, nobody wants to know about it and fishermen get pushed from pillar to post. There needs to be a hotline—a dedicated number—that skippers can phone to report an incident. The sooner that some sort of action can be taken, the likelier it is that that action will then be effective.
I would like to see our Government pursuing the matter with a bit more vigour than they have done. We go through the motions—we tick the boxes, write the report and send it off to the German and French authorities—but then what happens? I call on the Minister to raise the issue at a diplomatic or ministerial level with his opposite numbers when such incidents happen, so that prosecuting authorities in the other flag states understand that it is something we see as being important.
We could also see much better co-operation between the MCA, which is an agency responsible to the Department for Transport here, and Scotland’s Marine Directorate, which is responsible for fisheries management issues and fishery protection in Scotland. They are the people who have boats in the water and who will be able to attend such incidents and gather the necessary evidence.
To come to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), fishing boats operate in the exclusive economic zone under licence, as all boats do. Surely it could be a condition of the licence that if a boat is going to fish in our waters, it does so in a way that is safe and responsible. We may not be able to prosecute for safety breaches, but we could take action to remove the boats’ licences. That is something that would concentrate the mind.
It is worth comparing the treatment of the Pesorsa Dos in 2020 in Scottish waters, or British waters, with the treatment that it received in Irish waters. The Skipper’s website from January 2023 describes what happened to the Pesorsa Dos after it was detained by the Irish Naval Service for breaches of EU fishing regulations in Irish waters. The skipper, Juan Pablo Docal Rubido, was brought before a special sitting of Bandon District Court following the detention of the vessel for alleged fishing offences.
Mr Rubido, whose vessel is Spanish owned and fishes out of La Coruña but was detained at Castletownbere, was charged with a total of 12 fishing offences on various dates between 5 January and 24 January, while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state. He was charged with two logbook offences: of failing to record the proper depth that his vessel was fishing at, and failing to record the proper soak times or times that he allowed his nets to stay in the water while fishing within Irish exclusive fishing limits. He was also charged with a total of nine separate offences of allowing his nets to exceed the permitted soak times of 72 hours allowed for the gear while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state, contrary to section 14 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006.
The best part, though, is still to come. The boat was detained. It was kept in the quayside as a consequence of action taken to seize it by the Irish authorities. The skipper himself was allowed bail on production of a bond of €5,000. The period for which the detention was to be permitted was actually extended on the application of the Irish Government. These trawlers—these massive gillnetters—are big businesses, and they only make money when they are out at sea. That old American saying, “If you get them by their reproductive organs, their hearts and minds will follow”, really characterises the way in which these people have to be tackled. The presiding judge, Colm Roberts, granted bail on Mr Rubido’s own bond of €5,000. He said:
“We have to make sure people realise how serious these matters are.”
Well, amen to that.
We are dealing with an industry that is probably the most dangerous way to make a living. Everybody knows that when fisherman go to sea, they very often put their lives at risk, and the fishermen themselves know that better than anybody else. They understand that this is a contest that sets man against nature and its elements. That risk is acceptable and understood, but setting man against man in such a way cannot be understood or excused. We have an exclusive economic zone. I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that it is about time we understood what it means to be exclusive and to exclude those who will not use it responsibly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this very important debate, which touches on key matters that this country should be conscious of and anxious to ensure are observed in the right way. He put forward his case and the case of his constituents in his customary, robust and very fair tone.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I know Shetland pretty well, having visited only last summer. I nearly knew it much better because Sumburgh airport was shut when I was attempting to leave. I am acutely conscious that the waters around Shetland are among the most dangerous in the world. As he rightly put it, this is about safety first and foremost. We can have an argument about sovereignty, consequences and the fiscal intentions of certain people fishing in a particular way, but the most important thing is safety. He is right to make the case that fishing is a dangerous profession.
I put on the record my thanks to our fishing fleet for its contribution to the UK economy. In 2022, for example, UK vessels landed 640,000 tonnes of sea fish into the UK and abroad, with a value over £1 billion. With National Fishing Remembrance Day coming up on 12 May, we remember those who have lost their lives while working in fishing in the UK. It is also an opportunity to raise awareness of the dangers and how we can tackle them. I am conscious that a number of incidents—certainly the MCA is aware of three—have been reported in the last five years.
The right hon. Gentleman outlined two in particular: one on 11 June 2020; and one on 16 October last year, when the actions of the French-registered Antonio Maria were clearly very serious in respect of what happened to the Defiant—a UK and Shetland-registered vessel—approximately 16 miles off the north-east coast of Shetland. I am aware of the footage and of the commentary since, and of the very serious potential consequences. Loss of power at sea so far from shore—given the weather and its ability to change so easily, particularly in October—should not be undermined in any way. I put on the record my utter condemnation of the actions of the crew of the Antonio Maria, and of other ships that have been involved in such activity; it is not conduct that they would wish upon themselves.
Without sounding too hackneyed, everybody is in the same boat in this respect, and it is of utmost important that we try to ensure a change of behaviour. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the mechanics of that are very difficult, given the implications of UNCLOS. There is a difference, is there not, between the law that applies up to 12 miles out to sea—the draconian actions that can be taken when something is within UK waters in an area that we control and have legal jurisdiction over—and what can happen outside those 12 nautical miles. The right hon. Gentleman clearly knows that there was a report of the most recent incident by the MCA, which I thank for its efforts, but I think we need to do more. I do not have a lot of time today, but I want to address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s key asks.
The first key ask is that there should be sight of the letter that was written in October. Of course that can happen; I am surprised it has not. That will happen within a matter of weeks and will be shared with the Shetland Fishermen’s Association and the r hon. Gentleman. Secondly, he asked for a designated person within the MCA to receive reports. I think the devil is in the detail on this, but fundamentally I am going to make sure that there is a designated individual who is the nominated person for receipt. Active phone lines and things like that are more complicated to establish, but I take the point on board. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, so I can allow the organisation to go away and think about how it will do that—not least because there needs to be link-up with actions and consequences if disasters do occur, and all organisations need to be kept informed. I totally endorse the idea of a designated person and will give instruction accordingly. If that has not happened thus far, it definitely will do going forward.
The third point that the right hon. Gentleman raised was in respect of the MCA working more closely with Marine Scotland. I have no specific comment on that in my papers. I am sure they work together already, but I am going to make very sure that they meet within the next month, and that there is an ongoing dialogue and discussion with all devolved nations and devolved organisations so that we are utterly joined up and as one.
I take on board the point about licences. We clearly need to go away and think about that. I respectfully suggest that, with an arm’s length body which is not effectively controlled by Government, there is a danger that the Government then say, “Well, we actually want to try to run it ourselves.” Every Minister has such arm’s length bodies; I had many at the Department for Work and Pensions and I have them at the Department for Transport. As my dad used to say, “You don’t buy a dog and bark yourself”: we have to be in a position to let them get on with it. I will, however, invite them to do two key things: first, to have a proper sit-down with the Fisheries Minister; and, then—in my humble opinion, this is what is needed—to have the Fisheries Minister correspond and sit down with individual Ministers to ensure that there is proper understanding, because it is in all our interests that such incidents do not happen. There should be no benefit whatever.
If this kind of activity is allowed to take place off the shores of Shetland, eventually there will be a serious accident. Lives could be lost. Loss of propulsion out in the ocean, far from land, in circumstances such as in October, is just not acceptable in any way whatever, however fired up everyone is. I believe that the Fisheries Minister needs to take that forward. I will also do my bit to raise this with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so that it too has an understanding of what is going forward.
The right hon. Member talked about the long-term reform, which will be to the United Nations’ law of the sea. That is clearly difficult, but not impossible. The key point that I want to finish on is that he is right: so many institutions that we set up as individual countries post war—whether the UN and its approach to various things, the G5, the G7, the various immigration rules and regulations that we all abide by, or whatever—struggle to deal with the modern world and the modern pressures on us all. The challenge for all Governments is to adapt and improve those institutions.
I take solace in one thing: without getting into the devil in the detail, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the law of the sea was only agreed by the UN in 1956, and it was upgraded and improved in 1960, 1973 and 1982—so that can be done. Having better penalties and more draconian action on consequences has to be the way forward, and those exist, with stuff clearly going on in the South China sea and the Philippines. My assurance to him is that we will take that on board. This will be a work in progress for successive Governments, but as a Government we take the view that that process should start now, and I give him and his constituents that assurance.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for raising this issue. I ask for the forbearance and understanding of his community, who are tough and hardy folk, doing an amazing job for the islands and our country. We should be extraordinarily thankful for their service, their contribution to the economy and the delicious fish they put on our tables. We will do what we can to ensure a better system going forward, because frankly that will be in all our interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Spring Budget 2024: Welsh Economy
(9 months 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
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on the Welsh economy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Mr Dowd. I am delighted to be able to bring this debate before the House today, but I want to start by acknowledging the seriousness of the situation in the middle east. My hopes and those of my constituents are for a more peaceful world and a meaningful de-escalation.
As we consider the impact of the spring Budget 2024 on Wales and the Welsh economy, I want to acknowledge the voices, views and concerns of the people of Newport West. My constituents have shared their worries and concerns with me in recent weeks since the Chancellor delivered his Budget. Of course, I am also thinking about people right across Wales who are dealing with the consequences of a Conservative Government that are out of touch and out of time.
The recent Budget could and should have been a unique opportunity to unlock Wales’s promise and all the potential we see in and around our communities, but instead it was more decline and decay. It is clear to everyone in the Chamber, and I suspect to the Minister too, that this Government have decided to continue papering over the cracks of almost 14 years of Conservative economic failure, rather than giving us the change we need.
As we consider the impact of Budget 2024, we need to think about where we are thanks to this Government. Every colleague in this Chamber will know that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, people in Newport West, Monmouth, Clwyd East and Bridgend, and indeed right across Wales, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, are worse off. Families continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis, higher taxes and eye-watering energy bills.
The list is depressing and long: debt and interest rates are much higher; Britain’s standing in the world is diminished; economic growth is stagnant; our much-needed and valued but seriously underfunded public services are on their knees; and taxes are higher than at any time since the second world war—indeed, never have a British Government asked their people in Wales and across the UK to pay so much for so little.
Let us take a moment to talk about the Tories’ unfunded plans to abolish national insurance contributions, and the Chancellor’s promise of £46 billion of unfunded tax cuts, which would leave a gaping black hole in the public finances. That reckless approach exposes the clear risk of five more years of the Conservatives. They will gamble with the public finances, and working people will be forced to pay the price yet again.
This Tory Government clearly have not learned anything since the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), crashed the economy and sent people’s mortgages spiralling, as we heard this morning during Prime Minister’s questions. I welcome the approach of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who have been very clear that Labour will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances.
On average, households in Wales will be £700 worse off under the Tory tax plan, which gives 5p for every 10p taken from people across the country. The Budget confirms that the UK has the highest tax burden in 70 years, rising every year of the forecast period. The Office for Budget Responsibility figures speak for themselves: for every 10p extra working people pay in tax under the Tories plan, they will get only 5p back as a result of the combined national insurance contribution cuts. That includes the OBR’s revised estimate for the impact of tax threshold freezes, which raise £41.1 billion over the forecast period and will create 3.7 million new taxpayers by 2028-29.
As we go back to the people in this general election year, we will be closing the door on the worst Parliament on record for living standards—the only Parliament on record where living standards have fallen. I welcome the Minister to her place, but it is important to remind her that real pay has gone up by just £17 a week over 13 years of Conservative Government; under the last Labour Government, wages rose by £183 a week over 13 years. The spring Budget reveals that growth in GDP per capita is negative this year, and has been downgraded in the four years of the forecast period.
The OBR confirmed what may be called “Rishi’s recession”, with GDP per capita smaller than when our unelected Prime Minister moved into No. 10, taking over from the former Prime Minister, who was beaten by a lettuce. The Conservatives have wrecked the public finances, debt has almost tripled under them, from £1 trillion to just under £2.6 trillion, and borrowing has been revised up for the next five years of the forecast period. That is the legacy handed down to the people of Wales after 13 years of Conservative Government.
Mr Dowd, you will not be surprised to hear me note that this is not just about the impact on Wales, as part of the United Kingdom; the Government have presided over the biggest drop in living standards in Wales since records began, but the same is true for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland too. That will obviously have a huge impact not only on the economy in our part of the United Kingdom, but right across the country.
In recent months, more than 7,000 homeowners across Wales have faced a Tory mortgage bombshell as their fixed-term mortgage rates have come to an end. The average estimated hike is approximately £240 per month; that is the real cost of the Conservative party. Under this Prime Minister, the Conservatives do not have a plan for our future. They crashed the economy and now they expect working people to pay the price.
Our country needs change, and that is why I am proud that the defining purpose of the next Labour Government, if we are fortunate enough to win the trust and support of people across Wales and our United Kingdom, will be to grow Britain’s economy so that we can invest in our future. Labour’s plan for growth is about making working people better off, boosting the Welsh economy and moving our country forward. We will put economic stability first by introducing a new fiscal lock to bring economic security back to family finances. We will back British business. Importantly for me, as a former president of the Wales TUC, Labour will make work pay.
The impact of Budget 2024 on the Welsh economy also shows how important it is that colleagues of mine standing for Labour across Wales are elected to this place. Many are strong Welsh women, such as Becky Gittins in Clwyd East, my neighbour Catherine Fookes in Monmouthshire—a constituency I know very well indeed—and Jackie Jones over in west Wales. They stand alongside colleagues such as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). Their re-election to this place will help ensure that better days lie ahead, and that any future Budgets under a Labour Government will have a significantly better impact on Wales and our economy than Budget 2024.
I have several questions for the Minister. Figures from Citizens Advice Cymru show that the number of people in Wales unable to top up their prepayment meters has increased by 36 times since the last general election. Will the Minister tell us how many households in Wales still have prepayment meters, and whether any have been forcibly installed since the ban in February 2023? I appreciate that she may not have the figures to hand, so perhaps she will write to me about that.
A recent Which? survey found that one in five working-age parents in Wales are skipping meals due to high food prices. Has the Minister had any recent conversations with supermarkets in Wales about keeping the cost of food down?
This year, 62,000 homeowners in Wales will face a Tory mortgage bombshell as their fixed-term rates expire. A Labour Government would require banks to protect homeowners, so what is the Minister doing to help owners with the bills caused by her party’s disastrous economic mismanagement?
The Conservatives have crippled working people with the highest tax burden since the second world war. The Prime Minister’s latest gimmick means that if a British person pays £10 in tax, they will get just £5 back. Does the Minister agree with Iceland boss Richard Walker that Labour is now the right choice for his customers?
You will be pleased to hear that I am drawing my remarks to a close, Mr Dowd. It will come as no surprise that, in my view, the best thing to do is to change course, deliver for our people and move forward with a Labour Government—and the sooner, the better.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am afraid the Conservative spring Budget was a real smoke-and-mirrors affair, and people in the Llanelli constituency are not taken in by it. The Prime Minister, and indeed the Minister, may boast that they have cut the rate of national insurance, but people in Llanelli know that we do not get something for nothing. They feel worse off, and that is because they are worse off. We have had the biggest fall in living standards in our history, with the UK economy remaining stagnant. The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that GDP per person has fallen in each of the last seven quarters—the longest period of stagnation since the 1950s.
People in Llanelli and across the UK are worse off under the Conservative Government, and they are now bearing the highest tax burden in 70 years. For every 5p the Conservative Government have given back in tax, they have in fact taken away 10p. People have pointed out to me that they have been hit by the freezing of the tax threshold. As their incomes have increased over the past few years—although never by enough, of course, to keep up with the rampant inflation that this Conservative Government have presided over—people have found that they are reaching the tax threshold for the first time or that more of their income is now subject to tax.
The freezing of the basic threshold has brought 3.7 million more people across the UK into paying tax, and more taxpayers are being squeezed by having to pay the higher rate of tax as more of their income is in that bracket, often because of a pay rise that has not even kept pace with inflation. So there is a double whammy of more tax and less purchasing power.
We have seen another sneaky trick: the devolution of the increasing cost of the burden of public services to the Welsh Government and local councils. As we know, a large proportion of what councils spend on local services comes from central Government—UK Government—taxation, to which we all of course contribute, whether it is allocated directly to councils in England or via the Welsh Government to councils in Wales. As the Conservative Government have squeezed and squeezed the Welsh budget, with the latest Welsh Government settlement some £3 billion less than if it had grown with GDP since 2010, the Welsh Government have had to pass on swingeing Conservative cuts to Welsh councils. Local councils in Wales are faced with the difficult balancing act of having to either cut services or raise council tax, at a time when councils, just like households, face huge inflation in their costs.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point about the cost burdens being imposed on local councils. My own local council of Rhondda Cynon Taf faces some of these burdens, and we have the extra burden of having to fund the remedial work to improve coal-tip safety in Wales—a legacy that predates devolution. We have had hundreds of years of mining in Wales, and that work should be the responsibility of the UK Government, but they are failing to take responsibility for the costs, which should not be borne by my constituents when it was the UK that benefited from the coalmining industry of south Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed—my hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring up that point. It is something that we have been raising, and I hope the Minister, who has some former mines in her own constituency, will take that message back to her colleagues.
As I was saying, councils are having to make very difficult decisions; in fact, they have to both cut services and raise council tax. But make no mistake—these cuts in services and rises in council tax are a direct result of the way in which central Government have squeezed the Welsh budget. That leaves people in Wales paying more for poorer services.
Not only is the Welsh Government budget for 2024-25 £3 billion lower than if it had grown in line with GDP since 2010, but it is £700 million lower in real terms than was expected at the time of the 2021 spending review, which of course means that the Welsh Government have to manage even more cuts than had been expected. The Minister may point out that the Welsh Government will receive an additional £168 million in resource funding for 2024-25, but that is the result of spending decisions made in England and relates to funding for NHS pay and local government adult social care, which have already been factored into Welsh Government spending plans.
People in Wales are still seeing costs rise. Although inflation may have slowed, there is still inflation, which means that prices are still rising, and the price rises are for essential household costs such as food. That has left people really struggling.
Some 62,000 homeowners in Wales are also facing a mortgage bombshell as fixed-term agreements come to an end, because of the totally irresponsible mini-Budget the Tories pushed through—collectively—in the autumn of 2022, when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was Prime Minister, which sent interest rates soaring. Homeowners will have to find hundreds of additional pounds year on year to cover their mortgage interest, which of course has a knock-on effect on rents as well, with increasing numbers of people finding that their rent is simply unaffordable.
People in Wales also face higher energy bills, and the UK Government’s failure to roll out renewables more quickly has made that situation all the worse, which has meant the loss of yet more precious time in the race to bring down bills and combat climate change. Last year, the fiasco of the UK Government’s handling of the bidding process meant that no proposals came forward for floating offshore wind projects.
There is no help for the least well-off. The Conservative Government have been squeezing household incomes for 14 years. Back in 2011, the Tories increased VAT to 20%, which increased household bills, hitting the poorest in particular. In an unprecedented move, they also broke the historic link between benefits and inflation. They have cut and cut the benefits paid to the least well-off in society, many of whom, of course, are in work, leaving many people with not enough to live on and not even enough to cover their essential costs. It is shocking that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have had to call for the implementation of an essentials guarantee to ensure that those in receipt of universal credit are able to meet their essential costs. Benefits should always cover essential costs.
On regeneration and the replacement of the European structural funds, it is disappointing that the UK Government have rowed back on devolution and cut the Welsh Government out of the consultation on the way that funds should be used and managed. The result is a tendency for the money to go to one-off projects in specific geographical areas, rather than us looking at the real levers that will drive up GDP and prosperity, such as apprenticeships and skills training.
What worries me in particular is that there is little in the Budget to suggest that the UK Government are serious about growth. Every Conservative Budget since 2014 has promised higher wages, higher skills or higher growth, but a year on from the so-called Budget for growth, the economy has actually shrunk, as have wages. We have some world-class manufacturing in Llanelli—Tata Steel, car component companies such as Gestamp, engineering firms that supply companies such as Aston Martin and so on—but the international competition for business and investment is fierce.
The lack of a UK Government industrial strategy makes it difficult to compete for investment with other geographical locations abroad, whether that is because of cheaper energy costs in neighbouring European countries or the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, where we now see growth forecast to be twice that of any other country in the G7. The Government are investing £500 million in an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, but there has been no attempt by the Government to encourage investment in the technologies needed for green primary steel production.
We see Tata investing in such facilities at our competitor plant at IJmuiden in the Netherlands. I understand that one reason for not bringing that investment to Wales is our high energy costs—something we have been warning this Government about for years. Labour has pledged to invest £3 billion to secure green primary steelmaking in the UK, as well as a national wealth fund, bringing public and private funding together to invest in the green industries of the future, thus creating quality jobs as well as tackling climate change.
People in Llanelli and across Wale are desperate for change and for hope of a better life. That is why we need a Labour Government that will slash energy bills for households and industry, invest in the new green technologies of the future, and invest £3 billion to ensure that we develop primary green steelmaking in Wales—the sooner, the better.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this debate. The Government have tried to spin the Budget as the deliverer of long-term growth for Wales, but people’s response is at odds with the spin. The lack of faith in the Government’s rhetoric is rooted in what they experience day in, day out, and how little faith they now have in attention-seeking announcements.
The real story is one of stagnating living standards, higher taxes on poorer people, cuts to public services on top of years of austerity, and food banks providing meals to working families. The Budget’s headline announcement of a 2p cut in national insurance plays out in different ways in different places. London wage earners will benefit the most, at £621 on average, while those in Wales will get only slightly more than £1 a day —£380 on average.
This is not a matter of begrudging gains for some people in some communities, but what needs to be called out is the disregard for how the national insurance cuts, as a policy, will entrench inequality in different parts of the United Kingdom. There is nothing in the spring Budget to address the deep economic challenges facing Wales, such as flagging productivity. In Wales, gross value added per hour worked is 84% of that of the UK—the lowest productivity of any of the four UK nations, although it varies within Wales and in the English midlands. It plays out in different places in different ways.
Those indicators also reveal how little effect that worthy, familiar, perhaps misused 2019 election slogan of levelling up has actually had. I know the Tories will delight in telling us that Wales has had more than our per head of population share of levelling up since then.
Alex Davies-Jones
On that point about the Tories telling us we have never had it so good and Wales is benefiting, will the right hon. Member join me in being disappointed that, apart from the Minister, who is compelled to be here and for whom I have a lot of respect, there is not a single Welsh Conservative MP in this debate? That shows how much contempt and disregard they have for the people of Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
They must be content with the crumbs that we get from the table with levelling up, frankly.
Is the per head of population distribution really a good measure of success? Under the European funding schemes, Wales also got the highest per head of population contribution for a reason, and the reason was recognised deprivation—proven need. How has the Tory levelling-up agenda grasped the challenge of replacing the European money previously distributed specifically to lift the poorest communities out of poverty? I will tell hon. Members how it has done that. It has done it by invoking the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to undermine the Senedd and any pretence at strategic working. It has done it by setting cash-strapped local authorities in direct competition with one another, like supplicants begging for pennies. It has done it by providing money without sufficient time even to use it to best effect. And it has done it by ensuring that there is scant effective evaluation of money used, so that we do not even know whether it is levelling anything up for anybody.
Of course, that is not the point. Levelling up was never about ensuring that Wales got not a penny less than it did under European funds. We know that we are getting £1.3 billion less. Levelling up has become a byword for cynical short-termism, lollipops for a Government to hand out with an eye to the next election—pork barrel politics. That is clear from the fact that the Budget included Canary Wharf in the £242 million of London levelling-up cash. Canary Wharf, of all places! That is hardly somewhere that needs further investment and levelling up when compared with other places in the UK.
The Chancellor announced departmental spending cuts of up to £20 billion in the spring Budget. Let us be clear that those cuts will make a wasteland of our public services, and they will do so in a country, our country—Wales—where we place a high value on how a community works for everyone. I fear for the future of Welsh public services. We have already seen the Welsh Government’s refusal to step in when they defended cuts to Wales’s National Museum. I am sad that, rather than demonstrating the political courage to protect our cultural institutions, First Minister Vaughan Gething tells us to wait patiently for a future Labour Chancellor to start properly funding Wales. I fear that he is referring to the same shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who drops heavy hints that Labour will go ahead with public spending cuts if it forms the next Government.
My party believes that the people of Wales should have the ability to grasp the means to build our own economic destiny. Why should we not take control of our natural resources through the devolution of the Crown Estate? Why should we not create a funding system that addresses our needs and makes best use of our fair share of money from HS2 and other projects?
After covid and in the face of a future of global unrest and accelerated climate change, the Chancellor should have prioritised long-term investment in our public services, infrastructure and communities, yet the Budget and its aftermath seem to have produced a consensus between the Tories and Labour on spending cuts, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies calling support for spending cuts a “conspiracy of silence” between the two main parties. The message should come loud and clear: as things stand, Wales gets crumbs from the table, and we can do so much better. Diolch yn fawr.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), on securing this very important debate; in fact, I believe that this is the second year running that she has secured it. As always, she made her points well, as did all the speakers so far. I echo her comments on Gaza and the middle east. We share the city of Newport, and I know that that is a matter of great concern.
As my hon. Friend and neighbour set out, this is a Government clinging on to power, having presided over 14 years of managed decline. They lack the interest, vision and appetite to deliver the fundamental change that our country needs. We have had some excellent contributions from Members who will have had direct feedback from their constituents, be it on the doorsteps in places such as Monmouth, or in their surgeries. I certainly have: over the Easter recess we carried out a cost of living survey in Newport East, and people told us very strongly just how held back they feel by this failing Tory Government.
My hon. Friend put it well when she said that “never have a British Government asked their people…to pay so much for so little.” Having played fast and loose with the public finances, the Conservative party is passing on the cost of its incompetence to those who can least afford it just as public services, on which so many of them rely, are crumbling under the weight of its cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) is quite right: the spring Budget is smoke and mirrors, and people are not taken in by it.
Let us take ourselves back to 2019, when those on the Government Benches stood on manifesto commitments not to raise taxes; to reduce debt; to reduce poverty; and to help people with cost of living pressures. Three Prime Ministers and five Chancellors later, and with the Tory chaos almost halving the Government’s parliamentary majority, those promises lie in tatters. As hon. Members have already said, it is the case, despite cuts to national insurance, which we support, that the income tax threshold freezes mean that taxes are rising at a record pace. They are now at a 70-year high, and rising in each year of the spring Budget’s forecast period. That will make households in Wales £700 worse off, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said. I was very struck by what was said to me by a constituent I met in Magor on Saturday on the issue of the income tax threshold freezes, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The constituent described to me how her small monthly pension was hit by the impact of that and how unfair that was.
Dame Nia Griffith
I am sure that my hon. Friend will mention what I forgot to mention, which is that pensioners do not pay national insurance, so they have had no benefit whatever from the NI cut.
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very pertinent point. There is a big impact on pensioners, as she has said.
The UK debt to GDP ratio is at its highest in 70 years, with no sign of falling. The number of people living in absolute poverty is expected to increase this year to 12 million, with 4.2 million children living in poverty. This year, 62,000 householders in Wales will face the Tory mortgage bombshell—which hon. Members have mentioned—as their fixed-term rates expire, with the average homeowner expected to face a £240 hike in their monthly bill. As hon. Members have said, this is the first Parliament on record for which living standards are set to be lower by the end than they were at the beginning. The Tory Government are breaking promises and breaking records—and all to the detriment of Welsh people struggling to make ends meet. The Prime Minister has joined his predecessor in backing the sort of enormous and entirely unfunded tax cuts that led to the swift demise of her premiership—this time in the form of the abolition of national insurance. Perhaps the Minister will explain to us in this debate, because the Prime Minister could not—he repeatedly failed to answer the question at Prime Minister’s questions today—what the Tory Government will cut to find the £46 billion needed every year for their new policy, or whether they plan to extend their tax-raising record by piling further costs on to Welsh working people.
Not only have the tired Tory Government lost any semblance of economic competence—driving down business confidence—but they have lost their moral compass. Over the last few days, my constituents Colin and Janet Smith have been sharing with the media the story of their decades-long fight for justice for their son, Colin, who tragically died aged seven, having contracted AIDS and hepatitis C from contaminated blood administered by the NHS. For years after his death they faced bullying, abuse and the loss of employment, due to the stigma surrounding his illnesses. I know the family very well, and the absolute tragedy of what he was put through. Members of the House will know that the Smith family’s story is not unique. They have campaigned tirelessly alongside so many others for the truth and for just compensation, so I would like the Minister to tell us why, despite the final recommendations on compensation having been delivered to Ministers by Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the inquiry, more than a year ago, when he said the Government could get on with making the compensation payments, there is not a single word about it in the spring Budget. I think that is an absolute disgrace.
Welsh steelworkers are right to feel betrayed by a Government willing to countenance 3,000 redundancies across south Wales while our European steelmaking competitors make historic investments in green steel. The almost-overnight end to our virgin-steelmaking capability in Port Talbot is not an inevitability. Rather than relying on imports from across the world, exposing us to the same global risks that precipitated the energy crisis, Ministers must revisit the multi-union plan, described by Tata itself as credible, to work with our steelworkers towards a just transition to the greener future for steel that we all want.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned, a Labour Government in Westminster would invest £3 billion in green steel within the first term, protecting livelihoods and the future of our sovereign British steel manufacture, which is vital for our plan to make Britain a clean energy superpower by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar and quadrupling offshore wind.
It is not too late for the Government to change direction on this, and it would be particularly important for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, with the Llanwern steelworks in Newport. It would not be the first time a Conservative press release has sounded suspiciously familiar to Labour colleagues. Whether it is the narrowing of the non-dom tax loophole or the half-hearted levy on oil and gas giants, the Prime Minister appears to be slowly realising that the path to a fairer, brighter future for Wales and Britain is through the progressive policies of a Welsh Labour Government working with a Labour Government in Westminster.
The consequential funding that will flow from a UK Labour Government to Welsh public services will be critical. Importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) mentioned the cost burden on local government too. Our public services face intense challenges, particularly in the context of the value of the Welsh Government’s budget having dropped by £1.3 billion in real terms as a result of the Tories’ economic mismanagement.
Some progress was to be welcomed from the spring Budget. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get a move on with the new nuclear site at Wylfa. The purchase of the site is therefore good news, but we are still nowhere near seeing the prospect of clean energy and thousands of good jobs returning to Anglesey. Had they not dithered for five years, we could have seen the plant 50% complete, with up to 8,500 construction jobs under way, around 900 permanent jobs to follow and £400 million for the local economy in wages.
What we saw in the spring Budget was a Conservative Government without a proper plan to grow the economy, without an industrial strategy to match the ambition of our talented Welsh workforce and without the appetite for investment in a greener Wales. Those will only be achieved with a UK Labour Government working with a Welsh Labour Government and a Secretary of State for Wales who stands up for Welsh interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Fay Jones)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this debate? I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part. I hope the hon. Lady knows that I have great affection for her. We have been on opposite sides of many a Bill Committee over the last few years, and while we have often disagreed, we have always had fun doing so. It is a pleasure to respond to her debate. I very much enjoyed her speech and will refer to it throughout my contribution, but my favourite bit was the love letter to Labour women standing in marginal seats across Wales, which I thought was charming, if transparent. I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate, who all happen to be women—
Fay Jones
Indeed. It shows what Welsh women can do when we get together.
Turning to the matter at hand, it is absolutely clear that the Conservative Government have a plan to deliver the long-term change that our country needs and that that plan is working. We have seen yet again today that inflation has fallen by over half its recent peak. The cost of living pressure is easing, and economic growth is more resilient than previously suggested. Debt is also forecast to fall. But the recovery is not over yet, and it is at risk from other political parties that do not have a plan for the economy and are instead making unfunded promises that will take us back to square one.
With the economy now turning a corner, the Chancellor has been able to make further tax cuts responsibly to boost growth across Wales and the UK by ensuring that working people keep more of their hard-earned money. Thanks to announcements made in both the autumn statement and the spring Budget, we have seen national insurance cuts benefit 1.2 million workers in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the Minister accept that while national insurance cuts help all working people, they give a lot of money to the better off and are therefore a very blunt, not at all targeted way of helping people?
Fay Jones
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I do not agree. I point her to the fact that at the end of 2010, a worker earning a wage of £15,000 was paying around £1,700 in taxation. Today—after 14 years of a Conservative Government—that amount is around £500. That shows that the Conservative party will deliver for working people.
Thanks to announcements made at the autumn statement and the spring Budget, we have seen national insurance cuts of about £701. Further tax cuts have been announced, included the freezing of fuel duty for yet another year, further easing cost of living pressures and saving the average car owner about £50 over a year. I believe that that is the 14th time since the Conservatives came to power in 2010 that we have frozen fuel duty. Alcohol duty has also been frozen once again to support Wales’s crucial hospitality industry. There was great news for Welsh SMEs, with the UK Government raising the VAT registration threshold to £90,000, building on last year’s autumn statement announcement that the UK Government are backing Welsh business through the British Business Bank’s £130 million investment fund for Wales.
I have listened to a lengthy list of complaints about the Conservative Government, but I remind Labour Members that while we are backing Welsh businesses, their own Government—their own colleagues in Cardiff Bay—have slashed business rates relief from 75% to 40%, meaning that hospitality businesses in Wales will pay thousands more in comparison to their colleagues in England.
The spring Budget also outlined the UK Government’s commitment to securing a diverse energy system with Wales at its heart, through the decision to purchase the Wylfa Newydd site on Ynys Môn. I welcome the shadow Minister’s rather muted celebration of that announcement. New nuclear developments have the potential to transform the north Wales economy, creating thousands of jobs while contributing to our net zero and energy security ambitions. Beyond nuclear, the renewable energy sector is also flourishing in Wales. The Government are supporting floating offshore wind by securing a long-term pipeline of projects in the Celtic sea and unlocking port infrastructure investment through the £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment system. The Chancellor has also announced that the Crown Estate will bring forward an additional 12 GW of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea in the 2030s.
The Budget was also a great moment for the creative industries—a sector that is hugely important to Wales’s economy. I am mindful of how many Members represent south Wales, so I am surprised this was not mentioned. Cardiff is now one of the UK’s largest media productions centres outside London. I was thrilled to see that the UK Government continue to back the creative sectors in Wales, with £500 million of new tax reliefs for the UK industry, as well as—a cause close to my own heart —a further £5 million for the agrifood industry in mid and north Wales, supporting research and development in our rural heartlands and helping to develop a more sustainable future for our vital agriculture sector. Again, this stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Welsh Labour Government, who have cut the rural affairs budget.
Fay Jones
I will not.
Indeed, this Government are working hard to ensure that Wales’s sector strengths are empowered to move to the next level. That is why we confirmed at the autumn statement that there will be two investment zones in Wales: one located across Cardiff and Newport—again, a surprising omission from the speeches of the hon. Members for Newport West and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) ; and a second zone located across Wrexham and Flintshire. The Chancellor confirmed at spring Budget that the programme has been extended in Wales from five to 10 years, with each receiving £160 million in funding over this period. This will supercharge key sectors across both locations, creating jobs delivering growth and prosperity across Wales.
A determination to create new jobs has also been spearheaded by Wales’s freeports programme, and here —the hon. Member for Newport West will be surprised to hear me say this—I will praise the Welsh Government for working hand in hand with the UK Government. The freeports programme was further supported once again at this Budget by the Chancellor when he announced that there would be an extension in tax relief from five years to 10 years, providing greater certainty to businesses looking to invest, delivering growth and jobs, and levelling up the economy.
The Chancellor’s spring Budget has provided Wales with substantial additional funding, as I think was mentioned by a number of hon. Members this afternoon. Back in 2021, a record-breaking £18 billion block grant was secured at the spending review. This year’s Budget announced almost £170 million of additional funding through the Barnett formula for 2024-25. That is on top of the £820 million already provided to the Welsh Government since that record-breaking grant in 2021—blowing away Labour’s and Plaid Cymru’s argument that Wales has been underfunded. This is almost an extra £1 billion in additional funding for the Welsh Government. On top of this record funding, the Prime Minister recently announced £60 million for apprenticeships in England. That will result in yet more money for the Welsh Government.
Despite the negativity of Members opposite, there is no doubt that the Welsh Government are adequately funded to deliver on their responsibilities. It is a question of priorities. While the Conservative Government are pouring billions of pounds into Wales and turbocharging the Welsh economy, it is the decisions of the Welsh Labour Government, propped up by Plaid Cymru, that are undercutting Welsh public services.
I was disappointed by the negative and miserable tone taken by Opposition Members during the debate in relation to levelling-up funding in Wales and was surprised to see them criticise the record amounts of funding received in their own local authorities. An announcement at the Budget added to our commitment of long-term regeneration and growth in Wales. I am thrilled that Rhyl is the latest of five Welsh towns to benefit from £20 million as part of the long-term plan for towns.
Liz Saville Roberts
Who will be responsible if public money is not spent on levelling up because it was provided late to Welsh local authorities by the UK Government?
Fay Jones
I can assure the right hon. Member that her local council, Gwynedd County Council, will be responsible for the almost £19 million that was received from levelling-up round 2, so there is great accountability there. Local authority leaders across Wales are delighted by the extra support that the UK Government are giving them, which amounts to £440 million over the three levelling-up fund rounds. From the Muni Arts Centre in Pontypridd to Old College on Aberystwyth’s seafront, and from Porthcawl pavilion to the Pontcysyllte aqueduct—I have lived in Wales all my life and I can never say that. [Interruption.] I will work on that one. There are new developments, too, from a new leisure centre in Caerphilly to the development of Cardiff Crossrail, and walkways and cycle paths in the Vale of Neath. Our places across Wales are changing for the better. That work is all building on the foundation being laid across our regions by Wales’s city and growth deals, with £790 million invested in all four of our regional economies. The UK Government back the Welsh economy and deliver on the needs of the people, businesses and communities in Wales.
During this afternoon’s debate, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Newport East—and the hon. Member for Newport West, who led the debate, challenged me a number of times on an unfunded tax cut, which I heard mentioned many times at Prime Minister’s questions this morning. I understand that the Labour party’s new argument is that the UK Government have promised to abolish national insurance. I am curious as to where that has come from. No such promise has ever been made and no policy has ever been announced. I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) make that claim earlier and I would be worried that he could be accused of misleading the House—something I know he would never do. That is Labour’s smokescreen: covering up for that fact that Labour has no plan. The long and the short of it is that this Government have an excellent record to show for themselves in Wales and the spring Budget only boosts it further.
Ruth Jones
It is good to be able to wind up and to have a little time before Divisions. I thank hon. Members who are here today. It is interesting that this is a women’s debate—obviously women get things done, so that is fine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who is the shadow Minister. It is great that they are all here to support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her interventions.
It was great to have the Minister in her place. I would just like to be able to live in her world, because it seems to be a parallel universe to the one we are living in in Wales. When we knock on doors every week and ask whether people feel better or worse off, the most emphatic answer is, “We are much worse off than we were even a year ago.” That is something she needs to take back to her Government because we are here again—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East reminded me, we did this a year ago—and not only have things not got better; they have got worse in Wales. We need to be clear on that.
On my questions about the prepayment meters, supermarkets and other things, it would be really helpful if the Minister could write to me.
Fay Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right to point out that I was remiss in not responding to that point and I will certainly write to her. If I may, I also neglected to respond to the shadow Minister when she raised the matter of her courageous constituents Mr and Mrs Smith, who have been vocal in campaigning for their son. I reiterate that the Government will publish the findings of the inquiry later this month and I will work with the hon. Lady to make sure her constituents get the answers they need.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for clarifying.
Ruth Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East says, the Minister does not have to wait; she can get on with it now.
The smoke and mirrors in the Budget were quite clear. The Welsh people are paying more and getting less. All I would say in conclusion is: bring on a general election and let us show what a difference we can make.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on the Welsh economy.
Antimicrobial Resistance
(9 months 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I call Will Quince to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered antimicrobial resistance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Until November last year, I had the privilege of serving as Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who I am pleased to see here in Westminster Hall today. If I may say so, Mr Dowd, it was a pleasure to work alongside her.
My hon. Friend will know that the DHSC is a Department where, despite one’s best efforts, one spends a considerable amount of time firefighting and dealing reactively with issues. During my time in the DHSC, many pressing issues concerned me, some of which remain today, but one in particular scared me.
If I told the House that there was an issue that was so serious that it is a top World Health Organisation global health threat, that it sits on the UK’s national risk register and that it costs the NHS around £180 million a year, would we be surprised if I also said that most people were not aware of it? What about if I said that globally there were 4.95 million deaths associated with this issue and that 1.27 million of those deaths were directly attributed to it? What if I said that one in five of all those deaths were of children under the age of five? Or how about if I said that deaths in the UK related to this issue are estimated to stand at 12,000 per year, which is the equivalent of deaths from breast cancer? What if I told the House that 10 million people—I repeat that figure; 10 million—are predicted to die globally each year by 2050 because of this issue if urgent measures are not taken?
This debate is about antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. If we walked out into Parliament Square now and asked 100 people at random what “AMR” is, I wonder how many of them would know. For the reasons that I have just set out, we should be aware of AMR and concerned about it. We should be pushing our Government, Governments globally and the World Health Organisation to do more to highlight this top global health threat and to take steps to address it.
AMR occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial medicines. As a result of drug resistance, antibiotics and other antimicrobial medicines become ineffective and infections become difficult or indeed impossible to treat, therefore increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, disability and—sadly—death. Although resistance is a natural phenomenon and not just a health issue, from a human healthcare perspective it is accelerated by inappropriate use of antimicrobial drugs, poor infection prevention and control practices, a lack of development of new antimicrobial drugs and insufficient global surveillance of infection rates.
As I have said, the World Health Organisation has declared AMR to be one of the top 10 global health threats, and it is also listed on the UK Government’s national risk register. In 2019, there were 4.95 million deaths associated with bacterial AMR across 204 countries, and 1.27 million of those were directly attributable, leading the WHO to declare it a top public health threat.
The OECD has found that one in five infections—I repeat: one in five infections—is now resistant to antibiotics, with the potential for that rate to double by 2035. In 2021, there were 53,985 serious antibiotic-resistant infections in England, which represented a rise of 2.2% from 2020. If left unchecked, resistance to third-line antimicrobials—the last-resort drugs for difficult-to-treat infections—could be 2.1 times higher by 2035. That means that health systems will be closer to running out of options to treat patients suffering from a range of illnesses such as pneumonia and bloodstream infections. Despite that—this is the really concerning part—no new class of antibiotics has been developed since the 1980s. Preserving and optimising our current antimicrobial arsenal is therefore not just urgent but paramount.
The consequences of AMR are huge. For urinary tract infections caused by E. coli, one in five cases exhibited reduced susceptibility to standard antibiotics. That is making it harder to effectively treat common infections. AMR also presents a threat to malaria control. Antimicrobial resistance is putting the gains of modern medicine at risk, because it makes surgical and medical procedures that are a normalised part of everyday life—such as caesarean sections, cancer chemotherapy and hip replacements—far more risky.
In addition to causing death and disability, AMR has significant economic costs. AMR creates the need for more expensive and intensive care, affects the productivity of patients or their caregivers through prolonged hospital stays and—I appreciate that this is a side issue—harms agricultural productivity. The World Bank estimates that AMR could result in $1 trillion of additional healthcare costs by 2050 and $1 trillion to $3.4 trillion of GDP losses per year by 2030.
Considering the huge risk that AMR poses to health security across the world, I do not believe that enough is being done globally to combat the current inevitability. Let me start by praising the UK Government for their action in this space, in particular the AMR five-year national action plan, or NAP, to contain and control AMR by 2040, which the NHS long-term plan details commitments to implement. I look forward to the update beyond 2024, which this period goes up to.
I could focus the rest of this speech on what more the UK could and arguably should be doing. We do need to see more on robust monitoring and surveillance. We need a significant public awareness campaign, greater investment in diagnostics, monitoring and screening—particularly in relation to rapid point-of-care testing—at local system level and, vitally, greater focus on infection prevention and management. However, I want to spend the rest of the time available to me focusing on international efforts and the role that the UK can play.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this very important matter to the Chamber. Before he moves to the international lens, will he reflect on the contribution that bacteriophages can make? Those are the subject of a report from the Select Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology. In effect, they are viruses that eat bacteria. In the UK at the moment, there is no approved manufacturing plant and therefore it is impossible to license phages for clinical use. A facility in Leamington Spa that was used as a Lighthouse lab could be repurposed for that. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government might find that a useful way to address the very significant problem that he describes?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; it was not something that I was aware of. Given the gravity and seriousness of the situation that we face not just here in the United Kingdom but globally, I think that we need to look at all potential tools in the arsenal to tackle this issue, so I hope that the Minister has heard the case that my right hon. Friend has made very powerfully, and I would be happy to meet with him afterwards to find out more about it, because it sounds incredibly interesting.
My right hon. Friend is right—although I want to focus for some time on the international effort—the battle is not won here in the UK, we have far more to do, and the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have important roles to play. I know from first-hand experience, including when representing His Majesty’s Government at the World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly when I was Minister of State, the global leadership that the UK shows through the World Health Organisation, especially in partnership with Sweden. During my time, I was proud to be able to announce an investment of £39 million into research through the global AMR innovation fund to help to tackle what is a silent pandemic. I understand that £24 million of that has been awarded to bolster the UK’s partnership with CARB-X, which is a global AMR research initiative that supports the continued early development of invaluable new antibiotics, vaccines, rapid diagnostics and new products that combat life-threatening, drug-resistant infections, as well as prevent death and disease across the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward. The issue has been in my mind for some time, and I have a number of questions about antibiotic use, which, as I understand from the stats and from questions to the Department and Ministers, has been increasing greatly. Does the hon. Member agree that during covid a standard was set whereby many GPs and out-of-hours practices had to prescribe antibiotics without seeing patients? We need to return to the prescription of antibiotics after an examination that determines whether they are absolutely necessary. We cannot keep on giving them out willy-nilly; we have to do it under strict control.
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; he is absolutely right that we need to readdress our approach to antibiotics. Yes, there is a role for clinicians in that. A 10-minute slot is not a lot of time to diagnose. Lots of people will go to see their doctor and the first thing they will say is, “I have an infection; I need antibiotics.” That may not be the case, and we have to trust clinicians. The Government’s new Pharmacy First initiative, which pharmacists take seriously, has strict controls and surveillance around the use of antibiotics; the UK Government and the Department of Health and Social Care take that incredibly seriously.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to allude to the fact—and this is what worries me—that, in many countries around the world, antibiotics are available off the shelf, in the same way that paracetamol or ibuprofen are. I will not name the country, but I spoke to the Health Secretary of a particular country in Africa, who said that people routinely keep antibiotics in their medicine cupboard at home; if they feel unwell, they will take a few. That causes huge problems. We need an enormous awareness campaign and education piece around antibiotics, because their use may be harming us all in the medium to long term.
I also want to touch on the Government’s Newton fund, which has supported more than 70 research teams to conduct crucial research on strategic areas, including AMR. Through the brilliant Fleming Fund, the Government have invested £265 million to support countries around the globe to generate, share and use data on AMR. I am proud that that is the world’s single largest aid investment in AMR surveillance. I also must not fail to mention the role played by Dame Sally Davies, who is the UK’s special envoy on antimicrobial resistance. At the WHA and the UN General Assembly, I saw at first hand Dame Sally’s global leadership and how widely respected she is on the world stage on this issue. We are very lucky to have her.
Internationally, there is movement. I welcome the landmark 2015 WHO global action plan on AMR, which was followed in 2016 by the historic UN declaration on AMR and, more recently, the one health global leaders group on AMR, founded just a handful of years ago to provide leadership and maintain political momentum on the issue. But I believe the issue is so serious that more urgent and immediate action needs to be taken. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we know there are countries where antibiotics are routinely kept in cupboards and medicine drawers at home and taken when people feel unwell. We know there are countries where antibiotics can be purchased over the counter or online without seeing a doctor or physician. My question to the Minister is what action could and should we be taking?
I think we need a significant domestic and international awareness and understanding campaign on AMR. We need the Governments in our respective nations to understand the risks of failure. We need the public to understand the impact on them and their families, and the urgency of the situation: we want them to be the ones calling for action. We need to do more to promote appropriate and adequate global surveillance for AMR to detect and strengthen our knowledge and evidential base. Incidentally, doing that will also help with identifying potential future pandemics, so there is a dual benefit.
We need to work towards an international agreement on common evidence-based goals, and support other countries to deliver against them. We have to use our official development assistance—our overseas aid budget —to help reduce the incidence of infection through effective sanitation, hygiene and infection prevention measures. To the best of our ability, we need to use the UK’s political positions on international platforms and our soft power, including our ODA spend, and of course the formidable Dame Sally Davies and our UK expertise, to continue to provide global leadership on AMR. I hope the Minister will commit to supporting and continuing to fund the work of the World Health Organisation on AMR.
I hope that in the short time available to me—I appreciate that it was shorter because I was racing to get here in time following the votes—I have been able to set out why antimicrobial resistance is the issue that concerned me most when I was Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care and why it continues to concern me on my glide path out of politics. I genuinely think it should greatly concern us all. I hope the Minister and future Ministers will continue to keep the issue front of mind and treat tackling it with the urgency and seriousness it deserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for securing today’s debate, for his contribution to the Department of Health and Social Care during his tenure as a Minister and, in particular, for his work on this issue.
This is a pivotal year for confronting antimicrobial resistance, because the emergence of resistant infections is relentless and, as my hon. Friend eloquently described, the pipeline for new antibiotics is running dry. The evidence is stark, not just domestically but globally: more than 1 million people die every year from infections that have become resistant to treatment. To put that number in context, that exceeds the number of people who die from HIV or malaria.
AMR is sometimes described as an ignored pandemic, but if we do not act, the cost of treating resistant infections could compare to having a pandemic such as covid-19 every five years. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that, if we were to walk outside this place, many of the people we talked to would not understand what AMR is or appreciate the consequences of not dealing with it domestically or internationally. That is why we are committed to addressing antimicrobial resistance.
My hon. Friend is also right that in 2019 we published our vision for antimicrobial resistance to be contained and controlled by 2040, and that date looms ever closer. That vision recognises that it is a complex problem. There are three tiers to the way we are tackling it. First, we must lower the burden of infection in humans and—my hon. Friend touched on this slightly—in animals: if you do not get the bug, you will not need the drug.
Secondly, we must use antimicrobials only when they are absolutely needed, and we should use them correctly. That is also true for both people and animals, as I will touch on in a moment. Thirdly, we must develop new antibiotics or new technologies to treat these infections so that we have more tools in our armoury as resistance emerges.
We can all play our part. I make a public health plea to everyone: we all have a responsibility to finish courses of antibiotics prescribed to us—often, we do not finish our course, because we feel better and think there is no need to take the rest of it, but that is a key way of developing resistance—and not to self-medicate after keeping the strip, which is equally harmful. There are bad practices in other countries, but we all have a responsibility to take our antibiotics as prescribed, and not to self-medicate, should we have some antibiotics looming in our cupboards.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for securing the debate. On a brilliant Radio 4 documentary called “Swimming in Superbugs”, Dr Anne Leonard of the University of Exeter Medical School talked about her Beach Bums project and said that people who use the sea are three times more likely to have antibiotic bacteria in their gut. Does the Minister agree that we should not import human sewage sludge to spread on farmland, given that we think traces of antibiotic resistance material might have ended up in the sea?
Maria Caulfield
That goes back to my first pillar of reducing and preventing infections in the first place. We need to do that domestically, but internationally we are also doing huge amounts of work in that space to improve water sanitation. With animal health, too, we have done a huge amount of work, in particular on antibiotic use in food. Among animals used in food production, the UK has reduced by 59% the amount of antibiotics going into the food chain, which has a knock-on effect.
We are also investing in innovation and capitalising on our world-leading science, including phage therapy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) pointed out. I had not heard about the Leamington Spa facility, and I am interested to catch up with him after the debate to see what more can be done. The National Institute for Health and Care Research is investing almost £90 million in that type of research, so if there is potential to develop that further, we are always keen to hear it. Our plan is cross-sectional, a one health approach, recognising the links between the health of humans, animals and the environment, and the spread of resistance between them.
We have a national action plan, which is not limited to activity in the UK. We all know that infections do not respect borders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, we are therefore working internationally and taking a lead in many elements of that across the global community, with our UK special envoy on antimicrobial resistance, Dame Sally Davies, spearheading some of the effort. On updating my hon. Friend on the action plan post 2024, we are working it up as we speak and hope to make an announcement soon. There is an ongoing piece of work to drive forward some of the changes across the three sectors.
We are doing our bit here and are leading internationally, but my hon. Friend also touched on what is happening in other countries. Low and middle-income countries have to be part of the change so that we can safeguard ourselves against antimicrobial resistance.
Jim Shannon
One of the groups that I speak to reminded me to mention—I quote—
“the need for Group B Strep screening in pregnant women during labour instead of using antibiotics for all routinely.”
The Minister is interested in that subject and has an opinion on it. Does she agree that this is a chance to raise awareness of that particular issue?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will touch on how much more we can do with screening to prevent some infections. This cannot just be about developing new antibiotics; it is about preventing infections and screening for them in a range of scenarios.
To touch on some of the high prevalence internationally, 89% of all antimicrobial resistance deaths occur in Africa and Asia, so we have responsibility to ensure that we help out in those countries that struggle most with the issue. We must continue to ensure that people around the world have access to the antibiotics they need, which is why the £40 million in innovative research through the global AMR innovation fund that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester mentioned is so crucial. It enabled the development of a new antibiotic for drug-resistant gonorrhoea, the first in 30 years.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) touched on the role of water, which requires an international effort. Sanitation is often a leading cause of infection in other countries. That is why we are working hard with other countries and the WHO to improve water sanitation and hygiene to reduce infections occurring in the first place.
In 2022, we made a further £210 million commitment for the second phase of the Fleming Fund to strengthen our surveillance systems. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it is not just about treatment, but about picking up infections and trends and trying to prevent them in the first place. The Fleming Fund is having an impact. Since 2015, over 240 laboratories have been upgraded with state-of-the-art equipment, training and new systems, and over 75 national action plans on AMR have been developed in Africa and Asia to try to get the death toll from antibiotic resistance down. The Fleming Fund leverages UK expertise, with over 3,000 healthcare workers being trained in antimicrobial surveillance principles through a partnership with the NHS.
Looking ahead, we recognise the risks. We are not being complacent either domestically or internationally. Through the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, we have put some good building blocks in place, but we need to look to the future. Our next five-year antimicrobial resistance national action plan will be published later this year.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the Minister for what she said about phages. She knows that UK science is world-leading, especially in this area. In Imperial College alone, there are 180 researchers working on AMR. One such researcher, Professor Jonathan Cook, has noted the real benefits of point-of-care testing and the fact that other countries, including the Netherlands, have managed to make a big impact. Can the Minister say whether we have plans to accelerate the availability of such testing in this country?
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will take away and follow up on. There are some really good examples in primary care where some testing is done. Primary care nurses particularly will do point-of-care testing to see whether someone’s infection will be sensitive to antibiotics or not. I believe there is more we can do in that space, both in primary and secondary care, so I am happy to write to him about how we can roll that out nationally. Importantly, that testing helps to maintain patients’ expectations. I cannot remember who, but someone said that people go along to GPs and expect to be given antibiotics. Point-of-care testing will be able to reassure them that they either do or do not need antibiotics and tell them which type is best suited to their type of infection. That is crucial.
Our plan will set out an ambitious programme of work, learning from covid-19 in testing, surveillance and treatment to prepare for infections of the future. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that we will continue to collaborate internationally with organisations such as the WHO and use our soft power to help to support in particular African and Asian nations, which are suffering greatly from the mortality of antimicrobial resistance. This is a hidden pandemic that will have consequences for us all if we do not deal with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Dentistry: Access for Cancer Patients
(9 months 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
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to dentistry for cancer patients.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I want to start this debate, which I am delighted to have secured, by paying tribute to my constituent Michele Solak-Edwards, who is here to listen to the proceedings. Her phenomenal campaigning on these issues is the reason that we are all here.
Back in 2016, after a routine health assessment, Michele found out that she had triple negative breast cancer—a devastating diagnosis, followed by nine months of gruelling chemotherapy. Among the many, many challenges that Michele faced in that time was a deterioration in her dental health. That is a common yet rarely discussed side effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Unlike other physical side effects of cancer treatment, which may be medicated with the free prescriptions that cancer patients are entitled to, any side effects requiring dental treatment must be paid for. As we all know, the costs of dental treatment, even if someone is lucky enough to be registered with an NHS dentist, can be overwhelming. For Michele, the significant costs of her dental treatment had to be paid for at a time when, like many other cancer patients, she was unable to work because of her condition.
When Michele was going through one of the most difficult experiences a person can face, she found that accessing affordable dentistry was yet another obstacle for her and others in her position to overcome. So like all great campaigners, she took action to make a difference. She set up an online petition calling for better access to dentistry for cancer patients and for dental care to be free for cancer patients for five years from diagnosis, or until the end of life, if the diagnosis is terminal. This is crucial, given that dental issues do not always become apparent straight away at the outset of cancer treatment, and the issues caused can take a number of years, in some cases, to present themselves.
Within weeks, Michele had more than 130,000 signatures on the petition, with support from dentists, surgeons and oncologists. The petition now has the backing of almost 200,000 people, many of whom are cancer survivors. It is a privilege to be able to highlight its importance to the Minister today. Why is it important? Primarily, because there is an indisputable link between cancer and dental health issues. As the National Cancer Institute said, chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cause dental side effects, with both therapies altering the balance of bacteria in the mouth, leading to ulcers, tooth decay and potentially serious infection.
The link between cancer and dental health does not end there, because existing dental problems can worsen during cancer treatment, which can then impact the effectiveness of treatment or lead to it being delayed. That is why it is widely recommended, including by the British Dental Association, that a dental health assessment should take place after a cancer diagnosis and before the start of treatment.
While the link between cancer and dental health is clear, the pathway from a cancer diagnosis to dental health treatment is often blocked. The biggest issue is the crisis in accessing affordable dentistry. This challenge is not unique to cancer patients, with one in four of Britain’s adult population unable to see an NHS dentist in 2022. In my and Michele’s local authority area of Trafford, only 4% of dental practices are accepting new adult patients on the NHS, and that is by no means a low number, based on current availability. What this means for most people is the choice of going private or going without. When the costs of private dentistry are so high, that is not really a choice at all for many, especially for those on lower incomes.
Even if someone is lucky enough to access NHS treatment, costs can still be sky high, with the price of dental charges increasing by 45% over the past decade. I am not attempting to be party political, but I am suggesting that there is a link between being a cancer patient and being on a lower income because, as I mentioned, many do need to give up work. Macmillan Cancer Support estimates that a cancer diagnosis leads to a person being around £570 a month worse off, with 33% of patients having to give up work because of their condition. Cancer patients are more likely to be priced out of the dental treatment they need, and in cases where dental treatment is required before cancer treatment can begin or continue, that can have potentially life-changing consequences. Every day lost risks lives.
Let us look at some specific examples, such as the case of one of Michele’s campaign supporters, Kelly. Kelly is waiting to start bisphosphonate treatment, which is needed to strengthen bones that are at risk of breaking due to cancer. To start that vital treatment, she must undergo important dental work, which is proving impossible as she cannot see a dentist. The fact that a person’s cancer treatment can be delayed, impacting their life quality or even survival chances because they cannot access dental care is clearly unacceptable.
I know that the Minister understands the crisis in accessing dentistry and I am aware of the Government’s recently published dental recovery plan, which aims to address that. However, the British Dental Association has said that the plan fails to embrace the fundamental reform that patients and dentists so desperately need, with no new money provided and inadequate measures to tackle the workforce retention crisis. If we are ever to achieve the goals of Michele’s campaign, we must get that right, because the speedy provision of dental care for cancer patients would be significantly undermined if, in practice, many cancer patients were still unable to see an NHS dentist due to an unaddressed workforce crisis.
While addressing the crisis in NHS dentistry and the affordability of dental care is not something that can be achieved overnight, there are more immediate things that could be done to improve the pathway from cancer diagnosis to dental treatment. Currently, there is no guarantee that cancer patients will be informed by their doctor that they should seek a dental check-up before undergoing cancer treatment. That is despite guidance from the NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service, the Royal College of Surgeons, the BDA and the British Society of Special Care Dentistry stating the importance of patients being dentally fit before starting cancer treatment.
Michele’s campaign therefore calls on the NHS to provide information to all newly diagnosed cancer patients, telling them of the need to seek dental assistance prior to their cancer treatments commencing. That does happen in many places, but we want to see it enshrined in law. That information could be provided by GPs and would include a list of dental practices in each area that could treat the cancer patient on the NHS.
I would also like to share the experience of Hayley from Reading. Hayley is another supporter of Michele’s campaign, and her stories sum up the issues that I have tried to raise today. When she was 21, Hayley had chemotherapy and radiotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The radiotherapy caused severe dental issues. Now aged 44, Hayley has breast cancer and has had to remortgage her house to spend £11,000 on removing the remaining six teeth in her lower jaw and replacing them with implants. At no stage has Hayley been able to access NHS dentistry. Experiences such as that are why this campaign is so important. No one wants a situation where cancer patients are losing out on the healthcare they need because they cannot afford or access it.
We must act on this underappreciated crisis. I therefore encourage the Minister to address in her response the asks of Michele’s campaign, including not only the long-term aim of free dental care for cancer patients, but, in the short to medium term, the possibility of prioritising cancer patients for NHS dentistry and ensuring that there is clear guidance on the need for cancer patients to receive dental care provided at the first point of contact with their GP or cancer team. I am particularly interested to know what consideration the Minister could give to joining cancer and dentistry services together for cancer patients, offering out-patient appointments for sufferers in hospital alongside their other treatment. That would seem a practical way of ensuring that people can access the care that they need.
I also invite the Minister to meet Michele and myself—as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), kindly did earlier today, and I know Michele was appreciative of that—so that we could discuss these issues in greater detail. She will appreciate that I have not been able to cover all aspects of this important issue. Likewise, I accept that there is an escalator of asks here, some with financial implications. Michele has a mine of further information on the subject, and I know that she would be keen to talk the Minister through some of her ideas for funding these changes.
Ultimately, we must all work together on improving access to dentistry for cancer patients. As I said, I do not consider this to be party political, but it is something that we must get right. It is the least we can do for people who are already facing one of life’s toughest challenges.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Since being elected to represent Tiverton and Honiton almost two years ago, one of the issues that has appeared most regularly in my inbox and mailbag is access to NHS dentistry. It is common across the country for someone to have difficulty accessing new NHS dentists if they are not already registered, but that is particularly difficult in some parts of the country, including in Devon, which is often regarded by many as a so-called “dental desert”.
In recent months, we have heard the Government suggest that a way to address the difficult shortages of dentists is to try to attract qualified dentists into an area regarded as a dental desert. For example, we have seen the proposal to pay one-off incentives to qualified dentists to move into a dental desert such as Devon, but the truth is that this is still very difficult. I appreciate that the new proposal has not come in yet, but given that it is a one-off incentive, there is still no long-term incentive for dentists to move into dental deserts. That is difficult for many of my constituents, but it is more deeply worrying for those who are living with cancer. This is not a hypothetical scenario; it is the experience for people in rural communities such as Devon where finding a new dentist is impossible.
I will recount a real-life story from one of my constituents who was caught in just that scenario. Robin Whatling lives in Tiverton and is aged just 55. He is struggling with advanced cancer. Because of the treatment and medication that he is on, his bones and teeth are weaker than they would otherwise be, which means that regular check-ups are more important for him.
Robin’s wife, Sharon, contacted me last December and told me how, after booking a check-up, he received an abrupt phone call just a few days before it was due to happen. He was informed that the practice was no longer treating NHS patients and that if he wanted to go ahead with his appointment, he would need to go private. That is clearly a massive issue for a couple like Robin and Sharon. Due to Robin’s vulnerable state, Sharon has had to go part-time to become his carer. That means that she is not able to work the hours that she used to, which would have possibly afforded her more money to pay for private healthcare treatment.
Instead, the couple pursued the idea of finding an NHS dentist. They were held on the phone for three hours before being cut off. In the end it all became too much, and Rob ended up removing one of the teeth that was causing him pain by himself at home. I do not need to tell the House that that is a shocking, appalling situation to have to contend with while suffering advanced cancer.
Despite years of working hard and paying into the system, this couple are now left adrift with no support or access to dental care. In some of the correspondence that Members receive, we have constituents who rage at us with anger, but this couple approached me with great modesty and humility. They absolutely were not seeking to score any sort of political point. They just wanted to let me know, in a very factual way, the experience of a rural couple contending with cancer and trying to find NHS dentistry on the state.
The British Dental Association has laid bare the facts. Oral cancer is one of the fastest-growing types of cancer and it is killing more people than car accidents every day. Dentists can play a key role in diagnosis and referral, and if oral cancer is diagnosed early, survival rates can be as high as 90% compared with just 50% if diagnosis takes place at a later date.
Let us say it as it is: NHS dentistry is in crisis. It is another example of the Government continuing to let people down and stand by as our vital services crumble. The NHS dental budget has been cut in real terms by £1 billion while the Conservatives have been in power. That is a shocking legacy of neglect. My constituents were not party political about this, but I am going to be: this Government have presided over the crumbling and decay of NHS dentistry, and have paid lip service to proposals to do bits and pieces that do not amount to contract reform. So I urge the Minister, for the sake of Rob, Sharon and everyone who is trapped in a situation like this, to take on board the urgency of the issue of NHS dental care for cancer patients and those who might become cancer patients.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing this important debate.
As someone who has lost family members and friends to cancer, I frequently come to this place to try to shine a light on the huge problems in our health service, which disproportionately impact people with cancer and their families. Dentistry is no exception. Like many colleagues, I have been contacted by constituents, in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale, because they are unable to find an NHS dentist. There are more than 100,000 people living in my constituency, but only seven dental surgeries, and at least three of those are not accepting any new adult patients. A constituent without a dentist contacted me and said: “I am desperate for an NHS dental repair. I now have an abscess in my jaw. Please help me”. That case is one of many. The response I received from NHS England advised my constituents to call 111 for any urgent care services and said that it is
“working to address the challenges facing the service right now”.
The challenges in our dental system are exacerbated for people in our communities living with cancer. The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce states that 90,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with one of the less survivable cancers every year, which is an average of nearly 250 every day. People with less survivable cancers are twice as likely as people with a more survivable cancer not to be diagnosed until symptoms are severe enough for them to go to hospital. I personally know that that is far too long. Some 80% of people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at stages 3 and 4.
People with cancer need fast and effective dental services in a system that recognises the difficulties they will face during their treatment. Dentists also play a huge part in detecting, diagnosing and managing oral cancers, which kill more than 3,000 people a year in the UK. Unlike the less survivable cancers, oral cancers have a survival rate of 90% when diagnosed early, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) said, so it is crucial that dentistry can be accessed quickly and treatment is free for those people.
Both those issues come down to one main problem: money. Over the past decade, dental charges have increased by 45%, and last year YouGov found that nearly a quarter of respondents to its survey in England about dentistry delayed or went without dental treatment because they just could not afford it.
There are hidden costs in cancer care, such as increasing energy bills and the cost of frequent travel to and from hospital, and the burden of rising dental costs is too great for people with cancer. Although I think that it is a great idea to introduce free dental treatment for all cancer patients, we need to think bigger. We must reform the NHS and make it fit for the future.
There are two huge problems facing our health service—a crisis in both cancer care and NHS dentistry—with waiting lists for both at record highs. As a nurse, it breaks my heart to say that the NHS has never been in a worse state. The last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest level of patient satisfaction in history, because we invested properly in our NHS. It is high time that we did so again.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing this very timely debate, and I also thank Michele for the wonderful campaign that she has been running on this issue. I declare an interest, as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health. Hopefully, that will remind the Minister that is a cross-party issue and that many of her party colleagues are concerned about it.
Dentistry is in crisis across the country, whether in Devon, Somerset or in constituencies such as mine—Bolton South East. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston has detailed the importance of free dental treatment for all cancer patients. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), who has just spoken, about the details of the effects of this crisis on cancer patients, which she knows because of her experience of being a nurse. I also listened to what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) said about his dealings with a constituent who had a cancer issue and who then had to take out his own teeth, which really is not acceptable in 21st-century Britain. I strongly support an exemption for people who are suffering from cancer and who therefore should be able to receive all the treatment that they need.
In fact, I was contacted by a constituent who had breast cancer. She told me how confused—indeed, how overwhelmed—she had felt. The last thing on her mind was dental health. However, a dental check-up should be essential for cancer patients; indeed, it should happen before anyone starts chemotherapy. Imagine the complications in treatment for someone with a suppressed immune system who is recovering from an infection. There are countless horror stories out there about the expensive dental work required by many cancer patients and they simply cannot afford it, especially given the cost of living crisis and the rising cost of bills.
I urge the Minister to get things done so that free dentistry is made available. The reality, however, is that even if the Minister made such a commitment today, as I am urging her to do, many people will not be able to access the service due to the ongoing crisis in NHS dentistry. For example, pregnant women and new mothers theoretically enjoy free NHS dentistry, but official data shows that over the last three years 1.2 million of them missed out on this entitlement because they were not able to access an NHS dentist.
It is crucial for all patients that this crisis is addressed urgently. The Minister will be aware that in 2021 about 2,000 dentists quit the NHS. In 2022, a BBC survey found that nine out of 10 of the dental practices still offering NHS services were not accepting any new adult patients, and eight in 10 were not taking on any more children, even though children are supposed to be a special category. Many of them have been left without access to basic healthcare, resulting in “dental deserts” across England. The problem is getting worse because many dentists are leaving the profession. For those who have stayed, morale has reached rock bottom.
What are the Government doing about this? They have been in power for 14 years. Recently, they introduced a so-called dental recovery plan, which many dentists have said is not even worthy of the title, because it will not stop the exodus from the workforce or offer hope to the millions who are struggling to access care. If the whole point of this plan was to stop dentistry becoming an issue, I am afraid the Government have failed. This is a crisis that will remain a burning issue in our communities across the country until we get real change. Constituents like mine in Bolton South East can see that NHS dentistry has been abandoned and left to rot by this Government. The system is not working. Many constituents write to me about trying to access NHS dentistry, and I have personally made phone calls trying to get them an appointment. It has been impossible to get an appointment until my office writes and persuades them to accept someone.
When the NHS dental recovery plan was introduced, the Health and Social Care Secretary assured the House of Commons that the plan was backed by £200 million in new funding. She very clearly said:
“There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 264.]
She reiterated that the £200 million was additional money. I was therefore very surprised to hear the Minister who is here today explain to the Health and Social Care Committee that the plan to deal with crises in NHS dentistry was not in fact backed by any additional investment. She stated that it was
“all coming out of the £3 billion that is currently”
being “underspent”.
I hope the Minister understands that these two statements contradict each other. On 20 March, I made a point of order in the Commons Chamber in which I raised this matter with the Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister to return to the House to correct the record. So far, she has not done so; I hope she will do it today.
Saving dentistry is not rocket science. We need an NHS contract that is actually fit for purpose, with funding that means practices can be sustainable. We need real reform now.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this debate today, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for bringing the debate to the Chamber, and I thank all Members who have spoken. It is really good to have their constituents’ input and thoughts on the issues they face. I especially thank Michele for the campaign she has been running, which is the reason why this debate is taking place today. It is incredibly important that these issues are aired, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are planning to do to improve the situation. It clearly cannot continue.
I want to talk a little about some of the things that we are doing in Scotland. Honestly, this sounds like the conversation I remember having 20 years ago in Scotland about being unable to get an NHS dentist. When I moved house in 2016 in Aberdeen, I had the choice of two different NHS dentists to go to. Everybody was like, “There’s no problem getting an NHS dentist now,” because of everything that has been put in place in Scotland to ensure that we can have those NHS dentists. More than 95% of the population in Scotland is registered with an NHS dentist and therefore able to get free dental check-ups.
Part of the increase in the amount of NHS dentists was the result of the creation of a new dental school in Aberdeen, specifically because we recognised the fact that Aberdeen was struggling with dentists. We created a new dental school there, which has had a significant impact on the numbers of dentists in Scotland. We also have various measures to ensure that dentists move to areas that are struggling to get any, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned. A £37,000 golden hello package is available for trainee dentists who are willing to move to areas that desperately need dentists. That is over the course of a three-year period of practice, so it is not like they get it all on one day—they have to be there for the three years to get the £37,000. There has also been a change in the amount of money that dentists get for the treatments they provide, to ensure that they are properly compensated, that they are able to do the treatments and that it is affordable for them to continue as an NHS dentist, rather than feeling obliged to go private.
Lastly, Brexit has had a significant impact on the NHS dental workforce and how it works. We are struggling with the loss of dentists because of Brexit. My husband was talking about his most recent dentists being Greek, Polish and Romanian, but the change in the relationship with the EU means that the situation is more difficult. People are less likely to want to stay in the UK as a dentist when they could stay in the country of their birth, closer to their homes, with people they feel might actually want them, rather than people who have voted for Brexit. The negative change there is causing a problem.
Specifically on cancer patients and the cancer strategy, in Scotland we have a 10-year strategy for cancer and it is a national priority for the Scottish Government. Everything done for cancer support is about having a person-centred outcome. A person-centred approach to support ensures personalisation, so that everyone gets a variety of the supports that they need, rather than a variety of the supports that exist or that happen to be—“You have this type of cancer so we will give you this.” Instead, it is very much a person-centred approach.
People undergoing cancer treatment could be eligible for free dental treatment and check-ups in a variety of ways. Some people on universal credit who meet income thresholds can get free treatment. For anyone who is an in-patient and treated by dentists in hospitals—which we have—that treatment is, again, free. A low-income health scheme is in place as well. Given the much wider availability of NHS dentists in Scotland, people are able to access such services and are much more likely to get free treatment, because of the increase in the numbers.
I did not want to talk for too long. This is not a concern that affects a significant number of my constituents, because they have access to dental services at this incredibly worrying time. They are able to get appointments, so it is one less thing for them to worry about when their lives are a complete and total rollercoaster. The Minister must ensure that we do everything we can for people who have had a cancer diagnosis and are going through treatment. Their lives have potentially changed dramatically overnight, and a lack of accessible and affordable dentistry services is one more thing that they do not need to be worrying about right now. They need to concentrate on getting through their treatment, on the support they are receiving, on ensuring that they can get well as quickly as possible, and on following doctors’ instructions and guidance. People do not need to be worrying about dentistry.
The Minister must do everything possible to ensure that personalised treatment is provided and that an increase in access to NHS dentists is in place. If there is not to be a widespread increase in access to NHS dentists across England in the near future, is there anything the Minister can do in the meantime to prioritise the treatment of cancer patients? They need to be able to access appropriate dental treatments that they can afford as soon as possible, until the NHS in England is in a position to offer dentistry services at a reasonable level and people can actually access treatments.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing the debate and for speaking so powerfully about how the dentistry access crisis affects cancer patients and survivors such as his constituent, Michele. I had the pleasure of meeting Michele with my hon. Friend earlier today, and it was eye-opening to hear the stories about what cancer patients and survivors face. I am delighted that Michele is here today. I thank her for all her campaigning and the support that she provides for those suffering pretty much what she had to go through.
I am afraid the state of NHS dentistry under this Government is Dickensian. Most of us might think that our teeth would be the least of our worries if we were diagnosed with cancer, and as we have heard, oral health is incredibly important. Many cancer patients, who previously had few or no dental issues, can experience the loss or crumbling of teeth, together with a host of other dental problems during or after treatment. Poor dental hygiene can lead to infections, which can interfere with a patient’s chemotherapy. Radiotherapy can cause acute complications for teeth and gums through tissue damage. In rare cases, extractions afterwards can result in bone necrosis, whereby the jawbone essentially dies.
It is therefore crucial that timely access to dentistry, including any required treatment and preventive advice, is provided before, during and after cancer therapy to maximise positive outcomes. The last thing that any cancer patient needs is to find that they cannot access a dentist when they need one. However, as the Minister knows, the current crisis in access to dentistry is shocking. After more than a decade of neglect, patients are desperately queueing round the block to see a dentist. Eight in 10 practices are not taking on new adult NHS patients and, as we have heard, one in 10 people have tried DIY dentistry. Some of the most vulnerable people in society, who need to get seen, are missing out.
I want to share with the Minister some of the stories that were shared with me before the debate. Michaela from Alresford said:
“I lost all my root canals and my teeth just started falling to bits on chemotherapy. I wasn’t able to see an NHS dentist and I couldn’t afford private. I’m awaiting treatment again for cancer (for the second time) and urgently need my teeth sorted before I have chemotherapy again, but I can’t get in to see a dentist.”
Carole from Shropshire said:
“I was with an NHS dentist but missed a check-up while going through chemo—was very ill. So got knocked off. I had problems when taking ibandronic tablets for bones, had to go for emergency treatment. NHS dentist in Shrewsbury 17 miles from home. This was two years ago—still not been able to register. Tried surrounding towns. I know I am not on my own. There are hundreds in the same situation as me.”
What does the Minister have to say to Carole and Michaela? Has the Department made any estimate of the impact of the access crisis on cancer patients and survivors?
As we heard today, according to research by Macmillan Cancer Support, four in five cancer patients are hit with an average cost of £570 a month as a result of their illness. If patients face oral health complications because of their treatment and they cannot be seen on the NHS, most will simply go without. A two-tier system, whereby those who can afford to go private and the rest go without, is obscene. How are the Government working to minimise the financial cost of cancer for patients and survivors? Those costs can knock back their health.
It was disappointing to hear from Michele that when she was diagnosed with breast cancer her doctor did not tell her about the impact her treatment could have on her oral health. I know the Minister accepts that such advice should be routine. The Department of Health and Social Care guidance for delivering better oral health states that cancer patients should receive appropriate care to manage and stabilise their oral health before treatment, but it appears that not all cancer patients are getting that support. I urge the Minister to address the matter and raise it when possible.
In my team, a parent of one of my staffers was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2020, but did not get his orthodontist appointment to have four teeth removed until a year after his treatment. Will the Minister comment on the fact that the latest estimates show that in February 2024 more than 325,000 patients were waiting for oral surgery in England? That is up by nearly 200,000 since 2015, almost a decade ago, which was the last time the NHS target was met. How many cancer patients’ treatments are delayed as a result?
There is also the dire issue of cancer diagnoses themselves. Oral cancer is now one of the fastest-growing types of cancer in the United Kingdom, with mortality rates up by 46% on a decade ago. It now kills more than 3,000 a year in the United Kingdom. But if diagnosed early, oral cancers have a survival rate of roughly 90%, compared with 50% if diagnosis is delayed. Given that dentists are often the first to spot the early signs of the disease, will the Minister say whether she has made any assessment of the contribution of the dentistry crisis to the appalling mortality figures?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said, the Health Secretary claimed in the Commons in February:
“There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 264.]
But that is not true. Notwithstanding the fact that £1 billion of that is covered by patient charges, not central Government, the Health Secretary also subsequently admitted that the money will come from existing budgets. So really it is only £200 million as part of the money that she might spend on NHS dentistry if the £400 million yearly underspend persists.
The Health Secretary also claimed:
“The Opposition’s ambitions reach only as far as 700,000 more appointments. Our plan will provide more than three times that number of appointments across the country—that is 2.5 million”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 255.]
But that is not true either, is it? It is not true because the Government’s scheme will run for only one year, while Labour’s plan would deliver both in the here and now and into the future. Perhaps the Health Secretary might correct the record on that, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston shared his thoughts on how joining up services in hospital for cancer patients could address access to dentistry for very high-risk patients. NHS dentistry is dying a slow death under this Government, and the people who rely on NHS care cannot wait another five years for a Tory Government to decide that, this time, they really mean it and they will reform NHS dentistry for good. Labour’s fully funded plans would provide 700,000 more urgent appointments a year, supervised tooth-brushing schemes in areas of deprivation, and a targeted recruitment scheme in left-behind areas, all paid for by cracking down on tax dodgers. We would get on with the reform to the NHS dental contract that this Government have put off for 14 years. Cancer patients, new mothers, those in rural communities and millions of others are being failed every year that we let the decay in NHS dentistry continue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on securing this really important debate on behalf of Michele and all the other petitioners. I would of course be delighted to meet Michele to hear her views, and I particularly take note of her call for all cancer patients to be advised of the potential impact of cancer treatment on their oral health. That is a really solid and actionable thing that I undertake to take away today. I look forward to meeting Michele and the hon. Gentleman in due course.
I wish to take this chance to pay tribute to the Mouth Cancer Foundation, the Oral Health Foundation and Dentaid, to name just a few of the excellent charities that provide support and advice to so many.
I thank all Members who have spoken in what has been an excellent debate. I say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) that I fully appreciate the challenges in Devon. He will no doubt welcome the fact that a mobile dental van, which will be quite a boost for very underserved and geographically distant areas, will be forthcoming for Devon in the near future. In addition, one of the real problems in Devon—this is not the hon. Gentleman’s fault at all—is that in his area on average only around 57% of commissioned units of dental activity are actually undertaken by dentists. I am sure he might like to talk to his local integrated care board about that, if I can help in any way, I would be delighted to.
As I will come on to talk about, our dental recovery plan attempts to incentivise further NHS dentists to really ramp up delivery. In fact, we have already seen hundreds of thousands of new dental treatments just since 1 March, when the plan went live. Unfortunately, the data is not publishable as yet, but I feel really optimistic. I totally understand what Members say about it being not good enough—I totally get that—but we are seeing rapid improvements and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to his local ICB.
Richard Foord
On the Minister’s point about only 57% of the units of dental activity being taken up in Devon, is that not a workforce issue?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
No. How it works is that the ICB commissions dentists to provide NHS dentistry, and the NHS contractor undertakes to fulfil a number of units of dental activity. If they do not do that, for whatever reason, at the end of the financial year the ICB claws back the money they gave the NHS dentist to fulfil that contract. I am not judging anything; I am merely giving the hon. Gentleman information that I hope is helpful to him.
Yasmin Qureshi
On that point, it is very much an issue of being able to survive: many dentists say they return the units because if they took on all the NHS appointments, they would not be able to survive financially.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I hear what the hon. Lady says. My own assessment is slightly different, but I obviously respect her view.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and I have worked together for many years on all matters to do with early years intervention. She made a really good point about less survivable cancers, but I would highlight to her the 160 diagnostic centres that are being opened, which will help with early detection. She also made some good points about the importance of good oral health assessments, and she is right to raise that. One thing I would point out to all hon. Members, which was astonishing to me when I came into this role in November, is that since 1948, when the NHS started, only between 40% and 50% of adults in England have ever received NHS dentistry. It is not like Scotland, where the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said the number is 90%—is that the right number?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Yes, 95% of people in Scotland receive NHS dentistry. In England, it is extremely different, and it always has been under Governments of all parties. I would just put that to hon. Members as a piece of information that it is really important to know.
To the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), I would highlight SMILE4LIFE, which is a big part of the dental recovery plan. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), also raised the SMILE4LIFE. It focuses on the earliest years, including getting pregnant mums to have their teeth checked, and on good oral health in babies and toddlers, so that by the time they go to school they are used to brushing their teeth twice a day. Good oral health is absolutely critical. In answer to the point raised by both the hon. Member for Bolton South East and the shadow spokesperson, I should say that the Secretary of State and I both made very clear and full responses to the Health and Social Care Committee on the issue of where funding for the dental recovery plan has come from.
Moving on to the things that I actually intended to say, I am absolutely aware that almost everyone in our country has been personally affected by cancer, whether themselves or through a friend or relative, and that includes members of my own family, so I really do understand the issue. Last year, just over 340,000 new cancer patients were diagnosed in England—almost 1,000 every single day or one every 90 seconds. We know that receiving a diagnosis can be terrifying, and we should never lose sight of what those patients and their families are going through. I am really glad that the petition has been brought forward to highlight the terrible disease of oral cancer and the impact on the oral health of those with other cancers.
Before I turn to cancer, I want to quickly outline the steps we have taken to improve access to dentistry across the country since publishing our recovery plan on 7 February. As colleagues will know, access has simply not recovered fast enough since the covid lockdowns, and the issue was my top priority on appointment to this role in November. I am really proud that the plan is creating around 2.5 million additional NHS appointments. We are supporting dentists through a new patient premium to take on patients who have not seen a dentist for two years. We are increasing the minimum value of a unit of dental activity to £28. We are helping patients to find a dentist through a new marketing campaign. We are bringing dental care to our more isolated communities through mobile dental plans and by encouraging dentists to work in underserved areas through golden hellos for 240 dentists. As I have mentioned, the SMILE4LIFE initiative is designed to get in early and help families to understand the importance of good oral hygiene.
Not only that, but we are also making progress to increase the workforce and, in fact, there were 1,352 more dentists doing NHS work in 2022-23 than in 2010-11. It is not the case that dentists are disappearing from the NHS; there are 1,350 more. As announced in the long-term workforce plan, we are going to increase dentistry training places by 40%, so that there are over 1,100 places by 2031-32. We are also increasing training places for dental therapists and hygienists to more than 500 a year by 2031-32. Importantly, we are exploring whether the prospects for a tie-in could ensure that dentists spend a greater proportion of their time delivering NHS dental care, rather than receiving that very expensive training and then perhaps going off to do private dentistry, which means fewer people have access to NHS dentists. It is great to see that, since we published the plan on 7 February, and it went live on 1 March, hundreds more dental practices are already opening their doors to new patients. I look forward to giving the House a full update on the recovery plan shortly, when I will be able to talk to colleagues about the significant increase in the number of patients able to access an NHS dentist.
In the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston’s own integrated care board in Greater Manchester, there is the second highest number of dentists doing NHS work in England. That is almost 71 dentists per 100,000, against a national average of 53.5. I understand that the ICB there is supporting a local initiative called the dental quality access scheme to improve access to NHS dentistry, which requires practices to commit to seeing new NHS patients and, importantly, to providing urgent care access. The practices have been asked to prioritise vulnerable patients and patients with serious conditions, including cancer. That is a fantastic scheme by the ICB, and I encourage other ICBs listening to this debate to follow suit. The scheme brought over 200,000 extra appointments for patients in the last financial year, which I am sure the hon. Member is delighted about.
Turning to the hon. Member’s specific points on charges, the Government responded to a petition on 9 November that requested
“Free Dental Treatment for All Cancer Patients”.
Our reply pointed out that, in 2022-23, 47% of all courses of treatment for NHS dental patients were delivered free of charge, and those who do pay for dentistry are providing an important contribution to NHS budgets. I am sure the hon. Member will know that dentistry charges have been in place almost since the foundation of the NHS 75 years ago. Also, as I have already pointed out, under Governments of every party only about 40% to 50% of adults have ever received NHS dental care.
Despite inflation and other spending pressures, we froze charges between December 2020 and April 2023 to help all our constituents with cost of living pressures, and since then we have raised the charges only proportionately. The hon. Member is right to say that cancer patients face additional financial burdens, and that is why the Government are committed to supporting every patient who faces financial hardship with full or partial exemptions from dental patient charges, which are available through the NHS low income scheme. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North pointed out in the case of Scotland, those also apply to people being treated in hospitals, and that will not change.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston will appreciate that, at a time when NHS budgets are under extreme pressure, it is not feasible to offer free dental care to every patient regardless of their means. We are instead focusing our efforts on continuing to ensure that the most vulnerable are supported to access NHS dentistry, including patients with cancer. In 2021, there were just over 9,100 oral cancers, which was equal to around 3% of all cancers. It is clear that cancer must be caught at the earliest opportunity to give people the best possible chance for recovery. Dentistry plays a crucial role because dentists check for signs of oral cancer in every routine check-up, and it is a contractual requirement for dentists to prioritise patients at a higher risk of oral cancer for more frequent recalls.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about prioritising dental appointments for cancer patients, I am aware of instances where patients have faced unacceptable delays to the start of their treatment because of a lack of dentistry appointments. I agree with all hon. Members that such delays are just unacceptable, and we are committed to making sure that everyone who needs a dentist should get one. That is why, along with the raft of measures we are introducing to improve access to NHS dentistry across the country, we are also publishing new guidance to make it crystal clear to every integrated care board that they have a responsibility to commission additional specific services in their local area when they identify problems such as cancer patients being unable to access timely treatment.
As soon as we published our dentistry recovery plan on 7 February, I turned my attention to seeking out the expertise and knowledge of dentists and their representative bodies to understand their perspectives on the need for dental contract reform. I am specifically looking now at what reforms would improve access to dentistry and encourage greater capacity, as well as how at we can consult the dental profession and prepare for further announcements later this year. I can assure hon. Members that, in every decision, I will keep pushing for every patient in our country to have access to the dental care they need, while protecting our cast-iron guarantee to support those most in need with full or partial exemptions from dental patient charges for those on low incomes.
Andrew Western
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have a considerable amount of expertise in the room—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) is a former nurse and national lead for the Local Government Association on all things relating to health.
I am grateful to colleagues who have contributed to the debate in various ways and focused more generally on the considerable issues facing those seeking to access dentistry. I want to drill down more specifically on the issue of access for cancer patients, and I appreciate the Minister’s offer of a meeting, which will hopefully move us forward. I also welcome her commitment to looking at how we can deal with the information side of this. However, with respect—she would expect me to say this—that is perhaps the easiest of the issues to tackle. I gently say to her that at no point did I ask for all patients to have free dental treatment, but just for cancer patients to have dental treatment because their experience has not come about as a result of not looking after their teeth, but as a direct result of other treatments. [Interruption.]
I am cognisant of the Chair’s clearing of his throat, and I will raise some of the other issues that I was hoping to discuss today in the meeting with the Minister. As I say, I am grateful to her and the shadow Minister for meeting me and Michele earlier, and to everyone who has contributed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to dentistry for cancer patients.
Written Statements
Critical Imports Council
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Alan Mak)
Today the Department for Business and Trade convened the first meeting of the Critical Imports Council. This forum brings together experts from industry, academia and government to help ensure the resilience of those critical supply chains essential to the UK’s economic prosperity, national security and essential services. This meets the commitment made in the UK’s Critical Imports and Supply Chains Strategy, published in January this year.
The council is central to delivering one of the strategy’s priorities, forging and strengthening the relationships with business and academia that will help the UK adapt and thrive in an evolving global economy. This is part of our plan to improve Britain’s long-term economic security and opportunity.
The council, chaired by the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, includes representatives from the UK’s cutting-edge manufacturing, technology, logistics and transportation industries, and the world-leading supply chain expertise in our universities. The council is responsible for:
providing a forum for industry to identify barriers and other issues preventing the reliable and efficient importation of critical goods into the UK;
enabling cross-sectoral collaboration and best practice sharing on approaches to build supply chain resilience and test potential policy interventions; and
where appropriate, enabling joint government/industry development of interventions and allowing the sharing and discussion of evidence and insights
This first council meeting builds on the considerable work done by the previous Minister and officials in developing the Critical Imports and Supply Chains Strategy and subsequent implementation. The link to the strategy can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-imports-and-supply-chains-strategy
We have published the membership of the council on gov.uk at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-ramps-up-work-to-secure-supplies-of-medicines-and-smartphone-chips
[HCWS410]
United Kingdom-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement Negotiations
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The second round of United Kingdom-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement negotiations took place during the week commencing 18 March 2024. A delegation of officials undertook technical discussions in-person in London with some talks taking place virtually.
We were pleased to host the RoK delegates for the first home round in London. During the round, technical experts from both sides came together for discussions in 22 separate sessions covering 17 policy areas, including professional and business services, cross-border trade in services, domestic regulation, financial services, mobility, investment, digital, sanitary and phytosanitary, technical barriers to trade, gender, procurement, competition, state-owned enterprises, small and medium enterprises, goods regulatory practice, and labour. This round of negotiations was an opportunity to hold further exploratory discussions. Chapter negotiators focused their discussions on establishing a more detailed understanding of the outcomes the UK and RoK are seeking and began to share early text proposals to work from.
The third round of negotiations is due to take place in June 2024.
HM Government remain clear that we will not sacrifice high-quality outcomes for speed and will continue to pursue a deal which delivers the best outcome for the United Kingdom. We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, or public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the NHS and the services it provides are not on the table.
[HCWS411]
Building Safety Update
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
In my written statement of 19 February 2024 (HCWS264), I committed to revising statutory guidance to call for more than one staircase to be provided in residential buildings with a storey 18 metres or more in height. The Government published this guidance at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-approved-document-b on 29 March 2024, alongside a partial response to the sprinklers in care homes, removal of national classes, and staircases in residential buildings consultation, which ran from 23 December 2022 to 17 March 2023.
A second staircase will provide additional capacity to reduce congestion, support egress and facilitate additional access for firefighting and rescue. Occupants will benefit from an alternative means of escape if one route is blocked or filled with smoke and a full building evacuation becomes necessary. A threshold at 18 metres reflects the views of several expert bodies, broadly conforms with statutory definitions of higher-risk buildings in existing legislation and aligns England with international precedent.
I realise that an additional staircase has the potential to affect the viability of development. I therefore announced, in October 2023, transitional arrangements which aim to secure the viability of schemes that are already under way. Projects will have until 30 September 2026 to submit building regulations applications and independently have until March 2028 to sufficiently progress work on site. As I made clear in my October 2023 written statement (HCWS1090), this is a continued evolution of our standards for future building construction. Existing buildings, whether single-staircase or otherwise, will continue to be risk assessed, managed and monitored through the procedures and requirements put in place to ensure that they operate to established safety standards.
The Greater London Authority previously set out expectations for second staircases alongside specific fire-safety requirements outlined in the London plan. Our updated guidance gives a clear national position on this issue. We therefore expect that local authorities will align with this position. We will work with the Greater London Authority to align policies with updated guidance to avoid any disproportionate impact on development.
The introduction of a second staircase in tall buildings is a balanced and proportionate policy. It is the latest in a series of measures which minimise both the risk and impact of rare, but high-consequence, incidents, and thus further enhances the safety of people in their homes. This applies to England only.
[HCWS413]
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 set out the new legal framework for taking forward troubles-related investigations, and provided for the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). The Act was a significant milestone in delivering on our pledge to provide better outcomes and greater information, accountability and acknowledgement to those most affected by the troubles, while also helping society to look forward. I am pleased to confirm that I will be commencing operational functions of the ICRIR as planned on 1 May 2024.
The Government have been supporting the ICRIR as it moves towards operational establishment by developing secondary legislation, as provided for in the legacy Act. We have laid regulations on the holding and handling of information by the ICRIR, in line with section 34 of the Act. In addition, we will shortly lay regulations on the retention of biometric material for the use of the ICRIR, in line with section 35 of the Act.
We will also be laying a second set of commencement regulations at the end of April 2024, which will commence functions of the ICRIR. As part of those regulations, we will include two transitional provisions. The first provision is in relation to criminal investigations of troubles-related offences. Where all that remains to be done on 1 May 2024 is the preparation or completion of the investigation report, or something subsequent to that, then the investigating body may prepare or complete the investigation report, or do anything subsequent to that, between 1 May 2024 and 30 April 2025.
The second transitional provision is in relation to decisions not to prosecute a person for a troubles-related offence taken before 1 May 2024. Where a person requests that the prosecuting authority review such a decision, and as a result of the review the decision is overturned on or after 1 May 2024, the decision is to be treated as if it had been taken under the pre-1 May legal framework. This is provided that the review is ongoing on 1 May 2024 or, if the person requests the review on or after that date, that the person does so within 28 days of the decision.
In taking these actions, the Government are demonstrating their ongoing commitment to implementing the legacy Act and to providing better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles by delivering the ICRIR. I welcome the commission’s imminent operational establishment and would encourage all parties to engage fully with it.
[HCWS412]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (16 Apr 2024)
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I start today with probably the most innocuous of the amendments, which is that Clause 44 should not stand part. Others are more significant, but its purpose, if one can describe it as such, is as a probing clause stand part, to see whether the Minister can explain the real motive and impact of new Section 164A, which is inserted by Clause 44. As the explanatory statement says, it appears to hinder
“data subjects’ right to lodge complaints, and extends the scope of orders under Section 166 of the Data Protection Act to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s response to a complaint.”
I am looking to the Minister to see whether he can unpack the reasons for that and what the impact is on data subjects’ rights.
More fundamental is Amendment 153, which relates to Clause 45. This provision inserts new Section 165A into the Data Protection Act, according to which the commissioner would have the discretion to refuse to act on a complaint if the complainant did not try to resolve the infringement of their rights with the relevant organisation and at least 45 days have passed since then. The right to an effective remedy constitutes a core element of data protection—most individuals will not pursue cases before a court, because of the lengthy, time- consuming and costly nature of judicial proceedings—and acts as a deterrent against data protection violations, in so far as victims can obtain meaningful redress. Administrative remedies are particularly useful, because they focus on addressing malpractice and obtaining meaningful changes in how personal data is handled in practice.
However, the ICO indicates that in 2021-22 it did not serve a single GDPR enforcement notice, secured no criminal convictions and issued only four GDPR fines, totalling just £633,000, despite the fact that it received over 40,000 data subject complaints. Moreover, avenues to challenge ICO inaction are extremely limited. Scrutiny of the information tribunal has been restricted to a purely procedural as opposed to a substantive nature. It was narrowed even further by the Administrative Court decision, which found that the ICO was not obliged to investigate each and every complaint.
Amendment 153 would remove Clause 45. The ICO already enjoys a wide margin of discretion and little accountability for how it handles complaints. In light of its poor performance, it does not seem appropriate to expand the discretion of the new information commission even further. It would also extend the scope of orders under Section 166 of the Data Protection Act to the appropriateness of the commissioner’s response to a complaint. This would allow individuals to promote judicial scrutiny over decisions that have a fundamental impact into how laws are enforced in practice and it would increase the overall accountability of the new information commission.
We have signed Amendment 154, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I look forward to hearing what she says on that. I apologise for the late tabling of Amendments 154A to 154F, which are all related to Amendments 155 and 175. Clause 47 sets out changes in procedure in the courts, in relation to the right of information of a data subject under the 2018 Act, but there are other issues that need resolving around the jurisdiction of the courts and the Upper Tribunal in data protection cases. That is the reason for tabling these amendments.
The High Court’s judgment in the Delo v ICO case held that part of the reasoning in Killock and Veale about the relative jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals was wrong. The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Delo case underlines concerns, but does not properly address the jurisdictions’ limits in Sections 166 and 167 of the 2018 Act, regarding the distinction between determining procedural failings or the merits of decisions by the ICO. Surely jurisdiction under these sections should be in either the courts or the tribunals, not both. In the view of many, including me, it should be in the tribunals. That is what these amendments seek.
It is clear from these two judgments that there was disagreement on the extent of the jurisdiction of tribunals and courts, notably between Mrs Justice Farbey and Mr Justice Mostyn. The commissioner submitted very different submissions to the Upper Tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, in relation to the extent and limits of Sections 166 and 167. It is not at all clear what Parliament’s intentions were, when passing the 2018 Act, on the extents and limits of the powers in these sections and whether the appropriate source of redress is a court or tribunal.
This has resulted in jurisdictional confusion. A large number of claims have been brought in either the courts or the tribunals, under either Section 166 or Section 167, and the respective court or tribunal has frequently ruled that the claim should have been made under the other section and it therefore does not have jurisdiction, so that the claim is struck out. The Bill offers a prime opportunity to resolve this issue.
Clause 45(5), which creates new Section 166A, would only blur the lines even more and fortify the reasoning for the claim to be put into the tribunals, rather than the courts. These amendments would give certainty to the courts and tribunals as to their powers and would be much less confusing for litigants in person, most of whom do not have the luxury of paying hundreds of thousands in court fees. This itself is another reason for this to remain in the tribunals, which do not charge fees to issue proceedings.
The proposed new clause inserted by Amendment 287 would require the Secretary of State to exercise powers under Section 190 of the 2018 Act to allow public interest organisations to raise data protection complaints on behalf of individuals generally, without the need to obtain the authorisation of each individual being represented. It would therefore implement Article 80(2) of the GDPR, which provides:
“Member States may provide that any body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, independently of a data subject’s mandate, has the right to lodge, in that Member State, a complaint with the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 77 and to exercise the rights referred to in Articles 78 and 79 if it considers that the rights of a data subject under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing”.
The intention behind Article 80(2) is to allow appropriately constituted organisations to bring proceedings concerning infringements of the data protection regulations in the absence of the data subject. That is to ensure that proceedings may be brought in response to an infringement, rather than on the specific facts of an individual’s case. As a result, data subjects are, in theory, offered greater and more effective protection of their rights. Actions under Article 80(2) could address systemic infringements that arise by design, rather than requiring an individual to evidence the breaches and the specific effects to them.
At present, an affected individual—a data subject—is always required to bring a claim or complaint to a supervisory authority. Whether through direct action or under Section 187 of the 2018 Act, a data subject will have to be named and engaged. In practice, a data subject is not always identifiable or willing to bring action to address even the most egregious conduct.
Article 80(2) would fill a gap that Article 80(1) and Section 187 of the Data Protection Act are not intended to fill. Individuals can be unwilling to seek justice, exercise their rights and lodge data protection complaints on their own, either for fear of retaliation from a powerful organisation or because of the stigma that may be associated with the matter where a data protection violation occurred. Even a motivated data subject may be unwilling to take action due to the risks involved. For instance, it would be reasonable for that data subject not to want to become involved in a lengthy, costly legal process that may be disproportionate to the loss suffered or remedy available. This is particularly pressing where the infringement concerns systemic concerns rather than where an individual has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of the infringement.
Civil society organisations have long helped complainants navigate justice systems in seeking remedies in the data protection area, providing a valuable addition to the enactment of UK data protection laws. My Amendment 287 would allow public interest organisations to lodge representative complaints, even without the mandate of data subjects, to encourage the filing of well-argued, strategically important cases with the potential to improve significantly the data subject landscape as a whole. This Bill is the ideal opportunity for the Government to implement fully Article 80(2) of the GDPR from international law and plug a significant gap in the protection of UK citizens’ privacy.
In effect, this is unfinished business from our debates on the 2018 Act, when we made several attempts to persuade the Government of the merits of introducing the rights under Article 80(2). I hope that the Government will think again. These are extremely important rights and are available in many other countries governed by a similar GDPR. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, as a veteran of the 2018 arguments on Article 80(2), I rise in support of Amendment 287, which would see its implementation.
Understanding and exercising personal data rights is not straightforward. Even when the rights are being infringed, it is rare that an individual data subject has the time, knowledge or ability to make a complaint to the ICO. This is particularly true for vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly, disadvantaged groups and other groups of people, such as domestic abuse survivors or members of the LGBTQ community, who may have specific reasons for not identifying themselves in relation to a complaint. It is a principle in law that a right that cannot be activated is not fully given.
A data subject’s ability to claim protection is constrained by a range of factors, none of which relates to the validity of their complaint or the level of harm experienced. Rather, the vast majority are prevented from making a complaint by a lack of expertise, capacity, time and money; by the fact that they are not aware that they have data rights; or by the fact that they understand neither that their rights have been infringed nor how to make a complaint about them.
I have considerable experience of this. I remind the Committee that I am chair of the 5Rights Foundation, which has raised important and systemic issues of non-compliance with the AADC. It has done this primarily by raising concerns with the ICO, which has then undertaken around 40 investigations based on detailed submissions. However, because the information is not part of a formalised process, the ICO has no obligation to respond to the 5Rights Foundation team, the three-month time limit for complaints does not apply and, even though forensic work by the 5Rights Foundation identified the problem, its team is not consulted or updated on progress or the outcome—all of which would be possible had it submitted the information as a formal complaint. I remind the Committee that in these cases we are talking about complaints involving children.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his stand part notice on Clause 44. I will have to read Hansard, as I may have missed something, but I am not sure I am convinced by his arguments against Clause 44 standing part. He described his stand part notice as “innocuous”, but I am concerned that if the clause were removed it would have a slightly wider implication than that.
We feel that there are some advantages to how Clause 44 is currently worded. As it stands, it simply makes it clear that data subjects have to use the internal processes to make complaints to controllers first, and then the controller has the obligation to respond without undue delay. Although this could place an extra burden on businesses to manage and reply to complaints in a timely manner, I would have thought that this was a positive step to be welcomed. It would require controllers to have clear processes in place for handling complaints; I hope that that in itself would be an incentive against their conducting the kind of unlawful processing that prompts complaints in the first place. This seems the best practice, which would apply anyway in most organisations and complaint and arbitration systems, including, perhaps, ombudsmen, which I know the noble Lord knows more about than I do these days. There should be a requirement to use the internal processes first.
The clause makes it clear that the data subject has a right to complain directly to the controller and it makes clear that the controller has an obligation to respond. Clause 45 then goes on to make a different point, which is that the commissioner has a right to refuse to act on certain complaints. We touched on this in an earlier debate. Clearly, to be in line with Clause 44, the controller would have to have finished handling the case within the allotted time. We agree with that process. However, an alternative reason for the commissioner to refuse is when the complaint is “vexatious or excessive”. We have rehearsed our arguments about the interpretation of those words in previous debates on the application of subject access requests. I do not intend to repeat them here, but our concern about that wording rightly remains. What is important here is that the ICO should not be able to reject complaints simply because the complainant is distressed or angry. It is helpful that the clause states that in these circumstances,
“the Commissioner must inform the complainant”
of the reasons it is considered vexatious or excessive. It is also helpful that the clause states that this
“does not prevent the complainant from making it a complaint again”,
presumably in a way more compliant with the rules. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones—as I said, I will look at what he said in more detail—on balance, we are content with the wording as it stands.
On a slightly different tack, we have added our name to Amendment 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and we support Amendment 287 on a similar subject. This touches on a similar principle to our previous debate on the right of data communities to raise data-breach complaints on behalf of individuals. In these amendments, we are proposing that there should be a collective right for organisations to raise data-breach complaints for individuals or groups of individuals who do not necessarily feel sufficiently empowered or confident to raise the complaints on their own behalf. There are many reasons why this reticence might occur, not least that the individuals may feel that making a complaint would put their employment on the line or that they would suffer discrimination at work in the future. We therefore believe that these amendments are important to widen people’s access to work with others to raise these complaints.
Since these amendments were tabled, we have received the letter from the Minister that addresses our earlier debate on data communities. I am pleased to see the general support for data intermediaries that he set out in his letter. We argue that a data community is a separate distinct collective body, which is different from the wider concept of data intermediaries. This seems to be an area in which the ICO could take a lead in clarifying rights and set standards. Our Amendment 154 would therefore set a deadline for the ICO to do that work and for those rights to be enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a good case for broadening these rights in the Bill and, on that basis, I hope the Minister will agree to follow this up, and follow up his letter so that we can make further progress on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled a number of amendments that modify the courts and tribunals functions. I was hoping that when I stood here and listened to him, I would understand a bit more about the issues. I hope he will forgive me for not responding in detail to these arguments. I do not feel that I know enough about the legal background to the concerns but he seems to have made a clear case in clarifying whether the courts or tribunals should have jurisdiction in data protection issues.
On that basis, I hope that the Minister will also provide some clarification on these issues and I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling these amendments to Clauses 44 and 45, which would reform the framework for data protection complaints to the Information Commissioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 44 standing part of the Bill. That would remove new provisions from the Bill that have been carefully designed to provide a more direct route to resolution for data subjects’ complaints. I should stress that these measures do not limit rights for data subjects to bring complaints forward, but instead provide a more direct route to resolution with the relevant data controller. The measures formalise current best practice, requiring the complainant to approach the relevant data controller, where appropriate, to attempt to resolve the issue prior to regulatory involvement.
The Bill creates a requirement for data controllers to facilitate the making of complaints and look into what may have gone wrong. This should, in most cases, result in a much quicker resolution of data protection-related complaints. The provisions will also have the impact of enabling the Information Commissioner to redeploy resources away from handling premature complaints where such complaints may be dealt with more effectively, in the first instance, by controllers and towards value-added regulatory activity, supporting businesses to use data lawfully and in innovative ways.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 153 seeks, in effect, to expand the scope of the Information Commissioner’s duty to investigate complaints under Section 165 of the Data Protection Act. However, that Section of the Act already provides robust redress routes, requiring the commissioner to take appropriate steps to respond to complaints and offer an outcome or conclude an investigation within a specified period.
The noble Lord raised the enforcement of the UK’s data protection framework. I can provide more context on the ICO’s approach, although noble Lords will be aware that it is enforced independently of government by the ICO; it would of course be inappropriate for me to comment on how the ICO exercises its enforcement powers. The ICO aims to be fair, proportionate and effective, focusing on areas with the highest risk and most harm, but this does not mean that it will enforce every case that crosses its books.
The Government have introduced a new requirement on the ICO—Clause 43—to publish an annual report on how it has exercised its enforcement powers, the number and nature of investigations, the enforcement powers used, how long investigations took and the outcome of the investigations that ended in that period. This will provide greater transparency and accountability in the ICO’s exercise of its enforcement powers. For these reasons, I am not able to accept these amendments.
I also thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their Amendments 154 and 287 concerning Section 190 of the Data Protection Act. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to legislate to give effect to Article 80(2) of the UK GDPR to enable relevant non-profit organisations to make claims against data controllers for alleged data breaches on behalf of data subjects, without those data subjects having requested or agreeing to the claim being brought. Currently, such non-profit organisations can already pursue such actions on behalf of individuals who have granted them specific authorisation, as outlined in Article 80(1).
In 2021, following consultation, the Government concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify implementing Article 80(2) to allow non-profit organisations to bring data protection claims without the authorisation of the people affected. The Government’s response to the consultation noted that the regulator can and does investigate complaints raised by civil society groups, even when they are not made on behalf of named individuals. The ICO’s investigations into the use of live facial recognition technology at King’s Cross station and in some supermarkets in southern England are examples of this.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising her concerns about the protection of children throughout the debate—indeed, throughout all the days in Committee. The existing regime already allows civil society groups to make complaints to the ICO about data-processing activities that affect children and vulnerable people. The ICO has a range of powers to investigate systemic data breaches under the current framework and is already capable of forcing data controllers to take decisive action to address non-compliance. We are strengthening its powers in this Bill. I note that only a few member states of the EU have allowed non-governmental organisations to launch actions without a mandate, in line with the possibility provided by the GDPR.
I turn now to Amendments 154A, 154B—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Before the noble Lord gets there and we move too far from Amendment 154, where does the Government’s thinking leave us regarding a group of class actions? Trade unions take up causes on behalf of their membership at large. I guess, in the issue of the Post Office and Mr Bates, not every sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress would have signed up to that class action, even though they may have ended up being beneficiaries of its effects. So where does it leave people with regard to data protection and the way that the data protection scheme operates where there might be a class action?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
If the action is raised on behalf of named individuals, those named individuals have to have given consent for that. If the action is for a general class of people, those people would not have to give their explicit consent, because they are not named in the action. Article 80(2) of the GDPR said that going that further step was optional for all member states. I do not know which member states have taken it up, but a great many have not, just because of the complexities to which it gives rise.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, just so that the Minister might get a little note, I will ask a question. He has explained what is possible—what can be done—but not why the Government still resist putting Article 80(2) into effect. What is the reason for not adopting that article?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The reason was that an extensive consultation was undertaken in 2021 by the Government, and the Government concluded at that time that there was insufficient evidence to take what would necessarily be a complex step. That was largely on the grounds that class actions of this type can go forward either as long as they have the consent of any named individuals in the class action or on behalf of a group of individuals who are unnamed and not specifically raised by name within the investigation itself.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could in due course say what evidence would help to persuade the Government to adopt the article.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I want to help the Minister. Perhaps he could give us some more detail on the nature of that consultation and the number of responses and what people said in it. It strikes me as rather important.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Fair enough. Maybe for the time being, it will satisfy the Committee if I share a copy of that consultation and what evidence was considered, if that would work.
I will turn now to Amendments 154A to 155 and Amendment 175, which propose sweeping modifications to the jurisdiction of the court and tribunal for proceedings under the Data Protection Act 2018. These amendments would have the effect of making the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal responsible for all data protection cases, transferring both ongoing and future cases out of the court system and to the relevant tribunals.
The Government of course want to ensure that proceedings for enforcement of data protection rules, including redress routes available to data subjects, are appropriate for the nature of the complaint. As the Committee will be well aware, at present there is a mixture of jurisdiction for tribunals and courts under data protection legislation, depending on the precise nature of the proceedings in question. Tribunals are indeed the appropriate venue for some data protection proceedings, and the legislation already recognises that—for example, for application by data subjects for an order requiring the ICO to progress their complaint. However, courts are generally the more appropriate venue for cases involving claims for compensation and successful parties can usually recover their costs. Courts also apply stricter rules of procedure and evidence than tribunals. That is because some cases are appropriate to fall under the jurisdiction of the tribunal, while others are more appropriate for court jurisdiction. For example, claims by individuals against organisations for breaches of legal requirements can result in awards of compensatory damages for the individuals and financial and reputational damage for the organisations. It is appropriate that such cases are handled by a court in accordance with its strict procedural and evidential rules, where the data subject may recover their costs if successful.
As such, the Government are confident that the current system is balanced and proportionate and provides clear and effective administrative and judicial redress routes for data subjects seeking to exercise their rights.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister saying that there is absolutely no confusion between the jurisdiction of the tribunals and the courts? That is, no court has come to a different conclusion about jurisdiction—for example, as to whether procedural matters are for tribunals and merits are for courts or vice versa. Is he saying that everything is hunky-dory and clear and that we do not need to concern ourselves with this crossover of jurisdiction?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
No, as I was about to say, we need to take these issues seriously. The noble Lord raised a number of specific cases. I was unfamiliar with them at the start of the debate—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will go away and look at those; I look forward to learning more about them. There are obvious implications in what the noble Lord said as to the most effective ways of distributing cases between courts and other channels.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am intrigued by the balance between what goes to a tribunal and what goes to the courts. I took the spirit behind the stand-part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as being about finding the right place for the right case and ensuring that the wheels of justice are much more accessible. I am not entirely persuaded by what the Minister has said. It would probably help the Committee if we had a better understanding of where the cases go, how they are distributed and on what basis.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord; that is an important point. The question is: how does the Sorting Hat operate to distribute cases between the various tribunals and the court system? We believe that the courts have an important role to play in this but it is about how, in the early stages of a complaint, the case is allocated to a tribunal or a court. I can see that more detail is needed there; I would be happy to write to noble Lords.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Before we come to the end of this debate, I just want to raise something. I am grateful to the Minister for offering to bring forward the 2021 consultation on Article 80(2)—that will be interesting—but I wonder whether, as we look at the consultation and seek to understand the objections, the Government would be willing to listen to our experiences over the past two or three years. I know I said this on our previous day in Committee but there is, I hope, some point in ironing out some of the problems of the data regime that we are experiencing in action. I could bring forward a number of colleagues on that issue and on why it is a blind spot for both the ICO and the specialist organisations that are trying to bring systemic issues to its attention. It is very resource-heavy. I want a bit of goose and gander here: if we are trying to sort out some of the resourcing and administrative nightmares in dealing with the data regime, from a user perspective, perhaps a bit of kindness could be shown to that problem as well as to the problem of business.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I would be very happy to participate in that discussion, absolutely.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I have surprised myself: I have taken something positive away from the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was quite right to be more positive about Clause 44 than I was. The Minister unpacked its relationship with Clause 45 well and satisfactorily. Obviously, we will read Hansard before we jump to too positive a conclusion.
On Article 80(2), I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing both to go back to the consultation and to look at the kinds of evidence that were brought forward, because this is a really important aspect for many civil society organisations. He underestimates the difficulties faced when bringing complaints of this nature. I would very much like this conversation to go forward because this issue has been quite a bone of contention; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, remembers that only too well. We may even have had ping-pong on the matter back in 2017. There is an appetite to keep on the case so, the more we can discuss this matter—between Committee and Report in particular—the better, because there is quite a head of steam behind it.
As far as the jurisdiction point is concerned, I think this may be the first time I have heard a Minister talk about the Sorting Hat. I was impressed: I have often compared this place to Hogwarts but the concept of using the Sorting Hat to decide whether a case goes to a tribunal or a court is a wonderful one. You would probably need artificial intelligence to do that kind of thing nowadays; that in itself is a bit of an issue because, after all, these may be elaborate amendments but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, the case being made here is about the possibility of there being confusion and things not being clear in terms of where jurisdiction lies. It is really important that we determine whether the courts and tribunals themselves understand this and, perhaps more appropriately, whether they have differing views about it.
We need to get to grips with this; the more the Minister can dig into it, and into Delo, Killock and so on, the better. We are all in the foothills here but I am certainly not going to try to unpack those two judgments and the differences between Mrs Justice Farbey and Mr Justice Mostyn, which are well beyond my competency. I thank the Minister.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new section 165A(3) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) will apply to it.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in my name inserting additional subsections into this clause.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the UK has rightly moved away from the EU concept of supremacy, under which retained EU law would always take precedence over domestic law when they were in conflict. That is clearly unacceptable now that we have left the EU. However, we understand that the effective functioning of our data protection legislation is of critical importance and it is appropriate for us to specify the appropriate relationship between UK and EU-derived pieces of legislation following implementation of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, or REUL. That is why I am introducing a number of specific government amendments to ensure that the hierarchy of legislation works in the data protection context. These are Amendments 156 to 164 and 297.
Noble Lords may be aware that Clause 49 originally sought to clarify the relationship between the UK’s data protection legislation, specifically the UK GDPR and EU-derived aspects of the Data Protection Act 2018, and future data processing provisions in other legislation, such as powers to share or duties to disclose personal data, as a result of some legal uncertainty created by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. To resolve this uncertainty, Clause 49 makes it clear that all new data processing provisions in legislation should be read consistently with the key requirements of the UK data protection legislation unless it is expressly indicated otherwise. Since its introduction, the interpretation of pre-EU exit legislation has been altered and there is a risk that this would produce the wrong effect in respect of the interpretation of existing data processing provisions that are silent about their relationship with the data protection legislation.
Amendment 159 will make it clear that the full removal of the principle of EU law supremacy and the creation of a reverse hierarchy in relation to assimilated direct legislation, as provided for in the REUL Act, do not change the relationship between the UK data protection legislation and existing legislation that is in force prior to commencement of Clause 49(2). Amendment 163 makes a technical amendment to the EU withdrawal Act, as amended, to support this amendment.
Amendment 162 is similar to the previous amendment but it concerns the relationship between provisions relating to certain obligations and rights under data protection legislation and on restrictions and prohibitions on the disclosure of information under other existing legislation. Existing Section 186 of the Data Protection Act 2018 governs this relationship. Amendment 162 makes it clear that the relationship between these two types of provision is not affected by the changes to the interpretation of legislation that I have already referred to made by the REUL Act. Additionally, it clarifies that, in relation to pre-commencement legislation, Section 186(1) may be disapplied expressly or impliedly.
Amendment 164 relates to the changes brought about by the REUL Act and sets out that the provisions detailed in earlier Amendments 159, 162 and 163 are to be treated as having come into force on 1 January 2024—in other words, at the same time as commencement of the relevant provisions of the REUL Act.
Amendment 297 provides a limited power to remove provisions that achieve the same effect as new Section 183A from legislation made or passed after this Bill receives Royal Assent, as their presence could cause confusion.
Finally, Amendments 156 and 157 are consequential. Amendments 158, 160 and 161 are minor drafting changes made for consistency, updating and consequential purposes.
Turning to the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I hope that he can see from the government amendments to Clause 49 that we have given a good deal of thought to the impact of the REUL Act 2023 on the UK’s data protection framework and have been prepared to take action on this where necessary. We have also considered whether some of the changes made by the REUL Act could cause confusion about how the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 interrelate. Following careful analysis, we have concluded that they would largely continue to be read alongside each other in the intended way, with the rules of the REUL Act unlikely to interfere with this. Any new general rule such as that suggested by the noble Lord could create confusion and uncertainty.
Amendments 168 to 170, 174, 174A and 174B seek to reverse changes introduced by the REUL Act at the end of 2023, specifically the removal of EU general principles from the statute book. EU general principles and certain EU-derived rights had originally been retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to ensure legal continuity at the end of the transition period, but this was constitutionally novel and inappropriate for the long term.
The Government’s position is that EU law concepts should not be used to interpret domestic legislation in perpetuity. The REUL Act provided a solution to this by repealing EU general principles from UK law and clarifying the approach to be taken domestically. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would undo this important work by reintroducing to the statute book references to rights and principles which have not been clearly defined and are inappropriate now that we have left the EU.
The protection of personal data already forms part of the protection offered by the European Convention on Human Rights, under the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, and is further protected by our data protection legislation. The UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 provide a comprehensive set of rules for organisations to follow and rights for people in relation to the use of their data. Seeking to apply an additional EU right to data protection in UK law would not significantly affect the way the data protection framework functions or enhance the protections it affords to individuals. Indeed, doing so may well add unnecessary uncertainty and complexity.
Amendments 171 to 173 pertain to exemptions to specified data subject rights and obligations on data controllers set out in Schedules 2 to 4 to the DPA 2018. The 36 exemptions apply only in specified circumstances and are subject to various safeguards. Before addressing the amendments the noble Lord has tabled, it is perhaps helpful to set out how these exemptions are used. Personal data must be processed according to the requirements set out in the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018. This includes the key principles of lawfulness, fairness and transparency, data minimisation and purpose limitation, among others. The decision to restrict data subjects’ rights, such as the right to be notified that their personal data is being processed, or limit obligations on the data controller, comes into effect only if and when the decision to apply an exemption is taken. In all cases, the use of the exemption must be both necessary and proportionate.
One of these exemptions, the immigration exemption, was recently amended in line with a court ruling that found it was incompatible with the requirements set out in Article 23. This exemption is used by the Home Office. The purpose of Amendments 171 to 173 is to extend the protections applied to the immigration exemption across the other exemptions subject to Article 23, apart from in Schedule 4, where the requirement to consider whether its application prejudices the relevant purposes is not considered relevant.
The other exemptions are each used in very different circumstances, by different data controllers—from government departments to SMEs—and work by applying different tests that function in a wholly different manner from the immigration exemption. This is important to bear in mind when considering these broad-brush amendments. A one-size-fits-all approach would not work across the exemption regime.
It is the Government’s position that any changes to these important exemptions should be made only after due consideration of the circumstances of that particular exemption. In many cases, these amendments seek to make changes that run counter to how the exemption functions. Making changes across the exemptions via this Bill, as the noble Lord’s amendments propose, has the potential to have significant negative impacts on the functioning of the exemptions regime. Any potential amendments to the other exemptions would require careful consideration. The Government note that there is a power to make changes to the exemptions in the DPA 2018, if deemed necessary.
For the reasons I have given, I look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord on his amendments, but I hope that he will not press them. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very careful exposition. I feel that we are heavily into wet towel, if not painkiller, territory here, because this is a tricky area. As the Minister might imagine, I will not respond to his exposition in detail, at this point; I need to run away and get some external advice on the impact of what he said. He is really suggesting that the Government prefer a pick ‘n’ mix approach to what he regards as a one size fits all. I can boil it down to that. He is saying that you cannot just apply the rules, in the sense that we are trying to reverse some of the impacts of the previous legislation. I will set out my stall; no doubt the Minister and I, the Box and others, will read Hansard and draw our own conclusions at the end, because this is a complicated area.
Until the end of 2023, the Data Protection Act 2018 had to be read compatibly with the UK GDPR. In a conflict between the two instruments, the provisions of the UK GDPR would prevail. The reversing of the relationship between the 2018 Act and the UK GDPR, through the operation of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act—REUL, as the Minister described it—has had the effect of lowering data protection rights in the UK. The case of the Open Rights Group and the3million v the Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was decided after the UK had left the EU, but before the end of 2023. The Court of Appeal held that exemptions from data subject rights in an immigration context, as set out in the Data Protection Act, were overly broad, contained insufficient safeguards and were incompatible with the UK GDPR. The court disapplied the exemptions and ordered the Home Office to redraft them to include the required safeguards. We debated the regulations the other day, and many noble Lords welcomed them on the basis that they had been revised for the second time.
This sort of challenge is now not possible, because the relationship between the DPA and the UK GDPR has been turned on its head. If the case were brought now, the overly broad exemptions in the DPA would take precedence over the requirement for safeguards set out in the UK GDPR. These points were raised by me in the debate of 12 December, when the Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 were under consideration. In that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, stated that
“we acknowledge the importance of making sure that data processing provisions in wider legislation continue to be read consistently with the data protection principles in the UK GDPR … Replication of the effect of UK GDPR supremacy is a significant decision, and we consider that the use of primary legislation is the more appropriate way to achieve these effects, such as under Clause 49 where the Government consider it appropriate”.—[Official Report, 12/12/23; col. GC 203.]
This debate on Clause 49 therefore offers an opportunity to reinstate the previous relationship between the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. The amendment restores the hierarchy, so that it guarantees the same rights to individuals as existed before the end of 2023, and avoids unforeseen consequences by resetting the relationship between the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 to what the parliamentary draftsmen intended when the Act was written. The provisions in Clause 49, as currently drafted, address the relationship between domestic law and data protection legislation as a whole, but the relationship between the UK GDPR and the DPA is left in its “reversed” state. This is confirmed in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill at paragraph 503.
The purpose of these amendments is to restore data protection rights in the UK to what they were before the end of 2023, prior to the coming into force of REUL. The amendments would restore the fundamental right to the protection of personal data in UK law; ensure that the UK GDPR and the DPA continue to be interpreted in accordance with the fundamental right to the protection of personal data; ensure that there is certainty that assimilated case law that references the fundamental right to the protection of personal data still applies; and apply the protections required in Article 23 of the UK GDPR to all the relevant exemptions in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act. This is crucial in avoiding diminishing trust in our data protection frameworks. If people do not trust that their data is protected, they will refuse to share it. Without this data, new technologies cannot be developed, because these technologies rely on personal data. By creating uncertainty and diminishing standards, the Government are undermining the very growth in new technologies that they want.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have looked at the government amendments in this group and have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said—that it is largely about interpretation. There are no amendments that I wish to comment on, save to say that they seem to be about consistency of language and bringing in part EU positions into UK law. They seem also to be about consistency of meaning, and for the most part the intention seems to be to ensure that nothing in EU retained law undoes the pre-existing legal framework.
However, I would appreciate the Minister giving us a bit more detail on the operation of Amendment 164. Amendment 297 seems to deal with a duplication issue, so perhaps he can confirm for the Committee that this is the case. We have had swathes of government amendments of a minor and technical nature, largely about chasing out gremlins from the drafting process. Can he confirm that this is the case and assure the Committee that we will not be left with any nasty surprises in the drafting that need correction at a later date?
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are of course of a different order altogether. The first two—Amendments 165 and 166—would restore the relationship between the UK GDPR and the 2018 Act and the relevant provisions of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Amendment 168 would ensure that assimilated case law referring to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights would still be relevant in interpreting the UK GDPR. It would give greater certainty in how the UK’s data protection framework is interpreted. Amendment 169 would ensure that the interpretation is carried over from the UK GDPR and 2018 legislation in accordance with the general principle of the protection of personal data.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 170 to 174B would bring back into law protections that existed previously when UK law was more closely aligned with EU law and regulation. There is also an extension of the EU data protection of personal data to the assimilated standard that existed by virtue of Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I can well understand the noble Lord’s desire to take the UK back to a position where we are broadly in the same place in terms of protections as our former EU partners. First, having—broadly speaking—protections that are common across multiple jurisdictions makes it easier and simpler for companies operating in those markets. Secondly, from the perspective of data subjects, it is much easier to comprehend common standards of data protection and to seek redress when required. The Government, for their part, will no doubt argue that there is some sort of big Brexit benefit in this, although I think that advisers and experts are divided on the degree of that benefit, and indeed who benefits.
Later, we will get to discuss data adequacy standards. Concern exists in some quarters as to whether we have this right and what this legislative opportunity might be missing to ensure that the UK meets those international standards that the EU requires. That is a debate for later, but we are broadly sympathetic to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to find the highest level of protection for UK citizens. That is the primary motivation for many of the amendments and debates that we have had today. We do not want to weaken what were previously carefully crafted and aligned protections. I do not entirely buy the argument that the Minister made earlier about this group of amendments causing legal uncertainty. I believe it is the reverse of that: the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is trying to provide greater certainty and a degree of jurisdictional uniformity.
I hope that I have understood what the noble Lord is trying to achieve here. For those reasons, we will listen to the Minister’s concluding comments—and read Hansard—very carefully.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bassam, for their comments. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, points out, it is a pretty complex and demanding area, but that in no way diminishes the importance of getting it right. I hope that in my remarks I can continue that work, but of course I am happy to discuss this: it is a very technical area and, as all speakers have pointed out, it is crucial for our purposes that it be executed correctly.
While the UK remains committed to strong protections for personal data through the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act, it is important that it is able to diverge from the EU legislation where this is appropriate for the UK. We have carefully assessed the effects of EU withdrawal legislation and the REUL Act and are making adjustments to ensure that the right effect is achieved. The government amendments are designed to ensure legal certainty and protect the coherence of the data protection framework following commencement of the REUL Act—for example, by maintaining the pre-REUL Act relationship in certain ways between key elements of the UK data protection legislation and other existing legislation.
The purpose of the REUL Act is to ensure that the UK has control over its laws. Resurrecting the principle of EU law supremacy in its entirety or continuing to apply case law principles is not consistent with the UK’s departure from the EU and taking back control over our own laws. These amendments make it clear that changes made to the application of the principle of EU law supremacy and new rules relating to the interpretation of direct assimilated legislation under the REUL Act do not have any impact on existing provisions that involve the processing of personal data.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked for more detail about Amendment 164. It relates to changes brought about by the REUL Act and sets out that the provisions detailed in Amendments 159, 162 and 163 are to be treated as having come into force on 1 January 2024—in other words, at the same time as commencement of the relevant provisions of the REUL Act. The retrospective effect of this provision addresses the gap between the commencement of the REUL Act 2023 and the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
On the immigration exemption case, I note that it was confined to the immigration exemption and did not rule on the other exemptions. The Government will continue to keep the exemptions under review and, should it be required, the Government have the power to amend the other exemptions using an existing power in the DPA 2018. Before doing so, of course the Government would want to ensure that due consideration is given to how the particular exemptions are used. Meanwhile, I thank noble Lords for what has been a fascinating, if demanding, debate.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting section 183B of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes a reference to the day on which clause 49 comes into force to a reference to the day on which subsection (2) of that clause comes into force.
“(2A) Before section 184 (and the italic heading before it) insert—“183B Protection of prohibitions and restrictions etc on processing: other enactments(1) This section is about the relationship between—(a) a pre-commencement enactment which imposes a duty, or confers a power, to process personal data, and(b) a provision of the main data protection legislation containing a requirement relating to the processing of personal data.(2) The relationship is not changed by section 5(A1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (removal of the principle of supremacy of EU law) (or the repeal of section 5(1) to (3) of that Act). (3) Where the provision described in subsection (1)(b) is a provision of, or made under, the UK GDPR, section 5(A2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (assimilated direct legislation subject to domestic enactments) does not apply to the relationship.(4) Nothing is to be implied about a relationship described in subsection (1) merely due to the fact that express provision with similar effect to section 183A(1) (or applying that provision) is made in connection with one such relationship but not another.(5) In this section—(a) “the main data protection legislation” and “requirement” have the same meaning as in section 183A, and(b) “pre-commencement enactment” means an enactment so far as passed or made before the day on which section 49(2) of the Data Protection and Digital Information Act 2024 comes into force.(6) Section 183A(5) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 183A(1).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that certain changes made to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 do not alter the relationship between requirements in the data protection legislation and duties or powers to process personal data under other existing legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor change to new subsection (2A) of section 186 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for consistency with the wording of the existing subsection (1) of that section.
and see also section 186A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor change to new subsection (2A) of section 186 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for consistency with the wording of the existing subsection (1) of that section and inserts a cross-reference to new section 186A of that Act (inserted by an amendment of Clause 49 in my name).
“(3A) After section 186 insert—“186A Protection of data subject’s rights: further provision(1) This section is about the relationship between—(a) a pre-commencement enactment which prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information or authorises the withholding of information, and(b) a provision of the UK GDPR or this Act listed in section 186(2).(2) The relationship is not changed by section 5(A1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (removal of the principle of supremacy of EU law) (or the repeal of section 5(1) to (3) of that Act).(3) Subsection (1) of section 186 does not apply to the relationship so far as there is a contrary intention, whether express or implied (taking account of, among other things, subsection (2) of this section).(4) Nothing is to be implied about a relationship described in subsection (1) merely due to the fact that express provision stating that section 186(1) applies (or with similar effect) is made in connection with one such relationship but not another.(5) In this section, “pre-commencement enactment” means an enactment passed or made before the day on which section 49(3) of the Data Protection and Digital Information Act 2024 comes into force.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that certain changes made to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 do not alter the relationship between certain obligations and rights under the data protection legislation and restrictions on the disclosure of information under other existing legislation.
(c) at the end insert “(and see also section 183B(3) of that Act)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a cross-reference to section 183B(3) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (inserted by an amendment of Clause 49 in my name) into section 5(A3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (exceptions from provision about the relationship between assimilated direct legislation and domestic enactments). Section 183B(3) creates such an exception.
“(5) Subsections (2A), (3A) and (4)(c) are to be treated as having come into force on 1 January 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for provision about the relationship between the data protection legislation and existing legislation— in particular, provision about the effect of changes made by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023—to be treated as having come into force when those changes came into force.
Viscount Camrose
“2A After Article 4 insert—“Article 4APeriods of time1. References in this Regulation to a period expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the Periods of Time Regulation, except in—(a) Article 91A(8) and (9);(b) paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of Annex 1.2. In this Article, “the Periods of Time Regulation” means Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) to apply to the UK GDPR, subject to some listed exceptions.
“(13) The DVS trust framework and any revision to it must be made by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the document setting rules for providers of digital verification services (or any revisions to it) to be laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. It is intended to implement a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to Part 2 of the Bill, which concerns the provision of digital verification services. In moving Amendment 177, I will also speak to the amendments through to Amendment 195; apart from one, all of them are in my name and have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for which I am grateful.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 195ZA in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendments 289 and 300 on digital identity theft. I am also very sympathetic to many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, particularly about the most disadvantaged people in our society.
As many noble Lords know, I am a member of the Communications and Digital Committee of this House. A few months ago, we did a report on digital exclusion. We had to be quite clear about one of the issues that we found: even though some people may partly use digital—for example, they may have an email address—it does not make them digitally proficient or literate. We have to be very clear that, as more and more of our public and private services go online, it is obvious that companies and others will want to know which people are claiming to use these services. At the same time, a number of people will not be digitally literate or will not have this digital ID available. It is important that we offer them enough alternatives. It should be clear, and not beyond the wit of man or clever lawyers, that there are non-digital alternatives available for consumers and particularly, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, people from disadvantaged communities.
As we found in the report on our inquiry into digital exclusion, this does not concern only people from deprived areas. Sometimes people get by in life without much digital literacy. There are those who may be scared of it or who do not trust it, and they can come from all sorts of wealth brackets. This drives home the point that it is important to have an alternative. I cannot really say much more than the amendment itself; it does what it says on the tin. The amendment is quite clear and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will speak to it as well.
I will briefly speak in favour of Amendments 289 and 300. Digital identity theft is clearly an issue and has been for a long time. Even before the digital days, identity theft was an issue and it is so much easier to hack someone’s ID these days. I have had bank accounts opened in my name. I received a letter claiming this but, fortunately, the bank was able to deal with it when I walked in and said, “This wasn’t me”. It is quite clear that this will happen more and more. Sometimes, it will simply be stealing data that has been leaked or because a system is not particularly secure; at other times, it will be because you have been careless. No matter why the crime is committed, it must be an offence in the terms suggested by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is clear that we have to send a strong signal that digital identity theft is a crime and that people should be deterred from engaging in it.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 195ZA—I will get to understand where these numbers come from, at some point—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who introduced it so eloquently. I will try to be brief in my support.
For many people, probably most, the use of online digital verification will be a real benefit. The Bill puts in place a framework to strengthen digital verification so, on the whole, I am supportive of what the Government are trying to do, although I think that the Minister should seriously consider the various amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has proposed to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny in this area.
However, not everyone will wish to use digital verification in all cases, perhaps because they are not sufficiently confident with technology or perhaps they simply do not trust it. We have already heard the debates around the advances of AI and computer-based decision-making. Digital identity verification could be seen to be another extension of this. There is a concern that Part 2 of the Bill appears to push people ever further towards decisions being taken by a computer.
I suspect that many of us will have done battle with some of the existing identity verification systems. In my own case, I can think of one bank where I gave up in deep frustration as it insisted on telling me that I was not the same person as my driving licence showed. I have also come up against systems used by estate agents when trying to provide a guarantee for my student son that was so intrusive that I, again, refused to use it.
Therefore, improving verification services is to be encouraged but there must be some element of choice, and if someone does not have the know-how, confidence, or trust in the systems, they should be able to do so through some non-digital alternative. They should not be barred from using relevant important services such as, in my examples, banking and renting a property because they cannot or would prefer not to use a digital verification service.
At the very least, even if the Minister is not minded to accept that amendment, I hope that he can make clear that the Government have no intention to make digital ID verification mandatory, as some have suggested that this Part 2 may be driving towards.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is quite a disparate group of amendments. I support Amendment 195ZA, which I have signed. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Vaux, have made clear the importance of having a provision such as this on the statute book. It is important that an individual can choose whether to use digital or non-digital means of verifying their identity. It is important for the liberty and equality of individuals as well as to cultivate trust in what are essentially growing digital identity systems. The use of the word “empower” in these circumstances is important. We need to empower people rather than push them into digital systems that they may not be able to access. Therefore, a move towards digitalisation is not a justification for compelling individuals to use systems that could compromise their privacy or rights more broadly. I very much support that amendment on that basis.
I also very much support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which I have signed. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee could not have made its recommendations clearer. The Government are serial offenders in terms of skeleton Bills. We have known that from remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on the Government Benches over a long period. I am going to be extremely interested in what the Government have to say. Quite often, to give them some credit, they listen to what the DPRRC has to say and I hope that on this occasion the Minister is going to give us some good news.
This is an extremely important new system being set up by the Government. We have been waiting for the enabling legislation for quite some time. It is pretty disappointing, after all the consultations that have taken place, just how skeletal it is. No underlying principles have been set out. There is a perfectly good set of principles set out by the independent Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group that advises the Government on how to provide a simple, trusted and secure means of accessing public services. But what assurance do we have that we are going to see those principles embedded in this new system?
Throughout, it is vital that the Secretary of State is obliged to uphold the kinds of concerns being raised in the development of this DVS trust framework to ensure that those services protect the people who use them. We need that kind of parliamentary debate and it has been made quite clear that we need nothing less than that. I therefore very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had to say on that subject.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Kamall for their amendments. To address the elephant in the room first, I can reassure noble Lords that the use of digital identity will not be mandatory, and privacy will remain one of the guiding principles of the Government’s approach to digital identity. There are no plans to introduce a centralised, compulsory digital ID system for public services, and the Government’s position on physical ID cards remains unchanged. The Government are committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards.
I shall speak now to Amendment 177, which would require the rules of the DVS trust framework to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I recognise that this amendment, and others in this group, reflect recommendations from the DPRRC. Obviously, we take that committee very seriously, and we will respond to that report in due course, but ahead of Report.
Part 2 of the Bill will underpin the DVS trust framework, a document of auditable rules, which include technical standards. The trust framework refers to data protection legislation and ICO guidance. It has undergone four years of development, consultation and testing within the digital identity market. Organisations can choose to have their services certified against the trust framework to prove that they provide secure and trustworthy digital verification services. Certification is provided by independent conformity assessment bodies that have been accredited by the UK Accreditation Service. Annual reviews of the trust framework are subject to consultation with the ICO and other appropriate persons.
Requiring the trust framework to be set out in regulations would make it hard to introduce reactive changes. For example, if a new cybersecurity threat emerged which required the rapid deployment of a fix across the industry, the trust framework would need to be updated very quickly. Developments in this fast-growing industry require an agile approach to standards and rule-making. We cannot risk the document becoming outdated and losing credibility with industry. For these reasons, the Government feel that it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to set the rules of the trust framework with appropriate consultation, rather than for the power to be exercised by regulations.
I turn to Amendments 178 to 195, which would require the fees that may be charged under this part of the Bill to be set out in regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Government have committed to growing a market of secure and inclusive digital identities as an alternative to physical proofs of identity, for those that choose to use them. Fees will be introduced only once we are confident that doing so will not restrict the growth of this market, but the fee structure, when introduced, is likely to be complex and will need to flex to support growth in an evolving market.
There are built-in safeguards to this fee-charging power. First, there is a strong incentive for the Secretary of State to set fees that are competitive, fair and reasonable, because failing to do so would prevent the Government realising their commitment to grow this market. Secondly, these fee-raising powers have a well-defined purpose and limited scope. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will explain in advance what fees she intends to charge and when she intends to charge them, which will ensure the appropriate level of transparency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the arrangements for the office for digital identities and attributes. It will not initially be independent, as it will be located within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. As we announced in the government response to our 2021 consultation, we intend for this to be an interim arrangement until a suitable long-term home for the governing body can be identified. Delegating the role of Ofdia—as I suppose we will call it—to a third party in the future, is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as provided for by the clauses in the Bill. Initially placing Ofdia inside government will ensure that its oversight role could mature in the most effective way and that it supports the digital identity market in meeting the needs of individual users, relying parties and industry.
Digital verification services are independently certified against the trust framework rules by conformity assessment bodies. Conformity assessment bodies are themselves independently accredited by the UK Accreditation Service to ensure that they have the competence and impartiality to perform certification. The trust framework certification scheme will be accredited by the UK Accreditation Service to give confidence that the scheme can be efficiently and competently used to certify products, processes and services. All schemes will need to meet internationally agreed standards set out by the UK Accreditation Service. Ofdia, as the owner of the main code, will work with UKAS to ensure that schemes are robust, capable of certification and operated in line with the trust framework.
Amendment 184A proposes to exclude certified public bodies from registering to provide digital verification services. The term “public bodies” could include a wide range of public sector entities, including institutions such as universities, that receive any public funding. The Government take the view that this exclusion would be unnecessarily restrictive in the UK’s nascent digital identity market.
Amendment 195ZA seeks to mandate organisations to implement a non-digital form of verification in every instance where a digital method is required. The Bill enables the use of secure and inclusive digital identities across the economy. It does not force businesses or individuals to use them, nor does it insist that businesses which currently accept non-digital methods of verification must transition to digital methods. As Clause 52 makes clear, digital verification services are services that are provided at the request of the individual. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, when people want to use a digital verification service, they know which of the available products and services they can trust.
Some organisations operate only in the digital sphere, such as online-only banks and energy companies. To oblige such organisations to offer manual document checking would place obligations on them that would go beyond the Government’s commitment to do only what is necessary to enable the digital identity market to grow. In so far as this amendment would apply to public authorities, the Equality Act requires those organisations to consider how their services will affect people with protected characteristics, including those who, for various reasons, might not be able or might choose not to use a digital identity product.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Is the Minister saying that, as a result of the Equality Act, there is an absolute right to that analogue—if you like—form of identification if, for instance, someone does not have access to digital services?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I understand that some services are purely digital, but some of those may well not have digital ID. We do not know what future services there might be, so they might want to show an analogue ID. Is my noble friend saying that that will not be possible because it will impose too much of a burden on those innovative digital companies? Could he clarify what he said?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
On this point, the argument that the Government are making is that, where consumers want to use a digital verification service, all the Bill does is to provide a mechanism for those DVSs to be certified and assured to be safe. It does not seek to require anything beyond that, other than creating a list of safe DVSs.
The Equality Act applies to the public sector space, where it needs to be followed to ensure that there is an absolute right to inclusive access to digital technologies.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in essence, the Minister is admitting that there is a gap when somebody who does not have access to digital services needs an identity to deal with the private sector. Is that right?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
In the example I gave, I was not willing to use a digital system to provide a guarantee for my son’s accommodation in the private sector. I understand that that would not be protected and that, therefore, someone might not be able to rent a flat, for example, because they cannot provide physical ID.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The Bill does not change the requirements in this sense. If any organisation chooses to provide its services on a digital basis only, that is up to that organisation, and it is up to consumers whether they choose to use it. It makes no changes to the requirements in that space.
I will now speak to the amendment that seeks to remove Clause 80. Clause 80 enables the Secretary of State to ask accredited conformity assessment bodies and registered DVS providers to provide information which is reasonably required to carry out her functions under Part 2 of the Bill. The Bill sets out a clear process that the Secretary of State must follow when requesting this information, as well as explicit safeguards for her use of the power. These safeguards will ensure that DVS providers and conformity assessment bodies have to provide only information necessary for the functioning of this part of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the clause stand part amendment was clearly probing. Does the Minister have anything to say about the relationship with OneLogin? Is he saying that it is only information about systems, not individuals, which does not feed into the OneLogin identity system that the Government are setting up?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It is very important that the OneLogin system is entirely separate and not considered a DVS. We considered whether it should be, but the view was that that comes close to mandating a digital identity system, which we absolutely want to avoid. Hence the two are treated entirely differently.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That is a good reassurance, but if the Minister wants to unpack that further by correspondence, I would be very happy to have that.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am very happy to do so.
I turn finally to Amendments 289 and 300, which aim to introduce a criminal offence of digital identity theft. The Government are committed to tackling fraud and are confident that criminal offences already exist to cover the behaviour targeted by these amendments. Under the Fraud Act 2006, it is a criminal offence to make a gain from the use of another person’s identity or to cause or risk a loss by such use. Where accounts or databases are hacked into, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 criminalises the unauthorised access to a computer programme or data held on a computer.
Furthermore, the trust framework contains rules, standards and good practice requirements for fraud monitoring and responding to fraud. These rules will further defend systems and reduce opportunities for digital identity theft.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry, but this is a broad-ranging set of amendments, so I need to intervene on this one as well. When the Minister does his will write letter in response to today’s proceedings, could he tell us what guidance there is to the police on this? Because when the individual, Mr Arron, approached the police, they said, “Oh, sorry, there’s nothing we can do; identity theft is not a criminal offence”. The Minister seems to be saying, “No, it is fine; it is all encompassed within these provisions”. While he may be saying that, and I am sure he will be shouting it from the rooftops in the future, the question is whether the police have guidance; does the College of Policing have guidance and does the Home Office have guidance? The ordinary individual needs to know that it is exactly as the Minister says, and identity theft is covered by these other criminal offences. There is no point in having those offences if nobody knows about them.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
That is absolutely fair enough: I will of course write. Sadly, we are not joined today by ministerial colleagues from the Home Office, who have some other Bill going on.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I have no doubt that its contribution to the letter will be equally enjoyable. However, for all the reasons I set out above, I am not able to accept these amendments and respectfully encourage the noble Baroness and noble Lords not to press them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I suppose I am meant to say that I thank the Minister for his response, but I cannot say that it was particularly optimistic or satisfying. On my amendments, the Minister said he would be responding to the DPRRC in due course, and obviously I am interested to see that response, but as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the committee could not have been clearer and I thought made a very compelling case for why there should be some parliamentary oversight of this main code and, indeed, the fees arrangements.
I understand that it is a fast-moving sector, but the sort of things that the Delegated Powers Committee was talking about was that the main code should have some fundamental principles, some user rights and so on. We are not trying to spell out every sort of service that is going to be provided—as the Minister said, it is a fast-moving sector—but people need to have some trust in it and they need to know what this verification service is going to be about. Just saying that there is going to be a code, on such an important area, and that the Secretary of State will write it, is simply not acceptable in terms of basic parliamentary democracy. If it cannot be done through an affirmative procedure, the Government need to come up with another way to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary input into what is being proposed here.
On the subject of the fees, the Delegated Powers Committee and our amendment was saying only that there should be a negative SI. I thought that was perfectly reasonable on its part and I am sorry that the Minister is not even prepared to accept that perfectly suggestion. All in all, I thought that the response on that element was very disappointing.
The response was equally disappointing on the whole issue that the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Vaux, raised about the right not to have to use the digital verification schemes but to do things on a non-digital basis. The arguments are well made about the numbers of people who are digitally excluded. I was in the debate that the noble Lord referred to, and I cannot remember the statistics now, but something like 17% of the population do not have proper digital access, so we are excluding a large number of people from a whole range of services. It could be applying for jobs, accessing bank accounts or applying to pay the rent for your son’s flat or whatever. We are creating a two-tier system here, for those who are involved and those who are on the margins who cannot use a lot of the services. I would have hoped that the Government would have been much more engaged in trying to find ways through that and providing some guarantees to people.
We know that we are taking a big leap, with so many different services going online. There is a lot of suspicion about how these services are going to work and people do not trust that computers are always as accurate as we would like them to be, so they would like to feel that there is another way of doing it if it all goes wrong. It worries me that the Minister is not able to give that commitment.
I have to say that I am rather concerned by what the Minister said about the private sector—in effect, that it can already have a requirement to have digital only. Surely, in this brave new world we are going towards, we do not want a digital-only service; this goes back to the point about a whole range of people being excluded. What is wrong with saying, even to people who collect people’s bank account details to pay their son’s rent, “There is an alternative way of doing this as well as you providing all the information digitally”? I am very worried about where all this is going, including who will be part of it and who will not. If the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Vaux, wish to pursue this at a later point, I would be sympathetic to their arguments.
On identity theft, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a compelling case. The briefing that he read out from the Metropolitan Police said that your data is one of your most valuable assets, which is absolutely right. He also rightly made the point that this is linked to organised crime. It does not happen by accident; some major people are farming our details and using them for all sorts of nefarious activities. There is a need to tighten up the regulation and laws on this. The Minister read out where he thinks this is already dealt with under existing legislation but we will all want to scrutinise that and see whether that really is the case. There are lots of examples of where the police have not been able to help people and do not know what their rights are, so we just need to know exactly what advice has been given to the police.
I feel that the Minister could have done more on this whole group to assure us that we are not moving towards a two-tier world. I will withdraw my amendment, obviously, but I have a feeling that we will come back to this issue; it may be something that we can talk to the Minister about before we get to Report.
“(v) the energy and carbon intensity of the goods, services or digital content),”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds carbon and energy intensity to the information that can be required to be provided as “business data”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this is a very small and modest amendment, adding a fifth element to a list. Clause 85 is very long, so I will try to keep to its key elements. The clause
“confers powers on the Secretary of State and the Treasury to make provision in connection with access to customer data and business data”.
It is particularly focused on information about
“the supply or provision of goods, services and digital content”
by a business. The four elements are these. The first is where it is “supplied or provided”; the second is “prices or other terms; the third is “how they are used”; and the fourth is “performance or quality”. That fourth element does not cover the specific issue that my modest Amendment 195A proposes to add: the energy and carbon intensity of goods, services or digital content.
This might be seen as an attempt at future-proofing and including something which is a fast-growing area of great consumer concern—it should be of government concern too in the light of the Climate Change Act and the Government’s responsibilities. It would add a modest piece of possibility. I stress that, as the explanatory statement says, this can be required; it does not demand that it has to be required, but it provides the possibility that it can be.
There is a parallel here. When you go into a shop to think about buying white goods because you need to replace a fridge or washing machine, you expect, as a matter of standard, to see an energy performance certificate that will tell you how much electricity it will use, or, in the case of gas cookers, how much energy. We now expect that as standard, but of course, that is not focused on what is in the appliance but on what it will use.
The other obvious example is energy performance certificates in relation to housing. Again, that is something that could probably be considerably improved, but there has been some step towards thinking about issues around energy use rather than what is put in. In that context of building, we are seeing a great deal of focus—and, increasingly, a great deal of planning focus —on the issue of embodied carbon in buildings. This is taking that further, in terms of goods, services and digital provision.
Perhaps the obvious reason why a future Government might want to do this is that, if we think of the many areas of this so-called green rating in environmental standards, we have seen a profusion of different standards, labels and models. That has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty for consumers. If a Government were to say that this was the kind of step that would be used, it would give a standard to apply across the digital fields that would be clearly understood and not open to gaming by bad actors, by just creating their own standard, and so on.
Take, for example, the Mintel sustainability barometer —it is a global study but is reflective, I think, of what is happening in the UK. Consumers are increasingly demanding this information; they really want to know the environmental impact, including the impact of the production of whatever they are purchasing. This is information that consumers really want.
The other thing that I would point to in terms of this future-proofing approach is the OECD’s Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches. That is rather a mouthful. In February, it put out a study entitled—another mouthful—Towards more accurate, timely, and granular product-level carbon intensity metrics: A Scoping Note. That makes it clear that we are talking here about something that is for the future; something that is being developed, but developed fast. If we think about the Government’s responsibilities within the Climate Change Act and the public desire, this modest addition, providing the legislative framework for future action, is a small positive step. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218, which is in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I thank them for their support.
I apologise to the Minister, because I think this amendment is typical of the increasing way in which we will see environmental and particularly climate change issues popping up in Bills that belong not to Defra, DESNZ or DLUHC but to other departments. Because there is the fundamental issue of many economic and other activities impacting on these issues, that will be a pattern for Bills. He is playing on unfamiliar turf on this one, I am sure, so I sympathise with him.
“This amendment would require Ministers and public authorities, such as regulators”
when they make significant announcements about policy change, to disclose any analysis they have done of the
“impact of announcements … on UK climate change mitigation targets, adaptation to climate impacts and nature targets”.
The sorts of announcements that this amendment refers to include the introduction of primary legislation, obviously; changes to the timing, level and scope of government targets; large public sector procurement contracts; big infrastructure spending commitments; and any other policies that have the potential to have significant impact on climate and nature targets and climate change adaptation.
I firmly believe, and I have the support of the clerks, that this accords with the provision in the Long Title of the Bill
“to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery”
The information disclosed has to be accurate, timely and machine-readable. The Secretary of State would give guidance on the format of that disclosure following wide consultation with those involved, especially across all departments, because it will be an issue that involves all departments.
So why is the amendment needed? At the moment, the Government are required to publish a whole load of reports on environmental impacts but many of them are periodic, or possibly only annual and high level. For example, the Government are required to publish periodic high-level delivery plans on net zero under Sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act. However, these leave unquantified many emissions savings and they are not revised at all when policies change.
The Government recently decided to delay the date of a ban on new fossil fuel cars and vans; to delay the proposed ban on further installation of oil, LPG and coal heating systems; and to delay the rollout of the clean heat market mechanism. The Government failed to report any greenhouse gas impacts from these measures, which were pretty substantial announcements. Indeed, the Secretary of State for DESNZ argued that it would not be appropriate, or a requirement, to update and publish a revised version of the carbon budget delivery plan every time that there was a change in policy. That is not what this amendment argues for; it reflects that one would think that, when such significant announcements were being made, the Government would have looked at what the impact on climate change issues would be.
The amendment would simply require the Government to publish any analysis that they have done on impact assessments or to publish the fact that they have not done any such analysis—one can draw one’s own conclusions from the fact that they have not done that. The Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, around the time of the announcements of which I gave examples, went so far as to challenge the Prime Minister to provide clarity on how the Government intended to fill the emission reduction gap caused by the proposed rollback of existing policies and did not get a satisfactory answer.
There are similar current arrangements for reports on adaptation and resilience to climate change. Section 56 and 58 of the Climate Change Act require, again, periodic reporting at a high level on adaptation to climate change. That legislation has not been updated when policies have changed. As far as the introduction of new legislation is concerned, Section 20 of the Environment Act requires a statement on environmental law by government when there is environmental content in any new Bill. However, we already know from bitter experience that the Government interpret “environmental content” rather tightly.
All but one of the 28 Bills considered by Parliament in this current Session stated that they did not contain environmental law at all, whereas we can see that several of them have a clear environmental impact. For example, the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill—I should be talking now about an amendment on it across the way, as indeed, should the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—could prevent public bodies from taking important environmental matters into account in their decision-making. However, at the time of that Bill being published, it was certified by Ministers as not containing any environmental law.
Currently, the Government publish impact assessments for new legislation, including environmental impact assessments where the proposals are expected to have an environmental impact. Again, this is interpreted very tightly by the Government. Of the 28 government Bills that we have considered in this Session, 24 reported negligible impact, zero impact or being not applicable in the greenhouse gas box of the appraisal form—or the whole box was left blank. No account was available of the evidence on which such ratings of not having any impact was based because we did not then get any environmental impact assessment. To give one example: the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill simply reported that impacts were not quantified, which is pretty staggering, bearing in mind the clear environmental implications of that Bill. One would think that licensing additional petroleum extraction from the North Sea has some environmental ramification.
We have talked about climate change impacts and adaptation impacts, and we have talked about legislation. With regard to public procurement, the Government and contracting authorities are not required to publish the greenhouse gas emissions associated with individual procurement contracts. We argued that one in the Procurement Bill and failed to get any movement. There is a procurement policy note guiding government departments to seek emission reductions plans from the firms that they are contracting with, but this is a non-statutory note—it is advice only—and it covers only the contracting companies’ own operations and not the impact emissions of the products of services being contracted for.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
This is a slightly disparate group of amendments. I have added my name in support of Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which once again probes the question of whether this Bill risks causing the loss of the data adequacy ruling from the EU. This was an issue raised by many, if not most, noble Lords during Second Reading, and it is an area in which the Government’s position feels a little complacent.
The data adequacy ruling from the EU is extremely important, as the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill makes clear. It says:
“Cross-border data transfers are a key facilitator of international trade, particularly for digitised services. Transfers underpin business transactions and financial flows. They also help streamline supply chain management and allow business to scale and trade globally”.
The impact assessment then goes on to estimate the costs of losing data adequacy, and indicates a net present value cost range of between £1.6 billion and £3.4 billion over the next 10 years. As an aside, I note that that is a pretty wide range, which perhaps indicates the extent to which the costs are really understood.
The impact assessment notes that these numbers are the impact on direct trade only and that the impact may be larger still when considering supply chain impacts, but it does not make any attempt to calculate that effect. There are big potential costs, however we look at it. It therefore seems extraordinary that the impact assessment, despite running to 240 pages, makes no attempt at all to quantify the probability that the EU might decide—and it is a unilateral EU decision—to withdraw the data adequacy ruling, which it can do at any time, even before the current ruling comes to an end in July 2025. I find it extraordinary that no attempt has been made to estimate the probability of that happening. You would think that, if the Government were as confident as they say they are, they should have some evidence as to the probability of it happening.
Noble Lords should be aware that this means that the potential cost of the loss of data adequacy is not included in the NPV analysis for the Bill. If that loss did occur, the net present value of the Bill would be largely wiped out, and if the lower end of the IA range is taken, the Bill’s overall financial impact becomes a net present cost to the tune of £2.1 billion. The retention of the EU data adequacy ruling is therefore key to retaining any real benefit from this Bill at all.
On Monday, the Minister said:
“We believe they are compatible with maintaining our data adequacy decisions from the EU. We have maintained a positive, ongoing dialogue with the EU to make sure that our reforms are understood. We will continue to engage with the European Commission at official and ministerial levels with a view to ensuring that our respective arrangements for the free flow of personal data can remain in place, which is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU”.—[Official Report, 15/4/24; col. GC 261.]
By “they”, he means the measures in the Bill. So far, so good. But your Lordships will remember that, at the time of Brexit, there was actually considerable doubt as to whether we would be granted a data adequacy ruling at that time, when our rules were almost entirely convergent. This Bill increases divergence, so the approach at the moment seems complacent at best.
I do not think it is any surprise at all that our European Affairs Committee recently launched an inquiry into this very subject. While the Minister has said how confident he is, noises being made in the EU are less encouraging. For example, the chair of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee wrote in February to the European Commissioner for Justice outlining his concerns about this Bill and questioning whether it will meet the requirements of “essential equivalence”, which is the test that we have to meet. He highlighted, in particular, the lack of independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the elimination of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, something we will come on to a little later.
It does not seem to be a given that data adequacy will be retained, despite the frankly rather woolly assurances from the Minister about his confidence. Given the enormous importance of the data adequacy ruling, and the fact that the impact assessment makes no attempt at all to assess the probability of retaining or losing it—something one would think to be really fundamental when deciding the extent of divergence we wish to follow—it must make sense to introduce the assessment proposed in Amendment 296. In the absence of something much stronger than the assurances the Minister has given so far, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to return to this matter on Report: it is really fundamental.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this group has three amendments within it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, it is a disparate group. The first two seem wholly benign and entirely laudable, in that they seek to ensure that concerns about the environmental impacts related to data connected to business are shared and provided. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said hers was a small and modest amendment: I agree entirely with that, but it is valuable nevertheless.
If I had to choose which amendment I prefer, it would be the second, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, simply because it is more comprehensive and seems to be of practical value in pursuing policy objectives related to climate change mitigation. I cannot see why the disclosure of an impact analysis of current and future announcements, including legislation, changes in targets and large contracts, on UK climate change mitigation targets would be a problem. I thought my noble friend was very persuasive and her arguments about impact assessment were sound. The example of offshore petroleum legislation effectively not having an environmental impact assessment when its impacts are pretty clear was a very good one indeed. I am one of those who believes that environmental good practice should be written all the way through, a bit like a stick of Brighton rock, and I think that about legislation. It is important that we take on board that climate change is the most pressing issue that we face for the future.
The third amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones, is of a rather different nature, but is no less important, as it relates to the UK’s data adequacy and the EU’s decisions on it. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Clement-Jones, for their support. Put simply, it would oblige the Secretary of State to complete an assessment, within six months of the Bill’s passing,
“of the likely impact of the Act on the EU’s data adequacy decisions relating to the UK”.
It would oblige the Secretary of State to lay a report on the assessment’s findings, and the report must cover data risk assessments and the impact on SMEs. It must also include an estimate of the legislation’s financial impact. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, usefully underlined the importance of this, with its critical 2025 date. The amendment also probes
“whether the Government anticipate the provisions of the Bill conflicting with the requirements that need to be made by the UK to maintain a data adequacy decision by the EU”.
There is widespread and considerable concern about data adequacy and whether the UK legislative framework diverges too far from the standards that apply under the EU GDPR. The risk that the UK runs in attempting to reduce compliance costs for the free flow of personal data is that safeguards are removed to the point where businesses and trade become excessively concerned. In summary, many sectors including manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and particularly financial services are concerned that the free flow of data between us and the EU, with minimal disruption, will simply not be able to continue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, underlined, it is important that we in the UK have a relationship of trust with the European Commission on this, although ultimately data adequacy could be tested in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Data subjects in the EU can rely on the general principle of the protection of personal data to invalidate EU secondary and domestic law conflicting with that principle. Data subjects can also rely on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to bring challenges. Both these routes were closed off when the UK left the EU and the provisions were not saved in UK law, so it can be argued that data protection rights are already at a lower standard than across the European Union.
It is worth acknowledging that adequacy does not necessarily require equivalence. We can have different, and potentially lower, standards than the EU but, as long as those protections are deemed to meet whatever criteria the Commission chooses to apply, it is all to the good.
However, while divergence is possible, the concern that we and others have is that the Bill continues chipping away at standards in too many different ways. This chipping away is also taking place in statutory instruments, changes to guidance and so on. If His Majesty’s Government are satisfied that the overall picture remains that UK regulation is adequate, that is welcome, but it would be useful to know what mechanism DSIT and the Government generally intend using to measure where the tipping point might be achieved and how close these reforms take us to it.
The Committee will need considerable reassurance on the question of data adequacy, not least because of its impact on businesses and financial services in the longer term. At various times, the Minister has made the argument that a Brexit benefit is contained within this legislation. If he is ultimately confident of that case, what would be the impact on UK businesses if that assessment is wrong in relation to data adequacy decisions taken within the EU?
We are going to need more than warm words and a recitation that “We think it’s right and that we’re in the right place on data adequacy”. We are going to need some convincing. Whatever the Minister says today, we will have to return to this issue on Report. It is that important for businesses in this country and for the protection of data subjects.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, these amendments have been spoken to so well that I do not need to spend a huge amount of time repeating those great arguments. Both Amendment 195A, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 218 have considerable merit. I do not think that they conflict; they are complementary, in many respects.
Awareness raising is important to this, especially in relation to Amendment 218. For instance, if regulators are going to have a growth duty, which looks like it is going to happen, why not have countervailing duties relating to climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put forward so cogently as part of Amendment 218? Amendment 195A also has considerable merit in raising awareness in the private sector, in traders and so on. Both have considerable merit.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones, for their proposed amendments on extending the definition of business data in smart data schemes, the disclosure of climate and nature information to improve public service delivery and the publication of an EU adequacy risk assessment.
On Amendment 195A, we consider that information about the carbon and energy intensity of goods, services or digital content already falls within the scope of “business data” as information about goods, services and digital content supplied or provided by a trader. Development of smart data schemes will, where relevant, be informed by—among other things—the Government’s Environmental Principles Policy Statement, under the Environment Act 2021.
With regard to Amendment 218, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her sympathies; they are gratefully received. I will do my best in what she correctly pointed out is quite a new area for me. The powers to share information under Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017—the DEA—are supplemented by statutory codes of practice. These require impact assessments to be carried out, particularly for significant changes or proposals that could have wide-ranging effects on various sectors or stakeholders. These impact assessments are crucial for understanding the implications of the Digital Economy Act and ensuring that it achieves its intended objectives, while minimising any negative consequences for individuals, businesses and society as a whole. As these assessments already cover economic, social and environmental impact, significant changes in approach are already likely to be accounted for. This is in addition to the duty placed on Ministers by the Environment Act 2021 to have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement.
Lastly, turning to Amendment 296, the Government are committed to maintaining their data adequacy decisions from the EU, which we absolutely recognise play a pivotal role in enabling trade and fighting crime. As noble Lords alluded to, we maintain regular engagement with the European Commission on the Bill to ensure that our reforms are understood.
The EU adequacy assessment of the UK is, of course, a unilateral, autonomous process for the EU to undertake. However, we remain confident that our reforms deliver against UK interests and are compatible with maintaining EU adequacy. As the European Commission itself has made clear, a third country—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, alluded to this point—is not required to have the same rules as the EU to be considered adequate. Indeed, 15 countries have EU adequacy, including Japan, Israel and the Republic of Korea. All these nations pursue independent and, often, more divergent approaches to data protection.
The Government will provide both written and oral evidence to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee inquiry on UK-EU data adequacy and respond to its final report, which is expected to be published in the summer. Many expert witnesses already provided evidence to the committee and have stated that they believe that the Bill is compatible with maintaining adequacy.
As noble Lords have noted, the Government have published a full impact assessment alongside the Bill, which sets out in more detail what both the costs and financial benefits of the Bill would be—including in the unlikely scenario of the EU revoking the UK’s adequacy decision. I also note that UK adequacy is good for the EU too: every EU company, from multinationals to start-ups, with customers, suppliers or operations in the UK relies on EU-UK data transfers. Leading European businesses and organisations have consistently emphasised the importance of maintaining these free flows of data to the UK.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree to withdraw or not move these amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The Minister made the point at the end there that it is in the EU’s interest to agree to our data adequacy. That is an important point but is that what the Government are relying on—the fact that it is in the EU’s interest as much as ours to continue to agree to our data adequacy provisions? If so, what the Minister has said does not make me feel more reassured. If the Government are relying on just that, it is not a particularly strong argument.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister stands up, let me just say that I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said. Have the Government taken any independent advice? It is easy to get wrapped up in your own bubble. The Government seem incredibly blithe about this Bill. You only have to have gone through our days in this Committee to see the fundamental changes that are being made to data protection law, yet the Government, in this bubble, seem to think that everything is fine despite the warnings coming from Brussels. Are they taking expert advice from outside? Do they have any groups of academics, for instance, who know about this kind of thing? It is pretty worrying. The great benefit of this kind of amendment, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is that nothing would happen until we were sure that we were going to be data adequate. That seems a fantastic safeguard to me. If the Government are just flying blind on this, we are all in trouble, are we not?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, can I point out, on the interests of the EU, that it does not go just one way? There is a question around investment as well. For example, any large bank that is currently running a data-processing facility in this country that covers the whole of Europe may decide, if we lose data adequacy, to move it to Europe. Anyone considering setting up such a thing would probably go for Europe rather than here. There is therefore an investment draw for the EU here.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do not know what I could possibly have said to create the impression that the Government are flying blind on this matter. We continue to engage extensively with the EU at junior official, senior official and ministerial level in order to ensure that our proposed reforms are fully understood and that there are no surprises. We engage with multiple expert stakeholders from both the EU side and the UK side. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, a number of experts have submitted evidence to the House’s inquiry on EU-UK data adequacy and have made clear their views that the DPDI reforms set out in this Bill are compatible with EU adequacy. We continue to engage with the EU throughout. I do not want to be glib or blithe about the risks; we recognise the risks but it is vital—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Could we have a list of the people the noble Lord is talking about?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes. I would be happy to provide a list of the people we have spoken to about adequacy; it may be a long one. That concludes the remarks I wanted to make, I think.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could just tweak that a bit by listing not just the people who have made positive noises but those who have their doubts.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. This has been a fairly short but fruitful debate. We can perhaps commend the Minister for his resilience, although it feels like he was pounded back on the ropes a few times along the way.
I will briefly run through the amendments. I listened carefully to the Minister, although I will have to read it back in Hansard. I think he was trying to say that my Amendment 195A, which adds energy and carbon intensity to this list, is already covered. However, I really cannot see how that can be claimed to be the case. The one that appears to be closest is sub-paragraph (iv), which refers to “performance or quality”, but surely that does not include energy and carbon intensity. I will consider whether to come back to this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, presented a wonderfully clear explanation of why Amendment 218 is needed. I particularly welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, expressing strong Labour support for this. Even if the Government do not see the light and include it in the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord’s support can be taken as a commitment that a future Labour Government intend to follow that practice in all their approaches.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness does not get too carried away on that one.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sure that we will revisit this at some point in future. Perhaps the noble Lord will like the fact that I am saying that it is certain that we will revisit it from a different place.
These are all really serious amendments. This is a long Committee stage but, in the whole issue of data, having regard to data adequacy is absolutely crucial, as the degree of intervention on the Minister indicated. The Green Party’s position is that we want to be rejoin-ready: we want to remain as close as possible to EU standards so that we can rejoin the EU as soon as possible.
Even without taking that approach, this is a crucial issue as so many businesses are reliant on this adequacy ruling. I was taken by a comment from the Minister, who said that the UK is committed to data adequacy. The issue here is not what the UK is saying but convincing the EU, which is not in our hands or under our control, as numerous noble Lords said.
I have no doubt that we will return to data adequacy and I hope that we will return to the innovative and creative intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195A.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the restriction in clause 96(3) on the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 96(1) (power to impose a levy) applies in connection with regulations imposing a levy on authorised persons or third party recipients as well as regulations imposing a levy on data holders.
Viscount Camrose
“(9A) The requirement in subsection (9) may be satisfied by consultation undertaken before the coming into force of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the requirement under clause 103(9) to consult before making regulations described in clause 103(7) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before clause 103 comes into force.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, for the convenience of the Committee and in view of the forthcoming votes, I think it would be helpful to pause here and return after the two votes have taken place. Is that agreeable?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I would much rather not. We are due to end at 8.15 pm and I should like to hold to that. We seem to have some while before anything is going to happen. Shall we not just make progress?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
All right, we shall make as much progress as we can.
Amendment 197A
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Oversight of biometric technology use by the Information Commission(1) The Information Commission must establish a Biometrics Office.(2) The Biometrics Office is to be constituted by a committee of three appointed commissioners with relevant expertise.(3) It is the function of the Biometrics Office to—(a) establish and maintain a public register of relevant entities engaged in processing the biometric data of members of the public; (b) oversee and review the biometrics use of relevant entities;(c) produce a Code of Practice for the use of biometric technology by registered parties, which must include—(i) compulsory standards of accuracy and reliability for biometric technologies;(ii) a requirement for the proportionality of biometrics use to be assessed prior to use and annually thereafter, and a procedure for such assessment;(iii) a procedure for individual complaints about the use of biometrics by registered parties;(d) receive and publish annual reports from all relevant entities, which includes the relevant entity’s proportionality assessment of their biometrics use;(e) enforce registration and reporting by the issuing of enforcement notices and, where necessary, the imposition of fines for non-compliance with the registration and reporting requirements;(f) ensure lawfulness of biometrics use by relevant entities, including by issuing compliance and abatement notices where necessary.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to the responsibilities of the Biometrics Office.(5) Regulations made under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(6) For the purposes of this Part, “relevant entity” means any organisation or body corporate (whether public or private) which processes biometric data as defined in Article 9 GDPR, other than where the biometric processing undertaken by the organisation or body corporate is otherwise overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, because it is—(a) for the purposes of making or renewing a national security determination as defined by section 20(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or(b) for the purposes set out in section 20(6) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s Committee proceedings. I declare my technology interests as an adviser to Boston Limited. It is self-evident that we have been talking about data but there could barely be a more significant piece of data than biometrics. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 197B and 197C, and give more than a nod to the other amendments in this group.
When we talk about data, it is always critical that we remember that it is largely our data. There could be no greater example of that than biometrics. More than data, they are parts and fragments of our very being. This is an opportune moment in the debate on the Bill to strengthen the approach to the treatment and the use of biometrics, not least because they are being increasingly used by private entities. That is what Amendments 197A to 197C are all about—the establishment of a biometrics office, a code of practice and oversight, and sanctions and fines to boot. This is of that level of significance. The Bill should have that strength when we are looking at such a significant part of our very human being and data protection.
Amendment 197B looks at reporting and regulatory requirements, and Amendment 197C at the case for entities that have already acted in the biometrics space prior to the passage of the Bill. In short, it is very simple. The amendments take principles that run through many elements of data protection and ensure that we have a clear statement on the use and deployment of biometrics in the Bill. There could be no more significant pieces of data. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I thank the Ada Lovelace Institute for its help in drafting the amendments, and I look forward to the debate on this group. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name in support of the stand part notices of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to Clauses 147, 148 and 149. These clauses would abolish the office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, along with the surveillance camera code of practice. I am going to speak mainly to the surveillance camera aspect, although I was taken by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who made some strong points.
The UK has become one of the most surveilled countries in the democratic world. There are estimated to be over 7 million CCTV cameras in operation. I give one example: the automated number plate recognition, ANPR, system records between 70 million and 80 million readings every day. Every car is recorded on average about three times a day. The data is held for two years. The previous Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Tony Porter, said about ANPR that it,
“must surely be one of the largest data gatherers of its citizens in the world. Mining of meta-data—overlaying against other databases can be far more intrusive than communication intercept”.
Professor Sampson, the previous commissioner, said about ANPR:
“There is no ANPR legislation or act, if you like. And similarly, there is no governance body to whom you can go to ask proper questions about the extent and its proliferation, about whether it should ever be expanded to include capture of other information such as telephone data being emitted by a vehicle or how it's going to deal with the arrival of automated autonomous vehicles”.
And when it came to independent oversight and accountability, he said:
“I’m the closest thing it’s got—and that’s nothing like enough”.
I am not against the use of surveillance cameras per se—it is unarguable that they are a valuable tool in the prevention and detection of crime—but there is clearly a balance to be found. If we chose to watch everything every person does all of the time, we could eliminate crime completely, but nobody is going to argue that to be desirable. We can clearly see how surveillance and biometrics can be misused by states that wish to control their populations—just look at China. So there is a balance to find between the protection of the public and intrusion into privacy.
Technology is moving incredibly rapidly, particularly with the ever-increasing capabilities of Al. As technology changes, so that balance between protection and privacy may also need to change. Yet Clause 148 will abolish the only real safeguards we have, and the only governance body that keeps an eye on that balance. This debate is not about where that balance ought to be; it is about making sure that there is some process to ensure that the balance is kept under independent review at a time when surveillance technologies and usage are developing incredibly rapidly.
I am sure that the Minister is going to argue that, as he said at Second Reading:
“Abolishing the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will not reduce data protection”.—[Official Report, 19/12/23; col. 2216.]
He is no doubt going to tell us that the roles of the commissioner will be adequately covered by the ICO. To be honest that completely misses the point. Surveillance is not just a question of data protection; it is a much wider question of privacy. Yes, the ICO may be able to manage the pure data protection matters, but it cannot possibly be the right body to keep the whole question of surveillance and privacy intrusion, and the related technologies, under independent review.
It is also not true that all the roles of the commissioner are being transferred to other bodies. The report by the Centre for Research into Surveillance and Privacy, or CRISP, commissioned by the outgoing commissioner, is very clear that a number of important areas will be lost, particularly reviewing the police handling of DNA samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints; maintaining an up-to-date surveillance camera code of practice with standards and guidance for practitioners and encouraging compliance with that code; setting out technical and governance matters for most public body surveillance systems, including how to approach evolving technology, such as Al-driven systems including facial recognition technology; and providing guidance on technical and procurement matters to ensure that future surveillance systems are of the right standard and purchased from reliable suppliers. It is worth noting that it was the Surveillance Camera Commissioner who raised the issues around the use of Hikvision cameras, for example—not something that the ICO is likely to be able to do. Finally, we will also lose the commissioner providing reports to the Home Secretary and Parliament about public surveillance and biometrics matters.
Professor Sampson said, before he ended his time in office as commissioner:
“The lack of attention being paid to these important matters at such a crucial time is shocking, and the destruction of the surveillance camera code that we’ve all been using successfully for over a decade is tantamount to vandalism”.
He went on to say:
“It is the only legal instrument we have in this country that specifically governs public space surveillance. It is widely respected by the police, local authorities and the surveillance industry in general … It seems absolutely senseless to destroy it now”.
The security industry does not want to see these changes either, as it sees the benefits of having a clear code. The Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board, said:
“Without the Surveillance Camera Commissioner you will go back to the old days when it was like the ‘wild west’, which means you can do anything with surveillance cameras so long as you don’t annoy the Information Commissioner … so, there will not be anyone looking at new emerging technologies, looking at their technical requirements or impacts, no one thinking about ethical implications for emerging technologies like face-recognition, it will be a free-for-all”.
The British Security Industry Association said:
“We are both disappointed and concerned about the proposed abolition of the B&SCC. Given the prolific emergence of biometric technologies associated with video surveillance, now is a crucial time for government, industry, and the independent commissioner(s) to work close together to ensure video surveillance is used appropriately, proportionately, and most important, ethically”.
I do not think I can put it better than that.
While there may be better ways to achieve the appropriate safeguards than the current commissioner arrangement, this Bill simply abolishes everything that we have now and replaces the safeguards only partially, and only from a data protection perspective. I am open to discussion about how we might fill the gaps, but the abolition currently proposed by the Bill is a massively retrograde and even dangerous step, removing the only safeguards we have against the uncontrolled creep towards ever more intrusive surveillance of innocent people. As technology increases the scope for surveillance, this must be the time for greater safeguards and more independent oversight, not less. The abolition of the commissioner and code should not happen unless there are clear, better, safeguards established to replace it, and this Bill simply does not do that.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of, first, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, which would recreate the office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
As I have done on a number of occasions, I shall tell a short story; it is about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Noble Lords may wonder why I am starting there. I remember very clearly one of the first debates that I participated in when I was at university—far too long ago. It was at the Oxford Union, and Dame Mary Warnock came to speak about what was then a highly contentious use of new technology. In this country, we had that debate early; we established an authority to oversee what are very complex scientific and ethical issues. It has remained a settled issue in this country that has enabled many families to bear children, bringing life and joy to people in a settled and safe way.
This data issue is quite similar, I think. Other countries did not have that early debate, which I remember as a teenager, and did not establish a regulator in the form of the HFEA. I point to the US, which was torn apart by those very issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has just set out, the public are very concerned about the use of biometric data. This is an issue that many sci-fi novels and films have been made about, because it preys on our deepest fears. I think that technology can be hugely valuable to society, but only if we build and maintain trust in it. In order to do that, you need consistent, long-standing, expert regulation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I do not understand why the changes that this Bill brings will make things better. It narrows the scope of protection to data protection only when, actually, the issues are much broader, much subtler and much more sophisticated. For that reason and that reason alone, I think that we need to remove these clauses and reinstate the regulator that exists today.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself in a fortunate position: we have made progress fast enough to enable me to go from one end of the Room to the other and play a modest part in this debate. I do so because, at an earlier stage, I identified the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I very much wish to say a few words in support of them.
Reference has already been made to the briefing that we have had from CRISP. I pay tribute to the authors of that report—I do not need to read long chunks of it into the record—and am tempted to follow the noble Lord in referring to both of them. I sometimes wonder whether, had their report been officially available before the Government drafted the Bill, we would find ourselves in the position we are now in. I would like to think that that would have had an effect on the Government’s thinking.
When I first read about the Government’s intention to abolish the post of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, I was concerned, but I am not technically adept to know enough about it in detail. I am grateful for the advice that I have had from CRISP and from Professor Michael Zander, a distinguished and eminent lawyer who is a Professor Emeritus at LSE. I am grateful to him for contacting me about this issue. I want to make a few points on his and its behalf.
In the short time available to me, this is the main thing I want to say. The Government argue that abolishing these joint roles will
“reduce duplication and simplify oversight of the police use of biometrics”.
Making that simpler and rationalising it is at the heart of the Government’s argument. It sounds as if this is merely a tidying-up exercise, but I believe that that is far from the case. It is fair to accept that the current arrangements for the oversight of public surveillance and biometric techniques are complex, but a report published on 30 October, to which noble Lords’ attention has already been drawn, makes a powerful case that what the Government intend to do will result in losses that are a great deal more significant than the problems caused by the complexity of the present arrangements. That is the paper’s argument.
The report’s authors, who produced a briefing for Members’ use today, have presented a mass of evidence and provided an impressively detailed analysis of the issues. The research underpinning the report includes a review of relevant literature, interviews with leading experts and regulators—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. There are two votes back to back so the Committee will just come back as and when.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I do not have the benefit of seeing a Hansard update to know after which word I was interrupted and we had to leave to vote, so I will just repeat, I hope not unduly, the main point I was making at the time of the Division. This was that the central conclusion of the CRISP report is that the Government’s policy
“generates significant gaps in the formal oversight of biometrics and surveillance practices in addition to erasing many positive developments aimed at raising standards and constructive engagement with technology developers, surveillance users and the public”.
The reason I am very glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in these amendments is that the complexities of the current regulatory landscape and the protections offered by the BSCC in an era of increasingly intensive advanced and intrusive surveillance mean that the abolition of the BSCC leaves these oversight gaps while creating additional regulatory complexity. I will be interested to see how the Minister defends the fact that this abolition is supposed to improve the situation.
I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, but I shall just read this one passage from the report into the record, because it is relevant to the debate we are having. We should not remove
“a mechanism for assuring Parliament and the public of appropriate surveillance use, affecting public trust and legitimacy at a critical moment concerning public trust in institutions, particularly law enforcement. As drafted, the Bill reduces public visibility and accountability of related police activities. The lack of independent oversight becomes amplified by other sections of the Bill that reduce the independence of the current Information Commissioner role”.
In short, I think it would be a mistake to abolish the biometrics commissioner, and on that basis, I support these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to noble Lords’ speeches in this debate. We are all very much on the same page and have very much the same considerations in mind. Both the protection of biometric data itself and also the means by which we regulate its use and have oversight over how it is used have been mentioned by everyone. We may have slightly different paths to making sure we have that protection and oversight, but we all have the same intentions.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, pointed to the considerable attractions of, in a sense, starting afresh, but I have chosen a rather different path. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who mentioned Fraser Sampson, the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. I must admit that I have very high regard for the work he did, and also for the work of such people as Professor Peter Fussey of Essex University. Of course, a number of noble Lords have mentioned the work of CRISP in all this, which kept us very well briefed on the consequence of these clauses.
No one has yet spoken to the stand part notices on Clauses 130 to 132; I will come on to those on Clauses 147 to 149 shortly. The Bill would drastically change the way UK law enforcement agencies can handle biometric personal data. Clauses 130 to 132 would allow for data received from overseas law enforcement agencies to be stored in a pseudonymised, traceable format indefinitely.
For instance, Clause 130 would allow UK law enforcement agencies to hold biometric data received from overseas law enforcement agencies in a pseudonymised format. In cases where the authority ceases to hold the material pseudonymously and the individual has no previous convictions or only one exempt conviction, the data may be retained in a non-pseudonymous format for up to three years. Therefore, the general rule is indefinite retention with continuous pseudonymisation, except for a specific circumstance where non-pseudonymised retention is permitted for a fixed period. I forgive noble Lords if they have to read Hansard to make total sense of that.
This is a major change in the way personal data can be handled. Permitting storage of pseudonymised or non-pseudonymised data will facilitate a vast biometric database that can be traced back to individuals. Although this does not apply to data linked to offences committed in the UK, it sets a concerning precedent for reshaping how law enforcement agencies hold data in a traceable and identifiable way. It seems that there is nothing to stop a law enforcement agency pseudonymising data just to reattach the identifying information, which they would be permitted to hold for three years.
The clauses do not explicitly define the steps that must be taken to achieve pseudonymisation. This leaves a broad scope for interpretation and variation in practice. The only requirement is that the data be pseudonymised
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
which is a totally subjective threshold. The collective impact of these clauses, which were a late addition to the Bill on Report in the Commons, is deeply concerning. We believe that these powers should be withdrawn to prevent a dangerous precedent being set for police retention of vast amounts of traceable biometric data.
The stand part notices on Clauses 147 to 149 have been spoken to extremely cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I will not repeat a great deal of what they said but what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority really struck a chord with me. When we had our Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, we looked at models for regulation and how to gain public trust for new technologies and concepts. The report that Baroness Warnock did into fertilisation and embryology was an absolute classic and an example of how to gain public trust. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, it has stood the test of time. As far as I am concerned, gaining that kind of trust is the goal for all of us.
What we are doing here risks precisely the reverse by abolishing the office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. This was set up under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which required a surveillance camera commissioner to be appointed and a surveillance camera code of practice to be published. Other functions of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner are in essence both judicial and non-judicial. They include developing and encouraging compliance with the surveillance camera code of practice; raising standards for surveillance camera developers, suppliers and users; public engagement; building legitimacy; reporting annually to Parliament via the Home Secretary; convening expertise to support these functions; and reviewing all national security determinations and other powers by which the police can retain biometric data. The Bill proposes to erase all but one—I stress that—of these activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, quoted CRISP. I will not repeat the quotes he gave but its report, which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, also cited, warns that
“plans to abolish and not replace existing safeguards in this crucial area will leave the UK without proper oversight just when advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies mean they are needed more than ever”.
The Bill’s reduction of surveillance-related considerations to data protection compares unfavourably to regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions. Many have started from data protection and extended it to cover the wider rights-based implications of surveillance. Here, the Bill proposes a move in precisely the opposite direction. I am afraid this is yet another example of the Bill going entirely in the wrong direction.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been an excellent debate on this issue. We have all been united in raising our concerns about whether the offices of the biometrics commissioner and the surveillance camera commissioner should be abolished. We all feel the need for more independent oversight, not less, as is being proposed here.
As we know, the original plan was for the work of the biometrics commissioner to be transferred to the Information Commissioner, but when he raised concerns that this would result in the work receiving less attention, it was decided to transfer it to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner instead. Meanwhile, the office of the surveillance camera commissioner is abolished on the basis that these responsibilities are already covered elsewhere. However, like other noble Lords, we remain concerned that the transfer of this increasingly important work from both commissioners will mean that it does not retain the same level of expertise and resources as it enjoys under the current regime.
These changes have caused some alarm among civic society groups such as the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Centre for Research into Information Surveillance and Privacy, to which noble Lords have referred. They argue that we are experiencing a huge expansion in the reach of surveillance and biometric technology. The data being captured, whether faces, fingerprints, walking style, voice or the shape of the human body, are uniquely personal and part of our individual identity. The data being captured can enhance public safety but can also raise critical ethical concerns around privacy, free expression, bias and discrimination. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, we need a careful balance of those issues between protection and privacy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, quite rightly said that there is increasing public mistrust in the use of these techniques, and that is why there is an urgent need to take people on the journey. The example the noble Baroness gave was vivid. We need a robust legal framework to underpin the use of these techniques, whether it is by the police, the wider public sector or private institutions. As it stands, the changes in the Bill do not achieve that reassurance, and we have a lot of lessons to learn.
Rather than strengthening the current powers to respond to the huge growth and reach of surveillance techniques, the Bill essentially waters down the protections. Transferring the powers from the BSCC to the new Information Commissioner brings the issue down to data protection when the issues of intrusion and the misuse of biometrics and surveillance are much wider than that. Meanwhile, the impact of Al will herald a growth of new techniques such as facial emotional appraisal and video manipulation, leading to such things as deep fakes. All these techniques threaten to undermine our sense of self and our control of our own personal privacy.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, takes up the suggestion, also made by the Ada Lovelace Institute, to establish a biometrics office within the ICO, overseen by three experienced commissioners. The functions would provide general oversight of biometric techniques, keep a register of biometric users and set up a process for considering complaints. Importantly, it would require all entities processing biometric data to register with the ICO prior to any use.
We believe that these amendments are a really helpful contribution to the discussion. They would place the oversight of biometric techniques in a more effective setting where the full impacts of these techniques can be properly monitored, measured and reported on. We would need more details of the types of work to be undertaken by these commissioners, and the cost implications but, in principle, we support these amendments because they seem to be an answer to our concerns. We thank the noble Lord for tabling them and very much hope the Minister will give the proposals serious consideration.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as well as other co-signatories for detailed examination of the Bill through these amendments.
I begin by addressing Amendments 197A, 197B and 197C tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, which seek to establish a biometrics office responsible for overseeing biometric data use, and place new obligations on organisations processing such data. The Information Commissioner already has responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the processing of biometric data, and these functions will continue to sit with the new information commission, once established. For example, in March 2023 it investigated the use of live facial recognition in a retail security setting by Facewatch. In February 2024, it took action against Serco Leisure in relation to its use of biometric data to monitor attendance of leisure centre employees.
Schedule 15 to this Bill will also enable the information commission to establish committees of external experts with skills in any number of specialist areas, including biometrics, to provide specialist advice to the commission. Given that the Information Commissioner already has responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the processing of biometric data, the Government are therefore of the firm view that the information commission is best placed to continue to oversee the processing of biometric data. The Bill also allows the new information commission to establish specialist committees and require them to provide the commission with specialist advice. The committees may include specialists from outside the organisation, with key skills and expertise in specific areas, including biometrics.
The processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual is also subject to heightened safeguards, and organisations can process such data only if they meet one of the conditions of Article 9 of UK GDPR—for example, where processing is necessary to comply with employment law provisions, or for reasons of substantial public interest. Without a lawful basis and compliance with relevant conditions, such processing of biometric data is prohibited.
Amendments 197B and 197C in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes would also impose new, prescriptive requirements on organisations processing, and intending to process, biometric data and setting unlimited fines for non-compliance. We consider that such amendments would have significant unintended consequences. There are many everyday uses of biometrics data, such as using your thumbprint to access your phone. If every organisation that launched a new product had to comply with the proposed requirements, it would introduce significant and unnecessary new burdens and would discourage innovation, undermining the aims of this Bill. For these reasons, I respectfully ask my noble friend not to move these amendments.
The Government deem Amendment 238 unnecessary, as using biometric data—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sorry, but I am wondering whether the Minister is going to say any more on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Can I be clear? The Minister said that the ICO is the best place to oversee these issues, but the noble Lord’s amendment recognises that; it just says that there should be a dedicated biometrics unit with specialists, et cetera, underneath it. I am looking towards the noble Lord—yes, he is nodding in agreement. I do not know that the Minister dismissed that idea, but I think that this would be a good compromise in terms of assuaging our concerns on this issue.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I apologise if I have misunderstood. It sounds like it would be a unit within the ICO responsible for that matter. Let me take that away if I have misunderstood—I understood it to be a separate organisation altogether.
The Government deem Amendment 238 unnecessary, as using biometric data to categorise or make inferences about people, whether using algorithms or otherwise, is already subject to the general data protection principles and the high data protection standards of the UK’s data protection framework as personal data. In line with ICO guidance, where the processing of biometric data is intended to make an inference linked to one of the special categories of data—for example, race or ethnic origin—or the biometric data is processed for the intention of treating someone differently on the basis of inferred information linked to one of the special categories of data, organisations should treat this as special category data. These protections ensure that this data, which is not used for identification purposes, is sufficiently protected.
Similarly, Amendment 286 intends to widen the scope of the Forensic Information Databases Service—FINDS—strategy board beyond oversight of biometrics databases for the purpose of identification to include “classification” purposes as well. The FINDS strategy board currently provides oversight of the national DNA database and the national fingerprint database. The Bill puts oversight of the fingerprint database on the same statutory footing as that of the DNA database and provides the flexibility to add oversight of new biometric databases, where appropriate, to provide more consistent oversight in future. The delegated power could be used in the medium term to expand the scope of the board to include a national custody image database, but no decisions have yet been taken. Of course, this will be kept under review, and other biometric databases could be added to the board’s remit in future should these be created and should this be appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will therefore agree not to move Amendments 238 and 286.
Responses to the data reform public consultation in 2021 supported the simplification of the complex oversight framework for police use of biometrics and surveillance cameras. Clauses 147 and 148 of the Bill reflect that by abolishing the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s roles while transferring the commissioner’s casework functions to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office.
Noble Lords referred to the CRISP report, which was commissioned by Fraser Sampson—the previous commissioner—and directly contradicts the outcome of the public consultation on data reform in 2021, including on the simplification of the oversight of biometrics and surveillance cameras. The Government took account of all the responses, including from the former commissioner, in developing the policies set out in the DPDI Bill.
There will not be a gap in the oversight of surveillance as it will remain within the statutory regulatory remit of other organisations, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Forensic Science Regulator and the Forensic Information Databases Service strategy board.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
One of the crucial aspects has been the reporting of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. Where is there going to be and who is going to have a comprehensive report relating to the use of surveillance cameras and the biometric data contained within them? Why have the Government decided that they are going to separate out the oversight of biometrics from, in essence, the surveillance aspects? Are not the two irretrievably brought together by things such as live facial recognition?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes. There are indeed a number of different elements of surveillance camera oversight; those are reflected in the range of different bodies doing that it. As to the mechanics of the production of the report, I am afraid that I do not know the answer.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Does the Minister accept that the police are one of the key agencies that will be using surveillance cameras? He now seems to be saying, “No, it’s fine. We don’t have one single oversight body; we had four at the last count”. He probably has more to say on this subject but is that not highly confusing for the police when they have so many different bodies that they need to look at in terms of oversight? Is it any wonder that people think the Bill is watering down the oversight of surveillance camera use?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
No. I was saying that there was extensive consultation, including with the police, and that that has resulted in these new arrangements. As to the actual mechanics of the production of an overall report, I am afraid that I do not know but I will find out and advise noble Lords.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services also inspects, monitors and reports on the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, including their use of surveillance cameras. All of these bodies have statutory powers to take the necessary action when required. The ICO will continue to regulate all organisations’ use of these technologies, including being able to take action against those not complying with data protection law, and a wide range of other bodies will continue to operate in this space.
On the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, where any of the privacy concerns he raises concern information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual, I can assure him that this information is covered by the UK’s data protection regime. This also includes another issue raised by the noble Lord—where the ANPR captures a number-plate that can be linked to an identifiable living individual—as this would be the processing of personal data and thus governed by the UK’s data protection regime and regulated by the ICO.
For the reasons I have set out, I maintain that these clauses should stand part of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw his stand part notices on Clauses 147 and 148.
Clause 149 does not affect the office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, which the noble Lord seeks to maintain through his amendment. The clause’s purpose is to update the name of the national DNA database board and update its scope to include the national fingerprint database within its remit. It will allow the board to produce codes of practice and introduce a new delegated power to add or remove biometric databases from its remit in future via the affirmative procedure. I therefore maintain that this clause should stand part of the Bill and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his stand part notice.
Clauses 147 and 148 will improve consistency in the guidance and oversight of biometrics and surveillance cameras by simplifying the framework. This follows public consultation, makes the most of the available expertise, improves organisational resilience, and ends confusing and inefficient duplication. The Government feel that a review, as proposed, so quickly after the Bill is enacted is unnecessary. It is for these reasons that I cannot accept Amendment 292 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to remove Clauses 130 to 132. These clauses make changes to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which provides the retention regime for biometric data held on national security grounds. The changes have been made only following a formal request from Counter Terrorism Policing to the Home Office. The exploitation of biometric material, including from international partners, is a valuable tool in maintaining the UK’s national security, particularly for ensuring that there is effective tripwire coverage at the UK border. For example, where a foreign national applies for a visa to enter the UK, or enters the UK via a small boat, their biometrics can be checked against Counter Terrorism Policing’s holdings and appropriate action to mitigate risk can be taken, if needed.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, to go back to some of the surveillance points, one of the issues is the speed at which technology is changing, with artificial intelligence and all the other things we are seeing. One of the roles of the commissioner has been to keep an eye on how technology is changing and to make recommendations as to what we do about the impacts of that. I cannot hear, in anything the noble Viscount is saying, how that role is replicated in what is being proposed. Can he enlighten me?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, indeed. In many ways, this is advantageous. The Information Commissioner obviously has a focus on data privacy, whereas the various other organisations, particularly BSCC, EHRC and the FINDS Board, have subject-specific areas of expertise on which they will be better placed to horizon-scan and identify new emerging risks from technologies most relevant to their area.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Is the noble Viscount saying that splitting it all up into multiple different places is more effective than having a single dedicated office to consider these things? I must say, I find that very hard to understand.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do not think we are moving from a simple position. We are moving from a very complex position to a less complex position.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure the Committee that, under the Government’s proposals, there will be sufficient reporting to Parliament, every year, from all the various bodies to which he has already referred, so that Parliament can have ample opportunity to review the operation of this legislation as the Bill stands at the moment?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, indeed. The information commission will be accountable to Parliament. It is required to produce transparency and other reports annually. For the other groups, I am afraid that many of them are quite new to me, as this is normally a Home Office area, but I will establish what their accountability is specifically to Parliament, for BSSC and the—
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Will the Minister write to the Committee, having taken advice from his Home Office colleagues?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the excellent debate on this set of amendments. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for part of his response; he furiously agreed with at least a substantial part of my amendments, even though he may not have appreciated it at the time. I look forward to some fruitful and positive discussions on some of those elements between Committee and Report.
When a Bill passes into statute, a Minister and the Government may wish for a number of things in terms of how it is seen and described. One thing that I do not imagine is on the list is for it to be said that this statute generates significant gaps—those words were put perfectly by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. That it generates significant gaps is certainly the current position. I hope that we have conversations between Committee and Report to address at least some of those gaps and restate some of the positions that exist, before the Bill passes. That would be positive for individuals, citizens and the whole of the country. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and look forward to those subsequent conversations.
Viscount Camrose
“Interpretation of the PEC RegulationsIn regulation 2 of the PEC Regulations (interpretation)—(a) in paragraph (4) omit “, without prejudice to paragraph (3),”, and(b) at the end insert—“(5) References in these regulations to a period expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the Periods of Time Regulation, except that Article 3(4) of that Regulation does not apply to the interpretation of a reference to a period in regulation 16A.(6) In paragraph (5), “the Periods of Time Regulation” means Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) to apply to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, with an exception for regulation 16A. It also removes a superfluous cross-reference.
House of Lords
EU Borders: Hand and Face Scanning
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to minimise delays at borders with the European Union caused by the proposed introduction of hand and face scanning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the European entry/exit system—EES—is ultimately for EU member states to implement, but, to minimise delays for British citizens, the Government have engaged on it regularly with the European Commission and the French Government. We are supporting ports and carriers to ensure that they are prepared for implementation and planning communications for passengers travelling to and from the UK so that they will know what to do and can plan accordingly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, and I am pleased that the Government are in discussion with the European Union. Can he confirm that all passengers travelling between the EU and the UK, by air, sea, rail or road, will have to submit to scans of both hands and a retina scan before they cross into or out of the EU? I am told that they will have to do this in little booths which have to be erected at every terminal. Can he confirm that and perhaps advise the House how long the queues will be while this is implemented?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The EES replaces passport stamping: it registers the time and place of entry and exit of third-country nationals to the Schengen area and digitally records biodata—as the noble Lord has observed—and the travel document, fingerprints and photo. It tracks compliance with the 90-in-180 day maximum stay duration. It will take place in booths— I apologise, as I should have said that—although there are works on various technical solutions to mitigate that going forward. I am told that the amount of time it will take is not particularly onerous.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given that airports have failed to meet the deadline that the Government suggested for introducing the rule about being able to carry liquids on board, and that there are long delays at Dover every possible bank holiday weekend, how confident is my noble friend that this deadline will be reached? What will happen if the delays are insufferable? Will additional staff be in place to assist passengers in this regard?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, considerable investment is going into the queues at Dover. Noble Lords may be aware that the Department for Transport has provisionally awarded £45 million of levelling-up fund money to Kent County Council for the Dover border improvement project, which aims to substantially reduce outbound queues at the port. Ferry operators have previously been very pragmatic about allowing vehicles on to ferries if crossings are missed due to disruption, but we recognise the impact of disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum has a package of well-tested traffic management plans to manage disruption to keep passengers and freight traffic flowing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that I have raised with him the major mistake we made in abandoning the opportunity of having an identity facility. In fact, he said that I had a good point. Can he tell me whether he has taken it back to his department and whether they will act on it now and reverse the stupid decision taken by the coalition Government?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord West, only last week, that that is a good point. I have taken it back to the department and have no answer for him.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the hand and face scanning procedure apply also to coachloads of schoolchildren going on educational visits to European Union countries? They already face long and stressful delays at the borders because they are no longer on group travel passports, and the individual passport of every child has to be separately checked. Can the Minister say whether the group passport system could be reintroduced, or whether, at the very least, those groups will be excused from hand and face scanning?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have said, I am afraid that this is a system being applied by the EU. It is not for us to say how it is applied; it is for it. However, coaches have already been dealt with as far as the new arrangements at Dover are concerned, and, as far as I am aware, this will not be particularly onerous.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Minister referred to freight traffic. Since Brexit, we have had phytosanitary certificates, plant passports, import licences and export health certificates. On 30 April, we will suffer Brexit-related import checks on meat and plants, leading to payment of common user charges of up to £145 per consignment, estimated to add 10% to the cost of those imports. Can the Minister tell us why the Government gave only 27 days’ notice of the size of this charge and the date of its implementation? What discussions have they had with small businesses in particular about the impact this will have?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness will appreciate that, as a Home Office Minister, I am not party to those discussions, but I will go back to the relevant department and find out, and make sure that she is made aware of the discussions and their substance.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I do not think so. The Minister will note that there is an air of scepticism in the House about the implementation of these new procedures. Will transitional measures be in place to enable the new system to bed in while the existing system carries on working?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, I do not believe that there will. As I say, this system is being operated and introduced by the European Union, so we have limited say in whether there should be transitional arrangements. Having said that, I do not think that the start date has been made public yet. I know there is a target start date, but I would imagine that there is no obligation to start on the date that has already been published if things are not yet ready.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; I did think this was Back-Bench and not Front-Bench Questions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Well, it is Back-Bench Questions. Could I say to my noble friend how much I sympathise with him? Not only has he had to deal with the Rwanda legislation but he is now being held to account by Opposition Members for foolish decisions taken by the European Union.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister’s optimism will be proved accurate in the event, but I am bound to say that those of us who serve on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that is currently looking at this are not so happy. There is probably a car crash on the way in Dover, I fear. What about the situation in Northern Ireland, where it will not be at all clear whether people coming from the EU or third countries can travel north from Dublin to Belfast if they choose to do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord would like me to say. As I have repeatedly said, this is an EU system being rolled out by the EU. I am neither optimistic nor not optimistic; I am relying on the information I have received as to the EU’s plans.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the people of Dover will benefit from the money being invested? It is supposed to be levelling up, to make those communities more enterprising. How will that work with this money being used in Dover?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The first thing it will do will be to ease traffic. I imagine that will be of enormous benefit to the people of Dover.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, on something that is in our control, and being very much an optimist, I was delighted just recently when I applied for my new passport. I expected it to take weeks or months and that there would be lots of delays. I was pleasantly surprised that I could do it electronically. I turned up to the Passport Office and got the passport in five minutes. That is a tremendous accolade to the Passport Office. I just want to put that on record.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. That is a long-overdue compliment to the passport service, which has been operating extraordinarily efficiently now for quite some time. I remember there was a lot of disquiet on Opposition Benches post Covid about how long it took to square off the backlog. I have not heard any commendations for its recent very strong performance.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of the comparison that has been made between the efficacy and performance of the systems planned to be introduced on the other side of the channel and those systems that are in place at the UK end of passport control and immigration? Is he satisfied that our technology deployed in the UK is at least of equivalent complexity and competency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot say whether it is of the same complexity, but I can say that the ETA system, which, as noble Lords will be aware, began to be rolled out last year, is working very efficiently, so I am very optimistic about our end of the bargain.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, could I just refer the Minister to what he said? Why are we blaming the EU for the consequences of a decision that this Government made in leaving the EU?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not blaming the EU for anything. The EU has a perfect right to control its own borders—I wish noble Lords in certain parties would afford the same right to us in this country. I would also like to say that the British Government did not leave the EU; the people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU.
Russia: War Crimes in Ukraine
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in creating an ad hoc international tribunal, and in repurposing Russian assets, in response to Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to push for accountability for Russian war crimes in Ukraine, including via active participation in the core group established by Ukraine to explore options for a tribunal for the crime of aggression. We are clear that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine and we are working closely with allies to explore all lawful routes by which immobilised Russian sovereign assets can be used to support Ukraine.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the latest economic estimates, beyond the suffering, chronic injuries and fatalities in Ukraine, that the costs are likely to come to some £1 trillion to rebuild Ukraine? To facilitate some of that rebuilding, yesterday the House heard the Foreign Secretary say that he is eager to see the £44 billion of Russian assets frozen in the UK, along with the EU’s €260 billion of frozen assets, repurposed to help Ukraine, including the £2.5 billion sale of Chelsea Football Club. Could the Minister outline to the House the obstacles placed in the way of the repurposing of assets, the creation of a special tribunal, which he referred to, to prosecute the mother of all crimes—the crime of aggression—and the circumvention of sanctions? Will he commit to chairing a regular private meeting here in the House with Members of your Lordships’ House until the obstacles and disagreements are ironed out and progress is made in bringing to justice and to account those responsible for the terrible deprivations and suffering that Ukraine has experienced?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s last point, I and my noble friend Lord Cameron will of course keep the House updated on progress on this issue. I know that my noble friend has made the issue of the seizure of assets a key priority. Noble Lords would have heard directly what the Foreign Secretary said. He was in Israel today, but he is travelling to the G7, where I know Ukraine will be discussed in terms of accountability, sanctions and the leveraging of the sanctions imposed on these assets. We have previously discussed the EU and the steps it is taking. As my noble friend said yesterday—it is a point I have made several times from the Dispatch Box—we want to work in unison with our G7 partners and, importantly, with our partners in the EU, in particular regarding the assets currently held in Belgium, to ensure there is a real implication. So far, just the sanctions have meant that we have denied Russia $400 billion that would have been used for the Russian war machine.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, one of the war crimes that Russia has committed in Ukraine is the forcible abduction of 20,000 children from their parents. This morning on Válasz Online, we got an indication of what that means in reality from a young Ukrainian called Denis, who suffers from diabetes. He went to tell the Russian authorities that he was running low, and he was told, “We do not supply insulin to pro-Ukrainians, so become pro-Russian or die”. What kind of regime is that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I recognise my noble friend consistently raising the abhorrent crime of taking children from Ukraine to Russia. I know I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that this abhorrent practice must stop immediately. We are working with key agencies, including the UN, to ensure the rapid return of these children. It is regularly raised at G7 level and bilaterally as well. On the final point, it is another appalling example of what Russia is doing not just to the Ukrainian people but to the future of Ukraine as well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in addition to the totality of the consequences of the aggression on Ukraine, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, there are hundreds of thousands of individual victims who are being recorded on the Ukrainian register for damages. Does the Minister agree that the tribunal has a good opportunity of being the basis upon which repatriation and support for individual victims can be operated? Does the Minister also agree that there is nothing preventing the UK instituting a windfall tax on the asset values now, rather than seizing assets, so that we can start to provide support for individual victims, especially women who have been the victims of sexual aggression?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s final point, he will know that, as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, I am very much seized of this and we are working with the first lady of Ukraine on the issue. The register is an important element; that is why the UK has been a strong advocate—indeed, at a previous meeting with our European partners, I signed that register on behalf of the United Kingdom. On the accountability mechanism, we are working with key partners, including the US, to ensure that we get the right mechanism to ensure that it is legally based, internationally founded and applied and ultimately provides accountability and support to the tragic victims and survivors of the crimes to which the noble Lord alludes.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I fully support the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but can the Minister assure the House that the penalties dished out to Mr Putin and his cronies will be limited to those people responsible for the war crimes in Ukraine? I lived and worked in Russia for several years, and I know a lot of senior Russians who are utterly decent and who would never support the war crimes committed in Ukraine. I appeal to the Minister to assure us that care will be taken in punishing only those responsible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness. On a personal anecdote, the noble Baroness talks about Russians. Our fight is not with the Russian people. I know of a child who is at my son’s school whose mother is half-Russian and half-Spanish, and he is not going back to Russia to see his grandparents because of the fear of what consequences may face a young child who has just started off in life.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that the Labour Benches have yet had a chance, so if I may.
As we are talking about war criminals and crimes committed by the Russians, there is a matter of concern that the International Criminal Court Act 2001 confines prosecutions of war criminals coming into this country to people who are nationals or who have residency here. I wonder whether we are making any progress on amending that legislation so that we can prosecute people who come through here, often coming to look at schools or universities for their children or to shop at Harrods. Can we do something about providing the ability to arrest those people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that we work very closely with international agencies, most notably with the ICC on the warrants that have been issued against key Russians, including the President of Russia. Of course those would apply. I know the noble Baroness has raised this issue with me directly as well, and I think that we need to look at what mechanisms can be applied but ultimately—as we have heard from the Cross Benches as well—those responsible for these abhorrent crimes should be held accountable.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, can I return to the issue of Chelsea Football Club? We heard from my noble friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday and sensed his frustration. This is £2.5 billion which is effectively frozen, we are told, because of disagreement between ourselves and others in Europe. Surely, this is completely unacceptable. Can the noble friend—I mean my noble friend—the Minister reassure this House that across government we are working very hard to release this money? It has been sitting for far too long, and it should be spent where it was meant to be spent on alleviating the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, on a lighter note, I am charmed that my noble friend referred to me as “the noble friend” and I take that on board. Equally, on his more serious point, I agree with him, and the Foreign Secretary is also seized with this matter.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, can I push the Minister on how we hold to account the President of Russia for the act of aggression? We have had discussions in the G7 since April 2023 on establishing a special tribunal so we can actually prosecute the people responsible. Can he update us on the discussions in G7 so we can move this matter forward speedily so we can be guaranteed that we hold these people to account?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have already alluded to the fact that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting G7 partners in Italy during the course of this week and this is one of the points that will be raised. There are various options on the table. We are working very closely with the ICC—the ICC prosecutor has particular views on this—but equally we are aware of the independent tribunal the Ukrainians have asked for and there are some other variations on that. I assure the noble Lord that, as these progress, we are very much prioritising this. We want to see accountability but in a manner which can be applied consistently with all key partners.
School Inspections: Funding
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the concerns expressed by the board of Ofsted, at its meeting on 20 September 2023, that the reliability of school inspections will be compromised if funding is further constrained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, Ofsted, like all public services, is expected to operate efficiently and effectively to provide the best value for money for taxpayers and use its resources to best effect in providing high-quality inspection. Sir Martyn Oliver is very much focused on that, and I understand that he has already taken action internally to prioritise Ofsted’s resource on inspection activity. We will continue to work closely with Ofsted to ensure that it continues to deliver effectively in future.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. Sir Martyn Oliver has become the new chief inspector, but the Ofsted chair, who voiced the concerns mentioned in my Question, is still in her post, so there is continuity at the top of the organisation and that concern remains. In its response to the Education Committee’s report on Ofsted last month, Ofsted highlighted that it has taken on considerably expanded roles and responsibilities and yet its funding is now some 30% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. How do the Government expect Ofsted to adequately carry out its primary responsibility of school inspections without sufficient resources? The organisation itself clearly believes that to be the case.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said in my initial response, Ofsted, like any well-run organisation, has looked at where it is spending its budget and has refocused that. The Government have given it additional funding for the uplift, particularly in school inspections, that has been expected. Obviously we work very closely with Ofsted, and I cannot comment on any future spending review.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, as I am responsible for 44 university technical colleges, I have received lots of Ofsted inspections, and I am glad to say that 85% resulted in good or outstanding ratings but 15% were rated as failing. I do not resent it; I do not object. Ofsted has told us what we have to do better. Any education system in the world requires an independent inspectorate. That is what Ofsted is, and it should be supported.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I agree that we have a system in this country with high autonomy in our schools. We trust our school and trust leaders to deliver for our children, but with that autonomy goes high accountability.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, there is a principle that what gets inspected gets done. Can the Government say whether, if inspections are not done properly, we might be doing things badly? We have got to ensure that there are enough resources if we have a system of stick and carrot.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point, but there is not a lot of evidence to suggest overall that inspection is not done well. There is significant quality assurance of inspections, and, during 2022-23, an overall judgment was changed in only 0.6% of state-funded school inspections.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, have been “Ofsteded”. Moving on from his question, while I feel that Ofsted’s methods and judgments need changing, because it does a vital job it is vitally important that it is valued and that the people who work for it are made to feel valued.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Again, I can only agree with the noble Lord. I was reflecting on the new verb that has entered the lexicon of being “Ofsteded”—we will leave that. This is important. The work that Ofsted is doing with the Big Listen, in talking to parents, teachers, school leaders and children, will, I hope, go a long way to ensure that trust and confidence is achieved—and that therefore, at the end of it, the institution and those who work for it are valued.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, one of the key functions of an Ofsted inspection is to make sure that no one is employed who has a criminal record relating to harming children. Sadly, there are over 80,000 adults currently barred from working with children. When Ofsted discovers that a head teacher and senior leadership team are not doing proper employment checks, what resources are then available, either from Ofsted or elsewhere, to ensure that that senior leadership team is immediately retrained to ensure they do those vital employment checks?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It would be up to the trust, in relation to an academy, or the local authority to address those specific weaknesses. The department has led on the development of a framework of professional qualifications: leadership qualifications for heads, executive leaders and senior leaders. All those frameworks are clear about the role of leaders in complying with the law in relation to safeguarding and statutory guidance. As my noble friend knows very well, that statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, is extremely clear on recruitment practices, DBS and wider appointment checks, but also on referrals back to the Disclosure and Barring Service if someone is dismissed or removed.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Ofsted reports have seen a sevenfold increase in references to sexual assault since 2017. Mentions of safeguarding issues have doubled and mentions of sexual harassment have risen from zero to 106. How are the Government ensuring that the regulator is able to identify where safeguarding problems exist on a regular basis if further funding is constrained?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The fact that Ofsted is identifying more issues of this type reflects a few different things. Clearly, as in society more broadly, sadly, we do not know whether some of these issues are increasing in volume or whether we are just getting better at identifying them. For the safety of children, it is crucial that Ofsted identifies them, but it is even more important that the schools identify them, and do so early, because Ofsted inspections are periodic and children need to be safe every day.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the old HMIs used to be viewed by schools as critical friends and were welcomed. Teachers facing an Ofsted inspection now do so with dread, because they fear that they will be criticised above all else. Is there any chance that Ofsted could go back to being friendly in its inspections?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think we have to be a little careful with that kind of generalisation. Like with any inspection, one may well be apprehensive or nervous ahead of it, but 90% of our schools are now good or outstanding, so the outcome for the vast majority of schools is a very good result. I remind the noble Baroness that Ofsted inspectors are almost all either former or serving teachers, head teachers and senior leaders.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I do not think that “Ofsteded” becoming a verb is cause for mirth; it is cause for great concern. I do not recognise in the comments of the Minister the statistics from the survey by the National Education Union, in which 62% of teachers said that Ofsted had affected their mental health. To quote Nick Wigmore, a primary school teacher from Rochdale:
“Ofsted turns up every four to five years to provide one-word judgements … It’s a system that doesn’t work”.
Given that there are huge problems with teacher retention and mental health issues, do the Government acknowledge that this is something they need to consider very seriously? I should declare an interest, in that it is long-term Green Party policy to abolish Ofsted.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the noble Baroness has heard from other noble Lords who are much more expert than I am of the value of Ofsted. In relation to one-word judgments, it is extremely important that parents have a simple and clear understanding—the noble Baroness rolls her eyes, but it is true. Parents value it. I commend to her the research on parent opinions about the value of Ofsted reports; they value those judgments, and it is important that parents are recognised in this.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are certain areas in which we need more regulation within schools? I particularly draw to her attention the fact that we now have more obese children than when the Labour Government were in power, with very little review taking place of the regulations that govern school meals. When will we see any possible change in that area?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Sadly, in most of the developed world there are more obese children. I am not sure there is a direct correlation with who is in power. As he knows—I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to meet the other day—this is work in progress.
Middle East: Deployment of British Armed Forces
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to consult Parliament on the deployment of British armed forces in the Middle East.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister and Government Ministers have consistently provided updates to Parliament through Written and Oral Statements, and through Oral and Topical Questions. However, publishing operational activity to Parliament in advance could undermine the effectiveness of an operation and potentially risk the lives of Armed Forces personnel involved. While the deployment of the Armed Forces is a prerogative power and the Government are under no legal obligation to seek parliamentary approval, we will continue to update the House as fully as appropriate.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He is quite right that the Government have kept the House updated and given the Opposition the opportunity to continue to express their full support. Just over a decade ago, the then Foreign Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, speaking in the context of the Middle East, said that
“wherever possible, Parliament should have the opportunity to debate, in advance, the commitment of UK forces to military action overseas, unless there is an emergency where such action would not be appropriate”.
I think the whole House would agree that last Saturday night was such an exception.
With the news today that Israel has apparently decided to retaliate for that attack, the House will know that the situation is very serious. Does the Minister not agree that this would be a good time to clarify the role of Parliament in relation to the use of military force overseas? Does he think, on behalf of the Government, that some form of consultation should be enshrined in law? If so, will he bring forward a draft resolution for discussion and debate in both Houses?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very good point, and it is something that I will talk to my colleagues about. I do not believe that the situation has changed. We have said before that when these irregular, single-point actions—which are limited, proportionate, necessary and legal—are required, we will continue to take action to protect lives, particularly in self-defence, as we did over the weekend. If that situation should change, we will certainly review the situation; we will keep the House fully involved.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, we are very fortunate to have the Foreign Secretary in our House. Indeed, it is probably the best decision that the Prime Minister has taken. It is an excellent idea that we have the Foreign Secretary here, and I hope this may be the norm in future. I hope the Labour Benches are focusing on this.
In a more serious vein, the Middle East situation is extremely serious. British forces have been involved. Surely we should now be having a major, full-day debate in this House on the Middle East, as a matter of urgency and priority, and regular debates as long as the situation continues.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is something for the parliamentary scheduling people. A major debate at this point would be very useful but may take up far too much parliamentary time.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the RAF pilots who prevented needless loss of life in Israel over the weekend? Will he take the opportunity to reaffirm our country’s long-standing relationship with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan—a relationship that goes back more than 100 years —which was brave and correct in defending its own territorial integrity over the weekend? That is exactly the kind of relationship that should in general be assumed, without needing to come back to Parliament for preauthorisation every time we stand by our old allies.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I also place on the record my admiration, and that of the Government, for all our Armed Forces in what must be an extremely difficult situation. Operation Shader, which has been in place since 2014, has been a remarkable success, and very active. I did not realise that since it was put in place, the RAF has flown 8,700 sorties and released 4,300 precision weapons.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister may recall me saying in the context of a previous Question put to the Leader that the Armed Forces place enormous importance on the support of the British public for the difficult and dangerous things that they do, not least as expressed by the will of Parliament. At the same time, they have to rely, crucially, upon the principles of security and surprise, on which their effectiveness and safety depend. Is it not difficult to see how a piece of legislation brought before Parliament could balance those difficult, competing issues?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a very good point, and it is certainly something that I will talk about. I could not agree with him more that operational security and force protection are at the very heart of what we are trying to do here, and must never be compromised.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests, and specifically my association with the Royal Navy.
Our dedicated and professional service personnel are now deployed on several fronts in the Middle East, stabilising the region in the face of co-ordinated efforts by Iran and her proxies. Iran’s senseless aerial attack on Israel at the weekend undermined international airspace. Iran’s proxies in Yemen continue to undermine freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, and last week Iran seized the “MSC Aries” in the Strait of Hormuz, again threatening global maritime efforts. What additional capabilities are we planning to deploy to counter these threats?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness and most of the House are aware, we do not discuss these things in advance, for fairly obvious reasons. However, an enormous amount of diplomatic effort is being put into trying to calm matters and get a more stable situation out there. As I am sure people are aware, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is out in Israel today, trying to ensure that any further escalation of what is potentially an extremely dangerous situation across the entire region is canned.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, perhaps it is time that we learned from experience. In recent years British and western forces have been involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and none of them has turned out well. I pay tribute to the forces concerned—it was a question of the strategy and the political view that was taken—but we really need to be careful about this and not cause any more chaos in any more countries.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, there are some fundamental rights and justifications that we as a responsible military power need to be prepared to step up and protect. I believe that these decisions are not taken lightly; they are taken extremely seriously. An enormous amount of thought and activity goes into each decision to take action, and that level of thinking should continue.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that it was three British-supplied drones that killed three British aid workers last week in Gaza?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we do not comment on comments like that.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, thanks to our armed services are all very well, but they are now being very much stretched. It would be good to hear something from the Government about increasing the defence budget rather than the taxes that can be lowered.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that most of the House is fully aware of where I sit on this. We have a finite amount of resource within this country, and it is a question of where that gets allocated. We are spending more this year on defence than we have ever spent before; it looks as if it is going to be about 2.3% or £55.6 billion. It would be fantastic to be able to buy more ships and planes and employ a whole lot more people, but the capability and ability of our Armed Forces protect this country extremely well.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the last time that tensions rose in the Middle East, which sadly ended up with fighting going on, we had deployed in the north Arabian Sea an aircraft carrier, two nuclear submarines and eight destroyers and frigates. Does the Minister believe that what we have deployed there now, even with allied forces as well, is capable of protecting the two major maritime choke points that are so important to the world’s and our economy, or does he believe that we should have more there? Of course, that relates directly to cost and expenditure.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord is right. We are part of a substantial international force within both the Gulf and the Red Sea. Together, there is a significant amount of power there, hopefully to deter any further aggression by malign influences.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it might assist the House if I set out the arrangements for business today. The safety of Rwanda Bill will arrive from the Commons this afternoon. Once the Bill reaches this House, noble Lords have an hour to table amendments or Motions. We will announce the precise deadline on the annunciator.
After the deadline, as noble Lords will be aware, at least an hour is needed to ensure that all the paperwork, including the briefs for the Deputy Speakers, is prepared. We will not start the Rwanda Bill before 6 pm. The precise timing of the start depends on how long business takes in the Commons, so that might change.
After Oral Questions we will take three Urgent Questions from the Commons, after which we will start the Committee stage of the economic activities Bill at around 4.15 pm. Once we are ready to start Rwanda ping-pong, we will adjourn Committee and notify all noble Lords via the usual channels and the annunciator. Once ping-pong is completed we will take questions on the Statement about the Cass review, and then we will return to the economic activities Bill Committee until the rise of the House. If further ping- pong is needed on the Rwanda Bill, I do not expect the House to do that this evening.
Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I would first like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Rosser, who, sadly, passed away last week. In the context of this Question, he was an exemplar of the very finest in railway trade unionism.
In the other place, the much-respected rail Minister Huw Merriman said that the Government were working on a short-term solution to bring forward orders at the Alstom plant in Derby. Can the Minister confirm that, as reported in today’s Telegraph, this involves new trains for the Elizabeth line? Before Covid there was considerable investment in new rolling stock, but does he accept that, as the Treasury’s grip on railway finances has strengthened, his department has displayed, in the last couple of years, what can only be described as powerless drift and delay? This is no way to treat workers’ lives, and no way to conduct policy in a vital industrial sector. Where is the plan? Where is the promised guiding mind that will end the railways’ chaotic fragmentation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I too pay my respects and offer my condolences to Lord Rosser’s family.
Several train operators are in the market for new trains, which will provide significant commercial opportunities for UK rolling stock manufacturers. Alstom will have the opportunity to take part in competitions for future contracts. Rolling stock owners are also continuing to support the supply chain by investing heavily in their fleets. Several major upgrades are under way, including for Govia Thameslink Railway’s Porterbrook-owned Electrostar fleet, and for Avanti West Coast’s Angel Pendolino fleet refurbishment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I regarded as a friend and whose contribution to this House I greatly respected.
The Government have a feast-and-famine approach to ordering rolling stock. Between 2012 and 2019, 8,000 vehicles were ordered, but between 2019 and 2023, 100 vehicles were ordered. It also seems to take the Department for Transport an absurdly excessive time to move through the procurement process: from invitation to tender to the delivery of the first vehicle takes over six years. Are the Government, as some suspect, on a deliberate go-slow in order to reduce expenditure? In view of the news about the desperate last-minute attempts to conjure up some orders for Elizabeth line trains, does the Minister accept that, with thousands of jobs at risk in Alstom and Hitachi, this reveals a desperate gap—a black hole—at the heart of the Government’s industrial policy?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
No, I do not agree that the Government have a gap in their industrial policy. Rail manufacturing plays a very important role in growing the UK economy and there is a strong pipeline of future orders for UK rail manufacturers, including upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Chiltern, TransPennine and South- eastern. That competition process is open for all manufacturers to bid, including of course Alstom. The department is also working with His Majesty’s Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I think it was significant that there was no reference at all in the Minister’s Statement in the Commons to what I consider to be the inevitable consequences of the cancellation of the Crewe and Manchester sections of HS2: it is obvious that that was significant in terms of job losses. We already know about the losses that have occurred from money spent on both those projects that is now wasted because the line is not being built. What is the Government’s estimate of the loss of jobs in construction and manufacturing—which the Minister has focused on so far—as a direct result of the cancellation of those legs of HS2?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot comment on the construction side, but Alstom is part a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain the HS2 trains for phase 1 only—that is 54 trains. Phase 1 of HS2, between Birmingham and London, will continue, with, as I have said before, a rescoped Euston station. HS2 Ltd has written to the joint venture confirming that the original order for those 54 trains for phase 1 remains unchanged.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the managing director of Alstom has said:
“We have worked constructively with the Government on securing a sustainable future for Derby Litchurch Lane, but after 10 months of discussions we have run out of time, and the production lines have stopped”.
Can the Minister explain what exactly were the stumbling points in those 10 months and what efforts the Government have made to overcome them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Yes, I can. The Transport Secretary had a constructive meeting yesterday with Alstom’s chairman and chief executive officer and its UK and Ireland director. We are now in a period of intense discussion with the company on potential options to secure a sustainable future for Alstom’s Litchurch Lane factory. While it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of those discussions at this stage, I know that the Transport Secretary plans to update both Houses at the appropriate time.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the potential Alstom order from the Government for extra trains on the Elizabeth line is, allegedly, to cope with more passengers who will come off HS2 and want to go somewhere else on the Elizabeth line. Can the Government confirm that the new trains—it may be up to 10—will have toilets? In a recent incident on the Great Western, there were people stuck on trains for something like 10 hours without access to a toilet—and then they got criticised for jumping on to the track. Surely, in this day and age, the minimum should be to have at least one or two working toilets on such trains, which possibly go for two-hour or three-hour journeys.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very serious point. I am not able to confirm that now, but I will certainly look it up and write to him.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, many of us here have campaigned hard to get the Hitachi factory in Newton Aycliffe. Hundreds of local people have had good jobs there for many years now. Is it not true that the Government have just not delivered the anticipated orders for trains that the factory was expecting? There are many young people who have taken career choices and studied at the university technical college there associated with Hitachi. It will be devastating for Newton Aycliffe, Darlington and the Tees Valley if anything happens to jeopardise the future of the factory. What message does the Minister have for that community, and what will he do to make sure that we keep those much-needed jobs?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I can only repeat what I have just said. The Government are working very hard to make sure the company remains at the location. New competitions have recently commenced for rolling stock on Northern, Southeastern, TransPennine and Chiltern railway lines, as well as procurements for fleet upgrades on East Midlands, Chiltern and CrossCountry. Alstom is very capable, and able to compete for this work.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Perhaps I could ask for a specific answer on this. The Minister referred to the rolling stock that has already been ordered in respect of London to Birmingham, but he cannot give an estimate of job losses following the cancellation. There clearly must be consequences for rolling stock when you do not build a railway to Crewe and Manchester that you planned to build. So can the Minister at least tell us how much rolling stock in total is not now going to be required and constructed as a result of the closure of the new railway?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord that figure at the moment, but I will certainly look into it and come back to him.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the House’s indulgence, I will begin with a personal reflection. I have just heard the tragic news of the passing of Lord Rosser. Richard was well known to me; indeed, he was my oppo when I was a Transport Minister. He was always precise, courteous and forensic in his examination. He will be missed by us all.
I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for the Americas, Caribbean and the Overseas Territories in the other place on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Statement is as follows:
“Earlier this month, we passed a grim milestone: six months since Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack on Israel. The United Kingdom Government have been working with partners across the region to secure the release of hostages.
Palestinian civilians have spent these months suffering, with conditions worsening by the day. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The Iran attack and our support for Israel have not changed our focus on ensuring that Israel meets its commitments to enable at least 500 aid trucks a day to enter Gaza; to open Ashdod port for aid deliveries; to expand the Jordan land corridor to at least 100 trucks a day; to open a crossing into northern Gaza; and to extend opening hours at Kerem Shalom and Nitzana. We are pushing as hard as we can to get aid to Palestinian civilians. As this House knows, we have been urging Israel at the highest levels to take immediate action on the bottlenecks holding up humanitarian relief. We have recently seen a small increase in the number of aid trucks being allowed to enter Gaza, but not all of them are full, and numbers are not yet close to reaching the levels required given the severity of the humanitarian situation we now see.
We will continue to press Israel to take immediate action to open Ashdod fully for humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, we recently announced new support for a life-saving aid corridor by sea to Gaza, including the deployment of a Royal Navy ship, which has now arrived in the Mediterranean and is ready to integrate with the US pier and provide a command and control platform.
We are also committing up to £9.7 million for aid deliveries through that corridor, as well as providing logistical expertise and equipment. In recent weeks, the Royal Air Force has conducted seven air drops along the Gazan coast, delivering more than 58 tonnes of food. The UK-Med field hospital, funded by the United Kingdom, is now up and running in Gaza and has already treated more than 8,000 people, a high proportion of them children. We need to see the operating environment in Gaza improve, so that more aid gets in and can be distributed quickly, safely and effectively. Israel must ensure that the UN has the access, equipment and staff that it needs to do that.
We were horrified by the attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy, which killed seven aid workers, including three British nationals. Israel must do more to protect aid workers, including guaranteed deconfliction for aid convoys and other humanitarian work to ensure that they can operate safely. The findings of Israel’s investigation must be published in full, and followed up with a wholly independent review, to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.
Six months on, however much we might wish otherwise, the fighting has not yet come to an end. We cannot not stand by. The Foreign Secretary is in the region, pressing again for further action”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. What we heard this morning in the other place was a description of an incredibly dire situation. Famine is imminent, and perhaps even taking place now.
Sarah Champion, the IDC chair, reminded us this morning that her committee published a report in early March, asking for the Government to push for 500 trucks a day, but the weekly average is just over 1,100. Will the Foreign Secretary, while he is speaking to the Israeli Government today, ensure and demand that they abide by international humanitarian law?
The Minister also said that before resuming funding for UNRWA, the main vehicle for delivering aid, that we will be awaiting the final report of Catherine Colonna, yet we are the only major donor—apart from the US—not to resume funding. Can the Minister explain why? Surely we should be following our allies in terms of delivering aid?
The final point is that the Minister in the other place was asked exactly what the Foreign Secretary was going to demand in terms of avoiding a catastrophe if any action took place against Rafah. Can the Minister reassure us that we are making that clear to the Israeli Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, taking each question in turn but starting with the last one, yes, I assure the noble Lord that the issue of Rafah has been raised directly. The noble Lord will have seen the extensive engagement by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary in Israel. On his earlier point about Israel’s obligations and the need to open up more corridors and demand this, this has been something that we have consistently raised. We raised it on visits inwards as well. When Minister Gantz visited here, I joined that meeting, and I know my noble friend has raised these issues quite specifically, as have other Foreign Ministers.
On the issue of UNRWA support, we have always been clear, and indeed there is a statement today at the UN Security Council on UNRWA. We have been following the reports very closely. There have been some private briefings, including to our ambassador. The final report, as the noble Lord knows, is due on 20 April. He, like me, was appalled by the allegations which were made against UNRWA staff. It is important that we look at those allegations fully and ensure that they are being addressed and mitigations are in place. The report, I am sure, will also focus in on that. We remain very much committed to the humanitarian effort in Gaza, and that is reflected in the fact that our support in Gaza now stands at over £100 million.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is aware that starvation in conflict is expressly prohibited under customary international humanitarian law. Given the evidence that Samantha Power, the head of USAID, gave to Congress last week that famine is now setting in, this is a truly shocking revelation, especially in the context of the concerns of the Foreign Secretary that there are unnecessary blocks to food and supplies being brought into north Gaza in particular.
The Minister will also be aware of the concerns that defensive military equipment is being used to level civilian residential areas to render them uninhabitable in the future, which is also a breach of international law. Have His Majesty’s Government satisfied themselves that any equipment that the UK has supplied over the last number of years is not being used, either in the blockage of aid going into Gaza or indeed in the levelling of civilian areas? Does the Minister not agree that under the principle of proportionality, it would be right to pause export licences now until a full review has been carried out, so that we can satisfy ourselves that international humanitarian law is being adhered to?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s last point, I am sure he has followed the Statements both in the other House and, importantly, of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, who has now reviewed the most recent advice about the situation in Gaza. Based on that, as the Foreign Secretary said, the UK position in regard to export licences is unchanged. We have robust checks and balances in place.
Of course, we are acutely seized of the situation in Gaza, particularly northern Gaza. That is why we are pressing for the opening up of the Erez crossing, and indeed other crossings to the north. There are other crossings that we are looking at, such as the Karni crossing, north of the Gaza wadi—the valley—to ensure that access also. That is where our priority is, and those are the exact messages which my noble friend has delivered directly to the Prime Minister and others in Israel today.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his work. I also thank the Foreign Secretary, who is in Israel today. Does the Minister not agree that the recent, very worrying escalation by Iran last weekend is likely, just at this moment, to deprioritise the aid and humanitarian issue? As other noble Lords have said, Gaza is on the verge of famine, if it is not already there. I urge the Minister to make sure that this issue is not deprioritised. What has happened to the temporary ceasefire negotiations, which seem to have broken down?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that, together with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary—whom my noble friend also knows very well—I will leave no stone unturned with vigour, rigour and passion to ensure that this happens. I speak for all noble Lords of whatever perspective. We want to ensure that we do our utmost to save the life of every single innocent civilian. We were all rightly seized with the shocking nature of what happened in Israel. Right now, we are focused on getting more aid in. This is the message that is being delivered, notwithstanding the awful nature of the Iranian attack. It is important that we look at that in the full mix of things and not lose sight of the humanitarian issue. We want to avert famine at all costs.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s reference to the terrible event of 1 April when the humanitarian aid workers from World Central Kitchen were targeted by drones and killed. I know that an investigation by the IDF is taking place. I have also read that Australia is going to conduct an investigation because one of those killed was Australian. Three of those killed were British citizens: a man of 57, another of 47 and a young man in his 30s. They were all hugely experienced humanitarian aid workers. It is shocking to see that the loss of so many people working in this field is not getting the coverage it deserves. Are any steps being taken here in Britain to investigate this matter with the great military and legal expertise that we could apply? I understand that Poland is now considering having an inquiry for the Polish citizen who was killed. Should there not be unification and collaboration between the nations which have lost humanitarian aid workers in this series of strikes on their convoy? Should there not be a joint investigation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that the WCK aid workers only intensified our concerns and momentum in addressing the humanitarian situation, particularly where aid workers in Gaza are putting themselves at risk. More than 200 aid workers have now been killed in this conflict. We need to ensure their protection. The IDF has completed its initial inquiry. There have been some consequences for those who were involved in the strike. As my noble friend is doing again today, we are not just reviewing it, we are asking for it to be followed up with a full, independent report on what happened. The noble Baroness has put forward a practical suggestion, which I will certainly take back. Co-ordination is good. Perhaps we can discuss this outside the Chamber to see how it can be progressed.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, it was announced about a week ago that the great container port of Ashdod is opening up. I know it extremely well. It is by far the biggest container port in the area. It can deliver 20 times more than any of the convoys. Most importantly, is the huge amount of goods that turns up getting through, as everybody wants to see? So much of it gets into the hands of Hamas.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point about Ashdod. We are focused on this and, equally, on ensuring that the aid sent to Gaza reaches the victims and those who are suffering. They need it most.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say why there are no independent observers or journalists in Gaza, such as from the BBC, Sky News, CBS and CNN? I could go on—the list is very long. Do we not need those independent observers on the ground so that we can stop these constant contradictions about why aid convoys are being attacked and why aid is not reaching people? This is very distressing. At the end of the day, we have people suffering from famine, and we really cannot let this go on. We need to stop this toing and froing about who is responsible for it and just get on and do it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point about journalists and their protection. But equally, this is a conflict zone, and we need to ensure in a responsible manner that journalists, like aid workers, who we have just been talking about, are also protected. As the noble Baroness will know, many have lost their lives. We want to see objective reporting, and Israel has always prided itself on being a pluralist, open democracy. However, we are in a conflict zone. It is important that the protection of journalists is fully afforded, but we all welcome the openness of objective reporting, wherever it may be in the world.
Afghan Refugees
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has long-standing and close relations with Pakistan. We engage regularly with the Government of Pakistan to advance key priorities and interests, including on human rights and adherence to international law. We are closely monitoring Pakistan’s policy on the deportation of Afghans from Pakistan, and we are working with the UNHCR and the IOM to ensure Pakistan adheres to its international human rights obligations with respect to those affected.
We understand that the recently elected Government of Pakistan intend to resume their programme of deportations from mid-April following a winter pause, although this has not been announced formally. While we respect Pakistan’s sovereign right to control its borders, the United Kingdom, alongside international and donor community and other partners, is urging Pakistan to do so in accordance with its international obligations.
The UK has committed £18.5 million to the International Organization for Migration in Afghanistan to support vulnerable undocumented returnees from Pakistan and Iran. As part of this work, we have been engaging closely with the Government of Pakistan on these measures and they have assured us of their support in relation to preventing the deportation of Afghans eligible for resettlement in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, ACRS. Since the formation of the new Pakistani cabinet, the Foreign Secretary and the British High Commissioner have received assurances from Foreign Minister Dar, during discussions on 25 and 28 March respectively, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will continue to support our relocations work.
We continue to work closely with the UNHCR and the IOM to ensure that all Afghans who have been found eligible, including eligible family members, for resettlement in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme have been provided with the necessary documentation to verify this and to prevent their deportation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that answer. Of course, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Afghans who fought with the United Kingdom, and it is a disgrace that those who fought with us are not afforded the support they should expect and deserve.
Oliver Heald, a Conservative MP, raised a question in the other place about individuals who, in travelling to Pakistan, became undocumented or were unable to maintain those papers. The Minister in the other place responded, talking about commitments relating to the High Commission, but did not explicitly address the need for that documentation and how they can then fit in to the schemes or apply under them.
Finally, why did the Government last night oppose my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, which would offer the sort of guarantees that these people so rightly deserve? I hope the Minister can answer that question.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, on supporting those who supported the British effort, the noble Lord will know that we have prioritised those in Chevening—the British Council—as well as GardaWorld, and we have made good progress. Since October 2023, the UK has completed a series of about 24 charter flights and relocated over 5,500 individuals from Pakistan under the UK’s ongoing Afghan relocation programme.
I have taken up the issue of undocumented individuals directly with the previous administration. I met with Foreign Minister Dar, and yesterday I had a call with the new Law and Human Rights Minister of Pakistan, during which these issues were discussed. There has been no formal announcement by the Government of Pakistan. I would also add that a sizeable number of those who returned to Afghanistan more recently did so voluntarily, but some people have been forced to return. On those who have qualified to come to the United Kingdom, we are working directly with the Government of Pakistan through our High Commission and ensuring through direct engagement that their position can be normalised.
I know that noble Lords have been very much seized of the issue of those who served. The noble Lord talked about the vote last night, and I am sure we will be discussing that later this afternoon. Through the ARAP scheme, we continue to support many of the people who supported our military work, and we continue to work with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make sure that passports and documents can be issued as soon as possible for those who are eligible to come to the UK, and that they can be facilitated to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that I respect him greatly, but he must understand that it is completely jarring to say that we are working with the UNHCR and the IOM to ensure that Pakistan adheres to its international obligations on migration, especially since those organisations themselves have singled out the United Kingdom as being in breach of those very commitments. Indeed, the Pakistan interim Prime Minister, writing in the Telegraph on 8 December last year, cited the Rwanda Bill as support for what they are doing. Can the Minister be clear and precise: what are the concerns about potential breaches of the commitments under international obligations for Pakistan that the Government consider are at risk, and how many individuals who could be eligible for support in the UK are currently in limbo and are potentially going to be repatriated to Afghanistan?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have made sizeable progress with those people who are eligible, and we have had changes in Pakistan. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we have worked across the different Governments to ensure that those who have a legitimate claim to travel to the United Kingdom and seek protection here are facilitated. On the ACRS scheme, which the noble Lord and others were seized with, we are seeing some really good progress. I get weekly updates on the progress made under those schemes, and we work very closely with the UNHCR and the IOM. As far as the United Kingdom’s standing in world goes in support of these international agencies, we remain a very strong supporter and indeed funder of the vital work they do.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord has any further information from the IOM or other sources about the refugees who are being deported by the Pakistan authorities? Are they, for instance, predominantly Shia? Are those who are being deported being sent back to their home ethnic areas? Are there any unaccompanied children among them that the Government know of?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly made the case to Pakistan consistently about the importance of ensuring that those who are most vulnerable are protected. I know that in the region of 130,000 children have been returned. I do not have the breakdown, but I can see what information we have and share it with the noble Baroness.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest having served in Afghanistan as a soldier. I have many friends who are eligible under the ARAP scheme. I simply underline the concerns of others regarding the challenges associated with documentation, much of which has been lost. I also commend the Government for their efforts in recent months, but I ask the Minister to maintain an open mind as to the length of time this scheme remains open for reasons of lost documentation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I was there in 2021, working through the night on a lot of the Afghans who arrived here in the initial batch of over 21,000, so I can give my noble friend that assurance. We need to ensure that those who are entitled to come to the United Kingdom do so, through the processes we have in place, including normalisation of their documentation. We want to have a very open and constructive relationship with the Government of Pakistan, in particular, to enable this to happen.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
As the Minister has said, among the Afghan refugees in Pakistan are a significant number of former Afghan Special Forces, known as the Triples, many of whom are there only because they were wrongly judged to be ineligible for resettlement here under the ARAP scheme. They face certain death if they are forcibly removed to Afghanistan, as do their families. Am I to infer from the Minister’s earlier references to the review, which was set up to look at their cases again, that some of these people are being allowed visas to come to this country? I am not aware of that.
Nor do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, with whom I have been persistently debating the issue of the review. In the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill debate yesterday, he said the following regarding the much smaller number of people here in the United Kingdom who I am trying to get this Bill amended to cover:
“I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded”,—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 901.]
and went on to say what the Government would do. If these people in Pakistan have to wait for that, there is no hope for them. Time is of the essence. This review needs to be completed as quickly as possible. If it is being incrementally concluded for individuals, perhaps the Minister could tell the House.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am focused on that, and I know that the Ministry of Defence are leading on it. As to these cases, we are not waiting for the end of the review to process those who are eligible for that scheme. As they become eligible, they will be processed appropriately.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, we should not give the Pakistani Government a free pass. The third goal of the UK- Pakistan development partnership is support for a more open society, including the rights of minorities. My noble friend will know, of course, that Pakistan is the number one recipient of foreign direct investment from the UK. Nevertheless, Christian persecution continues, and persecution among Muslims for apostasy is also a major problem in Pakistan. When are we going to make tangible progress on leveraging our soft power to address these very important civil rights and human rights issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that this is a personal priority. The issue of freedom of religion or belief around the world is something I have been focused on. I was instrumental in setting up the envoy’s role; indeed, I served as the first envoy as well. With reference to Pakistan specifically, the issue of Christian persecution is not just regularly raised but followed up in practical terms. I pay tribute to a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place, but he has been very much focused on that. We engage directly with the All-Party Group on Pakistan Minorities on specific cases. Being from a Muslim minority myself—I am an Ahmadi Muslim— I am all too aware of the challenges that minority communities face in Pakistan. We need to be robust in challenging those to ensure that, irrespective of faith or religion, everyone in Pakistan is treated equally as a citizen of the country.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (15 Apr 2024)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This, alongside another to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is a probing amendment to clarify the distinction between a public body and a public authority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 10 I will also speak to Amendment 13 and the others in the group. I would particularly like to say how helpful I thought the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, were in helping us to clarify these very broad terms: public bodies and public authorities. I have just been looking back at some of the debates on the Human Rights Act 1998, during which then Home Secretary Jack Straw said that this was an extremely difficult area on which to find an exact definition; he decided to leave it to the courts for further definition.
One of the things we have to consider while discussing this is how much we do want to leave it to the courts, or to ensure that what it says in the legislation is a little tighter than what we have so far. The drafting of the Bill in so many areas is extraordinarily and dangerously loose. I thank the Minister for the letter she has sent me and no doubt others on the question of individual responsibility and personal liability. I am not sure that I entirely understood it; I showed it to one or two legal acquaintances, and they are not sure that they are much clearer than they were before. That perhaps shows some of the difficulties in which we are engaged.
When I first read this Bill, I noticed that it declared in its title that it was about public bodies, and that in Clause 2 it says it is about public authorities. As it happens, I got into the lift with another Member of this House, with whom I worked when he was a Conservative Cabinet Minister during the coalition Government. I asked him casually: “Tell me, do you think that a public body and a public authority are the same thing?”. He said: “Oh no, of course not. The definition of a public body is far narrower than that of a public authority”.
A Bill that starts by having one of these terms in its title, and then goes on to use the other term in the text, raises a number of questions. This morning I reread the impact assessment, which uses the terms interchangeably, by and large preferring “public body” to “public authority”. I worry about how clear those who drafted the Bill are about what they are doing. We then go into “hybrid public bodies”, which the impact assessment talks about, or hybrid public authorities. When I began to read through Lexis and try to understand some of the case law—in which a number of noble and learned Members of this House emerge as those who have made judgments on this—I discovered that functional public authorities and hybrid public authorities raise many of the questions with which we would have to deal, if and when this became an Act. The line between public and private functions for public authorities that are partly public and partly private is a very delicate one, and one on which litigation leaves much room.
We all know what core public authorities are, but hybrid public authorities are a very loose and broad entity. The Minister said on a previous occasion, in another context, that there were well over 100,000 public authorities. No doubt the definition, after a while, becomes extremely unclear. After all, Section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 talks about
“any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”.
The question of how many functions need to be of a public nature, and how much that affects how they behave in other areas, has been contested in the courts on many occasions. Court cases have ruled that a privatised railway company, for example, is not a public authority, but that a privatised water company and, in a different case, a private provider of social housing are, for certain purposes, public authorities. Rulings have differed on whether private care providers to local authorities are public authorities.
The impact assessment and the ministerial letter refer to “cultural institutions” as coming within this. In the letter that came to us before Second Reading, the Minister talks about museums and galleries that receive significant amounts of public money. Amendment 13 is intended to probe what is meant by significant amounts of public money. I have suggested in that amendment that the bar should be put at 50%, as opposed to whether this was largely public or largely private with public aspects. A court case in 1999 found that the University of Cambridge—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned at one stage whether railway companies are public bodies. A train operating company, for example, is clearly not a public body when it is a private company, but if it goes bankrupt or has difficulties it gets taken over by the Government. If the Government then get it right in due course, it goes back to the private sector. Can bodies oscillate between the two categories? Is that a further complication?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I defer to my noble friends on that. Part of my concern about this law is that there will be a great deal of employment for my learned friends to be found in it, if it were to go through.
Indeed, that is one of the things which appears in the delegated powers memorandum, which says at paragraph 4:
“It is intended that the measures will be widely construed”.
Paragraph 12 says:
“The prohibition will apply to ‘public authorities’ in accordance with section 6 HRA 1998; however, interpretations of section 6 HRA 1998 can create uncertainty which means that the Bill may, including as case law evolves, capture a range of bodies that it was not necessarily intended to apply to. It may be necessary to put beyond doubt that certain bodies (that are outside the scope of the intention to ban public bodies from boycotts and divestments) fall outside the definition of ‘public authority’ for the purpose of the Bill”.
I hope that the lack of clarity of that is clear.
The impact assessment does refer to hybrid public bodies and suggests that it is concerned to prevent them pursuing political and foreign policy agendas, “including with public money”. I interpret that as meaning that such hybrid public authorities may perhaps not be allowed to pursue such agendas, including when they are using private money. That is a question that will concern a great many people, in particular the university sector, from which we have received further correspondence on this precise area.
The Minister has not told us enough about the broad last category, cultural institutions, and whether this includes theatres and orchestras on foreign tours, as well as museums and galleries—and why on earth museums and galleries are in there. That is another area where I suspect that sector would prefer a little more certainty.
Universities have been particularly concerned about the impact on their international partnerships, which are, I am assured by my university friends, part of their private functions. Some of these are education partnerships, some are transnational research partnerships —I declare an interest, in that my son is actively engaged in this—and some are with foreign companies and donors. They can be very sensitive and can raise reputational problems, as some universities, including the one I used to work for, have learned to their cost. Again, it would be helpful if we had more detailed guidance on that.
At several points in the impact assessment, and in the memoranda to the Delegated Powers Committee and others, the Government emphasise the importance of ensuring the coherence of British foreign policy, and that it should not allow others to conduct their own foreign policy agendas. I notice the Express reported the other week that the Government have signed immensely valuable trade deals with Washington state and Texas. It seems an interesting contradiction for the British Government to insist that subordinate entities within the UK state should not be allowed to engage in any sort of deal with other countries while they actively attempt to get past Washington to deal with American states. I am not sure whether these are significant trade deals or not; I have the memorandum of understanding with the state of Washington and it seems rather less substantial than the Daily Express suggests.
The Minister may be thinking that precision does not matter so much in the Bill because it is intended to be largely performative and not to lead, in practice, to any serious enforcement. After all, the impact assessment notes how little boycott activity there has so far been beyond discussion, and the Bill is unlikely to be implemented before the coming election. However, we should not be in the business of permitting the Government to put badly drafted law on to the statute book for show. We need much greater clarity, and I look forward to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will say about the need for clarity in this area. The Minister shares with the House the responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not become an Act without much greater clarity about its terminology and the extent of its reach over the UK’s public and private bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I share many of the concerns explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That is why I tabled Amendments 11 and 12, which are in this group. Like the noble Lord, I thought this Bill was about public bodies, because that is what appears in the title. He read out the definition that we are invited to use in Clause 2, which is the definition in Section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act. It is clear from that that it can capture private sector bodies, which is why I first got interested in this topic. I tabled Amendment 12 in order to probe the extent to which private sector bodies are going to be dragged within the ambit of the Bill.
I have done more research on that since Second Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I have been ploughing through some of the legal cases on the definition in the Human Rights Act. It is clear that private sector bodies can be captured, but it is also probably fair to say that the courts have been tending to give a fairly narrow interpretation of that, so that private sector companies have been caught only in relation to where they are very clearly involved in delivering or exercising public functions.
Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to ensure that bodies caught within the definition in respect of public functions are captured only for the extent of public functions. It seems to me that that is unnecessary because of Section 6(5) of the Human Rights Act, which says much the same thing in a slightly different way. I would go further and suggest that private sector bodies, and private sector companies in particular, should not be within the ambit of the Bill.
When I was carrying out some research, the one thing that I did learn was that the definition of public authority is not clear. In fact, probably the only clear thing is that if any body is in doubt, it has to take its own legal advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred to this problem in her Second Reading speech, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I shall make a plea on behalf of SMEs, which I know are very close to the heart of my noble friend the Minister: they find uncertainty very hard to bear, so having a definition which is uncertain seems to be a problem.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their amendments in this group. They are incredibly helpful. What we are trying to do here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just said, is elicit some certainty from the Government on behalf of those organisations which might find themselves drawn into the scope of this Bill. Even though they may not consider themselves to be public bodies ordinarily, they might find that they are when it comes to this Bill. We will come later to an argument about whether universities should be treated as public bodies and we feel, as we said at earlier stages, they should clearly not be. But that is not the only area where we feel that the Government have not thought sufficiently about what they are trying to do.
Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would, as she explained, apply the definition in the Freedom of Information Act. That would settle this to a large extent, in that we are clear about who is and who is not subject to that Act. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government are minded to welcome that suggestion because, from what the Minister has said on previous occasions, all the instances that she has referred to as justifying the need for the Bill would probably be covered. I am not sure why the Government do not just welcome that, to be honest; it does not answer all of our problems, but it would go some way towards that.
The introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was incredibly helpful and his amendments likewise. He concluded by saying he suspects that the Bill is actually performative in nature and worries that the operability is not at the forefront of anybody’s mind in government. I have no idea how true that is, but I share his concern that it is the job of this House to make sure that we do not pass legislation that is unworkable and just causes confusion.
Our Amendment 14 is probing and I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had to say about it. But we are just trying various ways in this group—and in the next, too—to work out which organisations will be subject to these new rules. The example that has been helpfully provided to me by Universities UK was the one that led to the tabling of our Amendment 14.
If the Government get their way and universities are to be treated as public bodies for the purposes of this Bill, although I very much hope not for any other purpose, their activities that we could argue are clearly outside their publicly funded responsibilities—those conducted, perhaps, with private money or are contracted to private companies—would in no way be subject to the rules within the Bill. There is a reference that makes this clear in the Explanatory Notes, but the amendment that we have suggested would put that explanation into the Bill. As I said, it is to probe exactly what the situation would be because, at the moment, universities are not clear about that and it is important that we give them that certainty.
An example was suggested to me by Universities UK. It is hypothetical but not so outlandish that this situation is not happening very frequently. I declare an interest as chancellor of Teesside University. Here is the hypothetical example: university A is considering a proposal to set up a transnational education partnership in country X. This could involve a partnership with a commercial or state entity in country X and the university board must consider a range of proposals. According to the Higher Education Code of Governance, governing bodies should
“conduct their affairs in an open and transparent manner”.
It is a fundamental duty of university governing bodies to safeguard and promote the reputation of the institution. As the new partnership would involve a significant investment and carry both financial and reputational risks, the board of university A is therefore asked to take a decision on the proposals.
To support its deliberations, the board would receive a paper covering the following: the potential financial exposure and opportunity of each proposal; underlying social, demographic and economic data that underpins a market assessment; due diligence on potential partners, including reputational factors; and a summary of ethical and reputational concerns relating to country X. All aspects of the paper would be deliberated by the board. Following an extensive discussion of the financial and reputational impacts of the proposals, the board decides not to proceed with the partnership opportunity because, on balance, the risks are deemed to outweigh the opportunity.
Can the Minister explain whether, in this example, the transnational educational partnership described constitutes a private or public activity of a university? Would the fact that the board discussion included reference to reputational and ethical concerns of direct relevance to a higher education institution mean that members of the board could be subject to action under the provisions of the Bill?
How can boards fulfil their duty to safeguard and promote the reputation of their institution if they are not able to openly discuss and consider material facts that could impact on said reputation without fear of legal action, even if those considerations are not the sole basis for the eventual decision? How can boards fulfil their duty to conduct affairs in an open and transparent manner if the very fact of discussing issues of demonstrable and material relevance would be actionable under the provisions of the Bill?
I raise this example to tease out some of the grey areas that we might be forcing universities to consider and because I am worried about the chilling effect this may lead to. I do not think there is a situation in which a university would not consider the reputational impact of a partnership. But I can conceive of a situation where that consideration would not be as open and as widely shared as we have come to expect, in the way that we would like things to be done in this country.
In this group, we would like to understand the Minister’s response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in particular, on whether there might be any other way of making clear who is subject to this. In relation to my Amendment 14, I would like to understand exactly how this will work for organisations—not just universities, but others as well—particularly in relation to the example I raised.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions from across the Committee. On the first day of Committee, which also touched on the scope of this Bill, we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Johnson. We discussed the Bill’s application to hybrid public authorities. Today, we have heard in slightly different terms from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lady Noakes and, of course, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I will try and come back on her essay question if I can.
Obviously, we have carefully considered the points raised in these debates. I would like to expand on our view of the scope in relation to Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. As noble Lords have said, the Bill will apply to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I would like to explain, in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that “public body” is a general term with no single legal definition. The Bill’s Short Title provides a general indication of the subject matter of the Bill, and it is not unusual for the Short Title to use different terminology from the Bill’s substantive provisions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. The Minister will be well aware that there is a particular use of the term “public body” by the Office for National Statistics, which means that debt incurred by a public body is counted as part of the national debt. That means that whether or not some of these hybrid public authorities are defined as public bodies matters a great deal to their financial planning. Again, the university sector is particularly concerned about this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point again. It has been raised before and I am aware of it. We are talking about quite marginal sums here, so it will not be definitive, but I am sure we will come back to that point.
Perhaps I should explain that we have used the HRA definition because it has three important advantages. First, it is one that has been on the UK statute book for over 25 years, as has been explained, and places public authorities under important fundamental obligations that they have to observe. Organisations should also already know how it applies to them. Secondly, over those 25 years, the courts have further clarified its scope and identified a number of relevant factors. These include, but are not limited to, the body receiving a significant amount of public funding, the body carrying out acts in exercise of statutory powers and the body providing a public service. Thirdly, the definition ensures that private activity remains out of scope of the Bill—private activity that is rightly protected by convention rights, including freedom of speech.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, but I am completely unclear about what a public body is after listening to that. Could she explain what a public function is? That might help us.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a good point and a good question. The noble Baroness also gave a good example. I suggest that I take away the distinction regarding the public function and have a look at it, and that I come back on the long example she raised, which she said had been given to her by Universities UK, on 7 May when we are due to debate the university amendment in Committee.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I sort of accept that, but while my example referred to universities we could equally apply it to other organisations as well. I would not want to see that consideration narrowed just to the issue of universities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness; that is an entirely fair point. We agree that the Bill is complex when it comes to understanding. I want to make sure that, when I answer questions on things such as public functions, I am giving good information that is thought through and thoughtful. I have tried to explain today why we are using the Human Rights Act. That has advantages, which is why the Government have gone down that road.
I should respond to the point about cultural institutions that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised. Some of them are in scope of the Bill in their public functions only, and I set out earlier a number of factors that courts would consider in deciding whether an act was a public act. The noble Lord also pointed out that the Bill contains the power to exclude bodies in its scope from the ban via regulations. The Government do not currently foresee the need to exclude such bodies, but this power will allow the Bill to evolve in line with government policy.
For all these reasons, I have tried to explain why we have presented the Bill in the way that we have. There is a lot of comfort to be taken from using the Human Rights Act, but I look forward to returning to some of the questions that have been asked. In the meantime, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
If I may intervene, this definition debate is like walking through a giant sticky pudding. Most Members of the Committee are utterly confused about exactly what public bodies and public authorities are, and about which institutions will be in the scope of the Bill and which will not.
I shall raise a specific example. Could the Minister tell the House about housing associations? They undertake many public functions, which is another term that the Minister introduced but has not been properly defined. They deliver social housing, for example. They do so in partnership with local authorities, often managing the social housing that is owned by local authorities. Will they be in scope of the Bill or not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The answer I must give in the short term is that it depends a lot on the courts. I will look at housing associations; I know they have come up in other Bills that we have discussed, including how they are treated in government finance. The point about using the Human Rights Act definition is that you get a 25-year history of interpretation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the issues of public funding associated with universities and the national debt, and how that is counted. She said that these were marginal amounts of money. The UK university sector is worth £130 billion a year to the economy and employs three-quarters of a million people. Is that truly the definition of marginal? I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Secondly, when we are looking at cultural organisations, does lottery money count as public or private money?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The honest answer is that I do not know about the lottery, but I will find out for the noble Baroness and write to her. On universities, of course she is right: very substantial sums of money, rightly, are involved in the education of our children. What I was explaining was that, at the margin of this activity—involving procurement and investment—the sum is relatively small compared with all that is done by universities.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
May I offer a constructive suggestion on the clarity that might be adduced between now and further stages? Picking up on the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as I understand it, in 2003 the first case before the court to answer the question was Poplar housing association, where it was deemed that Poplar was a functional public authority under the Human Rights Act. That takes us to the useful report that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, from the Lords and Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights back in 2003-04, entitled The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act, which gets to the very matter we have been discussing. Obviously, jurisprudence has developed substantially since then. If the Minister could set out in writing how the Government regard the situation as having evolved since this very clear statement of the answer to the question we are struggling with this afternoon, that would perhaps nail the matter.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
The Minister has been enormously forbearing and we are very grateful for that. I wonder whether she could help us in this regard in relation to cultural bodies—here I must declare an interest, as an independent non-executive director of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. What would be the position of an orchestra that received some funding—by no means the majority of its funding—from the Arts Council, and which determined that, in the aftermath of an invasion of a sovereign nation by another sovereign nation, it no longer wanted to perform supportively of, say, the Bolshoi Ballet? What would be the position of such an orchestra, or of a board, that made that decision because it saw a real reputational risk, in the aftermath of the invasion of a sovereign country, of appearing in support of the national ballet company of the invading nation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I understand the question. Of course, we now have government sanctions against Russia, so the question is wider. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is a good one, which would perhaps help us to move forward. I have already said that I will look carefully at the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The example of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is of a slightly different kind, asking rather the same question. Perhaps I can come back on that at the same time.
Lord Hain (Lab)
May I also ask a question? I am very grateful to the Minister, who has indeed been generous in responding, even if she has been unable to offer the Committee further clarification. Virtually all training in this country is privately provided, by private organisations, but publicly funded. Where do they fit into all this? They receive public money—from the DWP, say. I remember, as the former Secretary of State, visiting a lot of private providers. Where do they fit in? Do they come under the contractual relationship to which the Minister referred, or are they caught by the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It depends, and it also depends on case law under the Human Rights Act, which I have undertaken to look at and come back to noble Lords.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I cannot resist suggesting that one definition of a “public function” is somewhere you are served warm white wine and canapés. That is a suggestion of how loose some of these terms can be.
The concern that a lot of us have about the Bill is that we are not entirely confident that the Government have thought through its full implications. The manifesto commitment was specific to boycotts against Israel and was concerned particularly with local authorities and universities. But we have a Bill here with a much wider set of definitions and a universal set of foreign states to which it applies, which raises a much larger number of questions. We also have a whole succession of loose definitions, which the DLUHC memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee says, in effect, that we should not worry too much about, as we will do this all with regulations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, would think that it is not necessarily always a good idea to leave everything to regulations. We are asking for greater clarity, certainty and, above all, precision, and a more limited potential scope for the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I will repeat the point that the Bill applies only to investment and procurement decisions, as everyone understands. We are trying to find a way forward on a manifesto commitment to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts or disinvestment or sanction campaigns against foreign countries. Obviously, we need to discuss a little further how we deal with that, but I reiterate the point that I made about the use of the Human Rights Act, because we are trying to be helpful by calling on existing case law. The concern that I had about the amendments we are discussing today is that they might extend the Bill in a way that was not exactly where the Committee seemed to be coming from. I look forward to further discussions on this key matter.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the regulation making power for Ministers to add exceptions to the bill by secondary legislation. This is to probe when Ministers would expect to use this power.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Collins is not moving this amendment, but I will do my best as his understudy.
This group is slightly different from the first, but we will probably touch on a number of the same sorts of issues, as it is all about trying to get some clarity. I take what the Minister said about this being only about procurement and investment decisions. Even so, the question of what procurement and investment are in relation to the Bill is something else that we might need to tease out. If an organisation’s primary activity is in another country, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to, would the act of withdrawing from that activity be seen as a boycott under the Bill? If the Minister is saying that it would not, that is incredibly helpful information that may well soothe some of the concerns that will be raised in our consideration of this group.
My noble friend Lord Collins and I have tabled the amendments in this group in an attempt to tease out from the Minister exactly what the Government have in mind. I do not think that the public response to the Bill has been quite what the Government may have hoped or anticipated it would be when they embarked on this endeavour. Most public sector organisations are far too busy battling to provide services—often in extremely difficult circumstances—to their patients, students or service users to be following the back and forth of this debate. That serves to re-emphasise the importance of our considerations, and of making sure we do not land them with something that is unworkable and does not achieve the objectives.
Many of us understand what the Government set out to do when they started all this, so with that in mind, we tabled the probing Amendment 14A to discover in what circumstances Ministers anticipate using the power that they are giving themselves, which allows them to change the scope of the application of the Bill through secondary legislation. We are interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why Clause 3(1) and (2) are needed, and how she thinks they will work in practice. These subsections refer to the powers which allow the Secretary of State to remove any of the exemptions that are listed in the Bill, such as the one on national security. I cannot imagine that ever happening, but there is a whole list of exemptions in there—we are very pleased to see some of them. But why is that power seen to be needed? We cannot imagine a circumstance in which any of those exemptions would need to be removed. It seems an odd power for Ministers to take for themselves.
These decisions matter in the scope of the Bill, and they can have a profound impact on our relationships with other nations and our diplomatic efforts around the world, sometimes in incredibly sensitive situations. I have seen no evidence of Foreign Office engagement with, or even support for, the Bill, and it would be a concern if these decisions were to be taken by SI. We all want government to work interdepartmentally and for all decisions to be consulted upon internally in the right way, but we understand that is not always the situation. This concern was expressed at Second Reading, so can the Minister assure us that before any delegated legislation is proposed, appropriate input will always be sought from the Foreign Office?
We have a whole bunch of amendments which are probing—tongue in cheek is too strong a phrase but we could not think of any other way to do it. This is how we do things: we table amendments, discuss them and through that we get a better understanding of what the Government are trying to do. We tabled a handful to make a point—we could have gone on, but we did not—and I will run through them.
Amendment 22 would exempt schools and early years providers from the scope of the Bill. This was tabled with a view to finding out whether the Government intend early years settings to be involved. It comes back to the issue of what is and what is not a public body. Is a private school a public body? Is an independent nursery funded by a government childcare programme a public body? Is a childminder being paid indirectly by the state a public body?
Similarly, Amendment 23 would exempt charities providing public functions. We have heard the example of housing provision, because some housing providers are also charities.
Amendment 24 exempts community interest companies. There are thousands of such bodies up and down the country, engaged in all kinds of activities. Many are responsible for delivering public services, be that in social care, education, the arts or prisoner rehabilitation—virtually every area of activity you can think of. How are they to regard the Bill? What steps should they be taking to educate themselves and find out how to make sure that they do not do anything to make themselves fall foul of the Bill?
Our Amendment 25 exempts sporting bodies. Do the Government really want to get into this issue of sporting boycotts and which athletes should be doing what, where? If a sporting body did not deem that there was to be a boycott, but individual athletes decided that they did not want to take part in a tournament, what would happen then? There is pressure and debate, inevitably, whether it is part of a BDS campaign or not—but how you define what that is, I do not really know. How would that be considered? How could those people make sure that they are not, in any way, falling foul of this legislation?
We have also tabled an amendment asking for a list of public bodies. I was trying to be helpful and to work out the best way of getting this clarity. To answer the earlier point from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it could be a list that the Minister takes the power to be able to amend and add to, although I completely accept that any schedule containing a list would very quickly need to be updated. We would not want to put something in a Bill that would not stand the test of time, but these schedules are amended on a fairly regular basis.
I asked the government website for a list of public bodies, and there is one. It contains 601 organisations. I doubt it is a comprehensive list, but it contains the 24 ministerial departments, 20 non-ministerial departments, 421 agencies and other public bodies, 113 high-profile groups—they are interesting—19 public corporations, including the BBC, and the three devolved Administrations.
I looked through this list and there were some public bodies listed that I thought we needed to discuss a little bit further. What would happen with some of our defence-related organisations? There is an exemption for national security, but how would that be defined in relation to the Bill? Would that need to be something that would be tested in court? The Minister sighs: I can well understand why. There are defence training academies and there are organisations that deal with the media in relation to defence and make decisions about what adverts, and so on, can be used. These are all public bodies that have duties relating to our relationships with other nations, and they could conceivably be asked to make decisions that would fall foul of this legislation.
The Government have not really thought about the implications for some of these bodies. I accept that some of them are probably relatively low-profile, small in scale or inactive. However, our job is to make sure that we make this as future-proof and workable as we can. That is why we have tabled Amendment 54, which asks for a list, because if your name is on a list, at least you can be alerted to the fact that this is happening and you can take the necessary steps to comply.
If not, it becomes very confusing for decision-makers. As we discussed at Second Reading, these will often be volunteers or people who have not had the necessary training and who are not following the proceedings here. We really would not want to criminalise people inadvertently, when the Government are seeking to do something that is really quite narrow and, as the Minister has said, involves mostly local authorities and universities, which could be done in a completely different way.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 54, to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group. I listened carefully to the previous debate. As other noble Lords have noted, there is a strong overlap between this and the previous group.
Again as others have said, my concern is that, before we pass this Bill, we get clarity on who it covers. I declare a particular interest in that those of us on these Benches, along with other diocesan bishops of the Church of England, do carry out public functions. From time to time, these might bring an individual, in our corporate capacity as bishop of a diocese, within whatever definition of a public body or authority we might eventually land on.
In responding to an earlier group debated before the Recess, the Minister referred to the fact that mayors, police and crime commissioners—and, indeed, Government Ministers—also exercise public functions and hence fall under the scope of the Bill. However, since what these officeholders have in common is that they are elected or appointed primarily to exercise political functions, I can see the logic that maybe they should not use their investment and procurement functions in order to pursue a foreign policy in contrast to that of His Majesty’s Government. Notwithstanding the fact that some diocesan bishops are members of your Lordships’ House, is it really intended that we, along with the small charitable funds for which we are responsible in our corporate personality, should fall under the scope of the Bill? If we place those modest charitable funds with an external investment body, do we have constantly to ensure that that entity does not at any point seek to make restrictions in contravention of the Bill, by investing our money where it should not be—or not investing it where it ought to be?
Other Church institutions are at potentially greater risk of being inadvertently caught up in the scope of the Bill. Noble Lords will be familiar with the Church Commissioners, the body that manages the historic endowments of the Church of England, for the furtherance of the mission and ministry of the Church in perpetuity. It was my great privilege to chair the commissioners’ board, until the end of last year, as the delegated deputy of my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury. During my tenure, we grew our reputation, alongside our sister pensions board, as being among the world’s leading ethical and responsible investors.
As noble Lords well know, the commissioners require parliamentary approval to spend capital. Indeed, I spoke before the Easter Recess when we brought just such a measure before your Lordships’ House. What noble Lords may not know is that six state officeholders, including the Prime Minister and the Lord Speaker, are ex officio Church Commissioners, notwithstanding that the Government make no contribution to the commissioners’ coffers. Noble Lords will have noted a plea there. The ability of the commissioners’ investment team to deploy assets in furtherance of our mission objectives is not a case of anyone taking taxpayers’ money and using it to pursue their own independent foreign policy, yet, on some readings, these Church bodies may be seen as being within the scope of the Bill. Can the Minister clarify whether such bodies are indeed in scope?
Beyond the Church of England, there are many religious, charitable and other foundations—across a variety of faiths and of no faith—which perform functions in areas such as education. We have heard that referred to before. I am a grammar school boy. I benefited from a scholarship. My widowed mother could never have paid school fees. Such bodies raise and hold endowment funds for such purposes in order to enable students and pupils from less well-off backgrounds, like mine, to fully access and benefit from their services. I know that goes on because I am regularly invited to donate.
What is true of schools is even more true of the endowment funds of universities and colleges. Let us suppose that such an institution receives an offer of funds from a private philanthropist in the UK or beyond who wishes to make some stipulation as to where the endowment may or may not be invested. This is private money. Would this Bill mean that the foundation has to refuse the money, not because the country that it wishes to boycott is already on the list but because it may come on to a subsequent list at some future date?
The simplest way out of this confusion is for the Bill to contain either a schedule of the types of bodies to which it applies, as in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to which I have added my name, or to use a definition that points to a well-defined list in existing legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, offered that earlier today in the previous group. The advantage of requests under the Freedom of Information Act is that they are ubiquitous and long-standing. I know because I get them all the time and turn them down because they do not apply to me. As we have already heard, this means that most institutions are now very clear as to whether FoI applies to them. The same cannot be said for other definitions, even those contained in the Human Rights Act. So, in responding to this debate, can the Minister let us know how His Majesty’s Government are going to provide the clarity over scope that will be essential for this Bill to become a workable Act?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the sense that my wife is a trustee of a major public orchestra. It does not receive public money, but I just make the point: if you do not receive public money, are you one of these public bodies? If you do, do you become one, and does that mean that you make a choice, which is quite a serious choice?
I also declare an interest because in my business we advise people on procurement and sustainability of procurement. I say to my noble friend that procurement is a very difficult issue on which to advise, because it is very widespread. What does it mean? It means almost everything from what might be called lavatory rolls at one end to procuring very large numbers of services or products. It can also cover the issue of the orchestra that procures another orchestra from abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said, it might have intended to bring an orchestra from, let us say, Russia to this country; if it then decides not to do so, is that the kind of decision that comes under the Bill?
I also have a concern, as the noble Baroness put forward, that the Secretary of State has an ability to remove from the exceptions things that for most of us are really important. If we are not to be allowed to procure on the basis of sustainability or climate change—things that really are existential issues—we have a serious problem, because on any definition of public bodies, the very bodies we are talking about are the ones that ought to be procuring and investing on those bases. The idea that this is only temporary, that it is in the Bill but can be removed by the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State—and it could be arbitrary, because there is nothing in the Bill to say it is other than arbitrary—worries me considerably.
I rose not just to say that to my noble friend. I am afraid that the Government have a record of producing Bills that do not appear to have been carefully thought through. If the Bill had been produced to me as Secretary of State for the Environment, I would have sent it back and said, “There are too many questions in this, and I don’t want to have to present it to either House of Parliament because I can’t answer a number of the questions”. I do not blame my noble friend for not being able to answer some of these questions, but they are pretty fundamental, are they not? I just wonder what the Secretary of State responsible for the Bill said when it was brought in front of him. Did he ask what the definition of public body is or what a public function is? If he asked those questions, did he get answers? If he got answers, were they satisfactory, and why do we not have those answers when the questions are asked on the Floor of the House?
My worry is this. Out there large numbers of bodies, some of them very small, are worried that this will affect them. I do not believe that kind of legislation does us any good at all. Precision is absolutely crucial here, and we need to restrict this to a very clear, relatively small number of bodies and have a very clear understanding as to what it means.
If we take sporting bodies receiving government money—I cannot claim to be a sportsman and I declare no interests whatever on this front—it seems to me that if individual sportsmen wish to boycott something, the sporting body probably has to discuss that. If a body discusses that, it seems to me that under this Bill it can easily get itself into a position in which that is improper, if not illegal. Again, I do not see why people should have to ask themselves this question.
We are, at the moment, seeing a very inelegant discussion about individuals’ decisions on tax matters, pretty unfairly in most cases I have heard. It is difficult to understand quite a lot of the detailed tax legislation, but producing this legislation will ask a whole lot of other people to understand very detailed and extremely difficult concepts. I say to my noble friend that all I want is to feel that I could vote for something that I understand, and that other people can understand, which does not reach beyond the necessary areas and actually achieves some good. Those are three perfectly reasonable requests, but I am not sure that the Bill meets any of them so far.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, we are dealing with a Bill that is in highly controversial territory. If we have sloppy definitions in the Bill, it will encourage litigation. It would be a strange thing if we passed a Bill with a lot of problems around definitions that causes, over time, more people to raise issues around sources of investment through the courts. With all due respect to the Government of Israel, from time to time they have shown quite an enthusiasm for using litigation to make their points.
Also, picking up from the last group of amendments, we live in a rather different time in terms of who raises money for public services, particularly capital money for investments. If we take health and care, the areas I know something about, there is a lot more interest in the idea of going into the private sector—private equity and PFI being good examples—to try to raise money to build facilities of some kind or another for which the public sector has found it difficult to find the money. People who raise funding and use it to provide public services perform a kind of public function. If we have a sloppy Bill, they leave themselves exposed to probing of where their sources of money come from. You then run the risk of driving these people away from the kind of investments in public service that we may need to get some of our old capital structures improved over time. I suggest to the Committee that if we do not tighten up these definitions, we run a series of risks that are self-defeating to any Government.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friends for these probing amendments, and even more grateful after hearing the contributions from Members opposite that they have elicited. A number of very serious questions have been raised about ambiguity and lack of clarity.
I hope that the Minister is not tempted to reply with words that are meant to reassure us, such as, “Don’t worry. Everything will be all right. The Secretary of State will decide”. I must confess to the Minister that, the older I get, the less confidence I have in Secretaries of State. I suspect that, in a few months’ time, she will begin to have less confidence than she currently has. There is a good reason for that: all of us—I emphasise this—whatever side of the House we are on, need to be wary of overpowerful government.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly, if I may, in support of Amendment 54, which is calling for a comprehensive list to be laid before Parliament. This debate is getting a bit metaphysical about public bodies, and it is revealing that there is no authoritative shared definition of a public body and no single authoritative list of public bodies. The term “public body”, on which the Bill rests, is itself very hard to define. I have two observations about this.
First, we therefore reach out to lists of bodies that have been developed for other purposes in other legislation. There are candidates around: one is the Freedom of Information Act. I am looking across at the Lib Dem Benches, because I vividly remember a debate within the coalition about whether or not universities should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dem members of the coalition thought that that information should be available from universities. We had a negotiation as part of some wider deal and agreed that universities should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. At no point in those exchanges did people think that that meant we were defining them as public bodies. We were simply trying, for the purposes of where the information should be and what should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act, under pressure from a member of the coalition, to include universities. It was not intended to be an authoritative definition for other purposes of legislation. In these circumstances, I think that it is sensible to say that we should just have a list of the bodies for which this legislation is most relevant and not try to reach out to find some other list or some permanent definition on all accounts.
There is a second reason, which, if I may say so, is particularly relevant for us on these Benches. There is a paradox in the Conservative position here: the supporters of the Bill are quite keen to stop sanctions, boycotts and anti-investment campaigns by as many bodies as possible. That means that Conservatives are currently reaching out for a very ambitious definition of “public body” because they want as many as possible to be covered.
I am not totally sure that, in the long run, this is an approach that Conservatives will not find comes back to haunt Conservatives, who may think they have ended with an overambitious definition of “public body” that in turn gets used for many other purposes. There are good reasons for a highly precise and limited list of bodies to be covered by this legislation—anything else and you are on very slippery ground, and we may find it has consequences that, even within my own party, people come to regret.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the proposers of these amendments for offering an opportunity to establish, as many have said today, some precision and clarity on the range and definition of the public bodies referred to in the Bill. The Minister has an opportunity to reassure us and many groups who fear the implications of this Bill.
In Amendment 22, we are talking about schools or nurseries. The Minister has said we are talking about procurement, but do the Government really intend that school governors should sit poring over the school meals procurement to see whether they are contravening the terms of this Bill in any way? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said earlier, would they also contravene the terms of the Bill even in talking about it and taking advice?
Do the Government intend that charity commissioners and trustees should take into account the implications of this Bill, and perhaps face vexatious challenges to contest some of the decisions that they have already made? The fact that the definitions are so poor, as many people have said here today, will leave open legal action and vexatious possibilities of weaponising this legislation, by the whole scope that seems to be covered. But the Minister can reassure us today, or in writing, that the list of public bodies covered is, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, closely defined and clearly identifiable by those whom it affects.
Particularly concerning, as highlighted in Amendment 26, is the implication for charitable organisations delivering public functions in terms of overseas aid and humanitarian work. Often founded on moral principles, as the right reverend Prelate said, many of these organisations have foundations which relate to moral principles and values, which they take into account when taking their decisions, whether on procurement or on investment. I believe territorial considerations must also be key to the functioning of these groups and charities. I agree we need a clear definition, and I would also like to understand and be reassured by the Minister on the reason for the additional powers being given to Ministers.
On the last amendment on this list, we should really have a much better idea—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that we are swimming through a sticky pudding, was absolutely right. We are totally unclear about the terms and the scope of this Bill, and I hope that we may be reassured in the course of this Committee.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have two questions relating to the issue of what constitutes a public body. My major interest in this Bill is Clauses 12 and 13, about local government pension schemes. It is interesting that it requires a separate section of this Bill to deal with local government pension schemes; that clearly indicates that these organisations are not public bodies. The Government’s commitment was in relation to public bodies and yet the Bill is being extended to these other organisations, which require their own section in the Bill, as they are clearly not covered by the general term “public bodies”. Perhaps the Minister could confirm or explain that particular point.
I have a different point relating to pension schemes. Some of these public bodies that we have been talking about have their own funded pension schemes, which are making investment and procurement decisions. As I understand it, because they are separate trusts, they are not themselves public bodies. But they belong to a public body and they are associated with the public body, so it is possible, within the bounds of trusts law, for those pension scheme trustee bodies to consider a decision that might potentially fall foul of this legislation. Therefore, we have the odd situation that the trustees can discuss these matters, but presumably the sponsoring organisation, which does count as a public body and is covered by the Bill, cannot discuss what the trustees whom they nominate should or should not be doing. There is a certain contradiction here, and again I invite the Minister to explain how that will operate in practice.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly go back to the Government’s own list of public bodies on GOV.UK. Of that list of public bodies, there are 18 listed for the Department for Education, none of which is a university. The Minister referred to overlapping definitions in the Bill. I have been sitting here and thinking about that, and wondering where the University of Buckingham sits in the Government’s concept of where universities lie, because that is a private university but one which is fulfilling exactly the same functions as all the other universities in the UK. Those other universities are, of course, exempt charities and so we are on a whole series of conflicting paths here, with just one aspect of the definition of public bodies that this Bill seems to wish to encompass. I raise these issues so that the Minister can perhaps give us some of her thoughts on these overlapping definitions and where they actually sit within the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, first, we are in the territory of the chilling effect, are we not? If there is a very large number of bodies which are not going to be sure how far they come within the scope of this Bill, they will be very nervous about doing things that they would otherwise do. That is why leaving it so unclear as to how far the definitions of this Bill stretch over the sector, in which public and private institutions, and public and private functions, overlap so closely, is highly undesirable.
Secondly, this clearly will require very substantial subordinate legislation. I think it is the sense of this House that it is a bad thing to pass Bills that need too much subordinate legislation. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, whom I regard as an extremely good friend, said to me that the subordinate legislation under the Elections Act, which we passed in 2022, is now approaching 1,000 pages, and that the Electoral Commission is spending a considerable amount of its time providing guidance for local authority electoral registration officers on what this means for them. That is bad legislation; we want to avoid that again here.
Thirdly, there have been occasions, as others are aware, where lists of public bodies have been provided. The Minister will remember the SI on trade union levies being taken, or no longer being taken, automatically from pay scales for particular public bodies. That had a list, at the end, in the schedule, of over 200 bodies, which included some quite interesting ones such as the Scottish salmon council, and various semi-charitable local institutions to do with, as I remember, care homes and nurseries.
Fourthly, to add to the question of universities, what universities are most concerned about is whether or not the student loan book, which is a very large sum, is included in the Treasury’s calculation of national debt. That is not a marginal issue; it is quite important. That is why definitions such as this and how they are used by different parts of government and recognised be the courts are extremely important.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, on the previous group of amendments I explained that I was concerned about the lack of certainty involved in the definitions. However, I feel the debate on this group has engineered more uncertainty than in fact exists.
My noble friend the Minister explained that the Government used the Human Rights Act definition because there is 25 years of jurisprudence, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, helpfully suggested that the Government update their understanding of what that definition means. I believe that most of the bodies know whether or not they are subject to the public sector duty involved in the Human Rights Act—not all of them, and there are certainly issues at the margin, but we need to get this in proportion. For example, I suspect that most of the bodies that the right reverend Prelate referred to already know whether or not they are subject to the human rights duty in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. So although I continue to believe that clarity is important and that we need to find ways of achieving that clarity, we should not overstate the difficulties of establishing who is within the terms of the Bill and who is not.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister comment on the actual functions of some of these so-called public bodies? I assume that secondary schools will be regarded as public bodies. They have a wide range of functions focusing on educating the children who are pupils there, but they are also responsible for the development and improvement of their school buildings. Let us take the example of a school that has an extremely rich alumnus who wishes to reward it for the excellent job it did in educating him, and allocates to it a very large sum of money to put up a completely new building: will that be caught by the Bill’s scope, so that the school has to decide whether it will be found to be breaking the law because it takes into account moral and ethical considerations in its purchase of goods for providing a very large new school building? These are the sorts of questions that people will face, and I am not sure that the governors of most state secondary schools will be terribly familiar with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act; nor will they find it that easy to get advice about it. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that sort of situation.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, just made in respect of schools, but I also agree with the point the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made about the jurisprudence that has arisen, which has clarified this for a number of institutions, including, I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will find, the Church of England. In fact, I believe the first case to test whether a body in the Church was indeed a public authority was Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council, which was trying to exact a chancel repair charge. In the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, deemed that the parochial council was not a public authority. Many details have been laid out by the courts quite clearly over the years, but if the Government could adduce that on to a single sheet of paper in the way that has been described, it would be very helpful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as I set out in my response to the previous group, the Government chose to apply the ban to public authorities as defined by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a great advantage that your Lordships, perhaps in contrast to the other place, scrutinise Bills in this way. I cannot accept that it is a sloppy Bill—it is a good Bill—but I think that concerns have been overstated. My noble friend Lady Noakes just explained why, very eloquently. We need clarity. Most bodies know whether or not they are covered.
There is another good reason for using the Human Rights Act definition—obviously, I am happy to look further at its implications, as I have said—which is that the Government intended to apply the Bill to a broad range of bodies when they are exercising public functions. This was to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across the UK’s public institutions, to stop public bodies legitimising divisive campaigns, which can undermine community cohesion, and to allow public bodies to focus on their core purpose when engaging in procurement and investment. That was the intention of the manifesto commitment that I mentioned in the previous group.
These amendments seek, rightly, to probe the scope of the Bill’s definition of public authorities, but they also probe the need for the power to make exceptions to the ban. I will try to address each in turn.
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has joined the debate. The Church of England would be in the Bill’s scope only to the extent that it exercises public functions. We have heard a little about the interpretation of that in the courts.
Before I address the specific amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill will not create any new criminal offences. That is a very important point. I also take this opportunity to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, which was picked up by my noble friend Lord Deben, on orchestras. Orchestras are very unlikely to be regarded as public authorities. Moreover, withdrawing from an event is unlikely to be regarded as a procurement decision for the purposes of our Bill. The definition of a procurement decision does not include contracts where it is the public authority providing the service.
I can also reassure the noble Baroness who raised the issue that defence contracts are also exempt from the Bill. In addition, for contracts in scope, the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for national security considerations. In practice, if a case is reported to an enforcement authority it will look at whether the public authority had regard to any of the exemptions to the Bill—for example, the national security exemptions —during the decision-making process. Evidence of this might include if the public authority shows that it was following guidance from the UK Government, or became aware, for example, that a supplier was engaged in espionage.
Amendments 26 and 23 probe whether charitable organisations would come under the Bill’s scope. Charities would be captured by the ban only if they were performing public functions. It is the Government’s understanding that most charities will not be covered by the Bill. I hope that provides reassurance to noble Lords.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I was just checking the relevant parts of the Bill relating to enforcement. The Minister said that no new criminal actions arise from the Bill. What we do have is the ability of the Secretary of State to have enforcement powers that include monetary penalties. If people refuse to pay the monetary penalties, what would that result in?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Perhaps I might continue on the points raised in the debate and come back to that point. It is a very reasonable question but I am not going to answer it without advice. However, there are no criminal sanctions in this Bill, which there often are in the Bills we consider in this House.
There may be a small number of cases where charities are delivering public functions; they would therefore be captured in respect of those functions. However, it is important to note that it does not mean that a charity is a public authority just because it is in receipt of public funding.
The Bill will not apply to charities’ private functions. For example, for universities, decisions that are part and parcel of delivering higher education would be public functions so they would be in scope of the ban. If a charity did have public functions in scope of the ban, it would apply only to investment and procurement decisions made within the public functions. That is a point that I need to emphasise. Therefore, the ban would not restrict how such bodies decide, for example, to distribute humanitarian aid, which was the subject of the earlier debate.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
I think the Minister, or those who advise her, has misunderstood the point I raised in relation to the orchestra. The orchestra is putting on a concert version of “The Rite of Spring” as part of a Stravinsky festival. That festival is being held in a number of cities throughout the world. It is booked to appear at the new opera house in Dubai. It puts out a tender for ballet companies to provide the dance section of “The Rite of Spring” for this concert version. It specifically precludes in its procurement—so perhaps those who advise the Minister can reflect on this—the national ballet company of a country that has recently invaded a sovereign nation because it does not wish reputationally to be linked with that national ballet company. That is quite clearly a procurement. Is the Minister saying that that would not be covered by the Act and that the fact that the orchestra concerned receives a proportion of its funding from the public purse does not make it fall within the ambit of the Act? It is to that question specifically that an answer would be helpful. If she cannot give that answer, it demonstrates very clearly the concern about ambiguity that all contributors to this debate have articulated.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, has concentrated on the procurement decision, but before you get to decide whether a procurement decision is relevant, you have to decide whether it is a public authority—so it will come back to whether the orchestra is a public authority before getting to any issue about whether a procurement is covered.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
That is what we want an answer to: is it a public authority for that purpose because it receives public funding?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am glad that we have focused on an individual example because, in my experience, this always helps us to clarify our own thinking. I think that, if the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, will allow me, I will take the orchestra example away, along with the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, work out the right approach and get back to noble Lords, perhaps in discussions outside the Chamber.
We all want the same thing: to make sure that the Bill applies to the right bodies in the right way. That is what we are seeking to do, which is why we started with human rights legislation, which is often a popular start, for good reasons, to legislation. However, we have, as we do, scrutinised the detail of legislation today and have come up with some extremely good questions. It behoves us to go away. I am sure we can find good answers and use them to improve the Bill, which is, as I said when I introduced the Bill, what we are determined to do to get a good Bill that leaves this House in the right place and delivers on our manifesto commitment.
I turn now to Amendment 25, which seeks to probe whether a national governing body of sport that is in receipt of public funding would be in scope of the Bill. It raises some of the same questions and issues that we are going to consider. It is possible that a governing body of sport could be in scope of the Bill. If a sporting body is considered to be a public body under the Human Rights Act, on the basis that it exercises some public functions, the ban would apply only to the public functions exercised by that body, but a sporting body being in receipt of public funding would not in itself be enough for it to be considered a public authority. These bodies play a significant public role.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have got the public function thing again, which the Minister has referred to frequently. She has clarified that public funding is part of what will determine whether the sporting governing body is a public body, but she said that would be relevant only in the conduct of public functions. I am not clear on this, given that at the end of the previous group we were promised a response on what a public function is. I think the Minister said that she would follow up in writing, but she is relying on that term frequently in her response to this group of amendments, which I do not think is helpful, unless she can say something at this stage about what she considers a public function to be.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we need to use the term “public function” with care and to be entirely clear what it means, but the receipt of public funding is another legitimate issue that we need to understand—and understand the scale as well.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As an example, if a young people’s badminton team were to be taking a tour of south-east Asia and felt it did not want to take part in events in certain regions of China and came under some pressure on this from parents or other groups, how would that be? You could say that enabling young people to engage in sport is perhaps a public function. I do not know. How would that be considered?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That example would not be procurement or investment, so it would be outside the scope of the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has raised the point. Sporting bodies can be within scope, as I explained, in procurement and investment decisions. The reason for this is that these bodies play a significant role in public life and it would send a very unhelpful signal if we were to single out governing bodies of sport as an exception to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry to keep on about this, but there is then a need to define procurement. In the example that I am, perhaps tenuously, relying on, there would surely be procurement of transport services, accommodation services, catering services and venues.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It seems to me that the issue here is boycotting a sporting event, and that is not a procurement or investment decision—but I have already undertaken to look carefully at these individual examples, because we all want to understand exactly what we are talking about and to come to the right outcome.
Amendment 24 would carve out community interest companies. While it is not inconceivable that a community interest company might perform a public function, neither the purpose nor the structure of a community interest company naturally lends itself to that. It is not, by and large, what the Bill is designed for.
Amendment 22 seeks to probe whether schools and early years providers, such as nurseries, are in scope of the Bill. I can confirm that all publicly funded schools will be captured by the ban when they are performing public functions, and some early years providers will also be public authorities on that definition. Other early years providers may be captured to the extent that they are performing a public function. However, I will take noble Lords’ concerns on that issue away, because I think it comes into the same category as the other two examples we will be looking at.
Privately funded independent schools—and I think this will probably apply to private universities—will be captured to the extent that they perform a public function. However, they are unlikely to perform functions of a public nature in scenarios where they are captured as hybrid public authorities, which we discussed on the previous group. The ban will ensure that publicly funded schools remain shared spaces for all, and the Bill will ensure that schools and early years providers can remain focused on their core duties, rather than being distracted by divisive campaigns promoted by BDS and others.
Lord Deben (Con)
If a Church of England or Catholic school says it will not buy from a country that is persecuting Christians, that is concentrating on its core responsibility. It is not avoiding it; it is what it is there for, which is to uphold the faith. Are we really going to dictate whether or not it should make that decision?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has an advisory speaking time of 20 minutes. May I respectfully suggest that we leave any further interventions until the end to allow the Minister to answer as many of the existing questions as possible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have already said that I am trying to answer the many questions noble Lords have asked. There have been a great many interventions on me and I have been very patient. I have also made some undertakings to try to clarify some of these points, including childcare, which would cover the schools that my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned.
Perhaps I could turn to Amendment 54, which requires
“the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive list”,
of the bodies in scope
“before the provisions in Clause 1 can be brought into force”.
The Government are not able to provide a comprehensive list of bodies captured by the Human Rights Act definition. However, I have tried to be clear on the categories of bodies that includes. To repeat, these include: central government agencies and non-departmental public bodies; UK Government Ministers and devolved Ministers; local authorities; administering authorities of local government pension schemes; universities and higher education providers with public functions; publicly funded schools; and some museums and galleries in receipt of significant public funding.
As with any definition, there will be further cases at the margins where it is impossible to generalise without the full facts of a case. That, of course, is where the courts come in. Legislation often uses general definitions—for example, the Human Rights Act from which we have taken the scope or the scope of bodies covered by obligations under public procurement legislation.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 14A. This would remove from the Bill the powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule to make exceptions to the ban for certain bodies, functions and types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under these powers. I understand concerns about the use of subordinate legislation—the noble Lord knows that—and we are lucky that we have such a good committee to supervise its use. However, these powers are necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended, for example in response to emerging global events.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the FCDO is fully supportive of this legislation, and all regulations made under this Bill would follow the normal procedure of cross-governmental clearance and, of course, be approved by the Foreign Secretary. In the event that in future the ban has unintended consequences for a certain public authority, it is right for the Secretary of State to have the power to exempt that body, or a function of the body, from the ban via statutory instrument—I think today’s debate shows that that is necessary—and this would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.
These powers will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. For example, Ministers may decide to exempt a narrow type of consideration to ensure the ban can evolve in line with government policy. The powers future-proof the legislation to ensure the ban can continue to operate effectively and mitigate against any unforeseen circumstances.
Before I close, I should perhaps address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the environment. The ban applies only to decisions that target a particular country or territory. For example, environmental campaigns, including ones against fossil fuels that are not country specific, are outside the scope of this Bill. I also reassure my noble friend that the power in Clause 3 cannot be used to remove any exception to the ban in the Bill as passed by Parliament. There is a schedule the noble Lord can look at, which includes environmental misconduct, which we are coming on to discuss.
I hope, finally, to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, with regard to why there is a separate clause in the Bill for local government pension schemes. The administering authorities for local government pension schemes are public authorities under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Capturing administering authorities of LGPS in a bespoke provision means that the Pensions Regulator can use its existing powers and procedures to enforce the BDS ban for the administering authorities of LGPS. That avoids the Pensions Regulator setting up a separate enforcement system for the Bill. I am happy to have a discussion with him; we often discuss pensions issues which are of limited interest sometimes to the whole House.
I hope that my response to this group of amendments —importantly, alongside the undertakings I gave in response to my previous group which we expanded a little to bring in telling examples—will help the Committee to understand why we have chosen the Human Rights Act definition and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to further discussion.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I am able to intervene at this point before the noble Baroness sits down—some of these new rules that have been introduced for Committee stage I find incredibly damaging to our ability to properly scrutinise this Bill; I raised that point at the committee.
The noble Baroness said that the FCDO fully supports this legislation. She may recall that, at the previous Committee day, I specifically raised this question because I wanted to inform the Committee of the precise nature of the FCDO’s advice following United Nations resolutions regarding the Occupied Territories, which are specifically mentioned in this Bill. Perhaps she can take this opportunity to tell us how that advice could potentially impact the sort of investment and procurement decisions that organisations might make. There is advice issued by the FCDO in relation to the Occupied Territories.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are going to be discussing the Occupied Territories in a group two or three later in this Bill and I do not have an answer to the noble Lord on this point today, except to reiterate that this Bill has been collectively agreed. I was particularly talking about the arrangements for regulations which, in turn, had been collectively agreed. I explained the system that when you have a new statutory instrument, there is a write-round which involves all relevant Ministers. In this particular case, that would certainly include the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her to take away the point I was ineptly trying to raise earlier? If a public body—we could take as examples housing, health and care—has an investment decision to make on a new building and/or new services, is it expected to find out more about the sources of the money going to be used to enable it to perform public functions and provide new public buildings? Are they expected to go that far?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am grateful for that point, but I am not sure I entirely understand it, so perhaps I can offer to meet the noble Lord or to write to him and make sure that he gets an answer in good time.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I was not expecting this group to elicit quite the debate it did, but it was incredibly helpful and welcome in exposing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, called “sloppy”. He makes a fair point. The Minister said that she did not like that phrase but, given that we have been unable to agree a definition of a “public function”, unable to elicit a proper definition of “procurement” and have not agreed what a “public body” is by any means, I have to agree with him.
This is not us being mendacious or deliberately creating problems for the Government, although you could argue that is a fair thing for the Opposition to want to do; that is not what we are doing here. Like the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Deben, we are trying to get to the real nub of how this Bill enables the Government to fulfil the commitments that we all accept they made in their manifesto. We understand that the Government want to stand by those commitments, but we are so concerned that the legislation before us could end up straying into so many more areas. I honestly do not think that when this went into the manifesto, anybody had sporting bodies or schools in mind, yet here we are with the Minister unable to answer some quite straightforward examples, including a very good one from my noble friend Lord Boateng. I regret that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Collins that, when the Government Whip pops up to try and rescue the Minister from having to take too many more interventions, that is fair enough, those are now the rules, but this place is supposed to be able to spend a bit more time in Committee—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that is a little unfair. The noble Baroness knows that I am always ready to take interventions and have continued to do so. I am doing my best to do the job that this Chamber does so well. We have used the Human Rights Act definitions and this Chamber has decided that that causes problems. I am sure those are soluble.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely did not mean any disrespect whatever to the Minister. She is completely right; she has never declined to take an intervention and has been very accessible on every occasion that I have needed her to be so outside this Chamber. The point I am making is that these considerations in Committee intentionally sometimes involve a lot of back and forth, because we are trying to get to the point—trying to understand, to improve and to do our jobs.
This has been a helpful debate. We leave with a few more questions even than we arrived with. I am sure we will come back to some of this in later stages but, for today, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hain
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not amend the Schedule to remove environmental misconduct as an exception from the application of section 1.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot remove environmental misconduct as an exception in the Schedule by regulations.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 15 seeks to answer the question: what would happen if a public authority imposed a boycott campaign which related to Israel and arose as a result of environmental misconduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, illegal under international law?
Under the Bill’s Schedule, the Clause 1 prohibition on the consideration of moral or political disapproval is lifted, so far as that
“consideration … relates to environmental misconduct”.
This includes, according to the Schedule,
“consideration related to the possibility of environmental misconduct having taken place or taking place in the future”,
while the definition of environmental misconduct here
“means conduct that … amounts to an offence, whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory, and … caused, or had the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment, including the life and health of plants and animals”.
Surely such accusations of environmental misconduct should also apply to the State of Israel. There is credible evidence that Israel has engaged in such misconduct, particularly through the actions of the Israel Defense Forces, in its occupation and military actions.
In its military action in Gaza, there are serious questions to be raised about environmental misconduct. Dr Saeed Bagheri, scholar of international law at the University of Reading, stated of Israel in January this year that there may
“be evidence to suggest that they have acted contrary to the International Committee of the Red Cross … position that the prohibition on inflicting widespread, long-term and severe harm to the natural environment is a rule of customary international law”.
He added:
“The actions by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza have left chemicals from white phosphorus weapons that could linger in the environment for years. This can have a long term impact on the soil, affecting the growth of crops, and in Gaza agriculture takes up about a quarter of land. For individual farmers and their communities, this pollution and its long-term impacts could be devastating”.
However, such questions far pre-date the current horror in Gaza. The Institute for Middle East Understanding has set out a long list of allegations of environmental misconduct. In its actions in the Occupied Territories, long-standing allegations against Israel have been made about the deliberate destruction of olive trees and olive orchards; at least 2.5 million trees have been destroyed since 1967, yet Palestinians depend on these trees as a primary source of food and income. The destruction of natural wildlife since October has been stark: a recent estimate states that around 4,300 acres of trees and plant life have been cleared around the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces, not to mention the complete devastation of the natural and built environment within the Gaza Strip.
What of Israel siphoning off water supplies from the Occupied Territories? This has caused a permanent drop in the West Bank’s water table and distorted water flows, damaging agriculture and increasing flood and drought vulnerability. In February this year, the IDF itself confirmed that it is dumping seawater into tunnels and waterways below Gaza, an act which the director-general of the Geneva Water Hub described as polluting and contaminating, and poisoning Gaza’s aquifer.
We also know that Israel discharges 52 million cubic yards of untreated sewage and other hazardous materials each year into the West Bank. The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories reported:
“Israel’s environmental policy in the West Bank—including situating polluting waste treatment facilities there—is part and parcel of the policy of dispossession and annexation it has practiced in the West Bank for the past fifty years.”
In the West Bank, and in contravention of the Geneva convention, Israel has appropriated most water sources for itself and restricts Palestinian access to them. Of course, this is not Israeli state or Israel Defense Forces activity alone; the administration of this occupation relies on a vast number of agencies and companies. Is it not reasonable for any public authority doing due diligence on environmental matters to prefer to disengage with any companies or agencies which are involved in such acts?
Many of these instances could feasibly fall foul of international law, such as Rome statute prohibitions on inflicting damage to the natural environment, Hague regulations provisions on natural resource use, and customary international humanitarian law principles on hostilities to the natural environment, to name a few. But the matter goes beyond the practical application of these examples raised. The question is also: can we exempt Israel and the Occupied Territories from the Schedule’s considerations without denying the very real possibility, now or in the future, of Israeli state or corporate environmental misconduct?
Israel’s human destruction of Gaza is being compounded by an environmental crisis. In Rafah, large family groups have been living cramped together with no running water or fuel, while surrounded by running sewage and waste piling up. Like the rest of Gaza’s residents, the air they breathe is heavy with pollutants and the water carries disease. Beyond the city streets lie ruined orchards and olive groves, and farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers. Forensic Architecture, a London-based research group, has shown how family farms close to Gaza’s border with Israel, cultivated for generations, have been destroyed, their orchards uprooted and replaced by military roads. Israel has suggested it could make this sort of thing permanent to create buffer zones along the border, where a lot of Palestinian farms are sited.
An analysis of satellite imagery, reported by the Guardian newspaper recently, showed the destruction of nearly half of Gaza’s tree cover and farmland—mainly because of the military onslaught by the Israel Defense Forces but also because, starved of fuel, desperate Gaza residents have cut down trees to burn for cooking or heating. Not only have olive groves and farms been reduced to rubble but soil and groundwater have been contaminated by munitions and toxins. The sea is full of sewage and waste. The air is polluted by smoke and particulates. The impact on Gaza’s ecosystems and biodiversity is colossal, leading to calls for it to be recognised as ecocide and investigated as a possible war crime.
United Nations environmental experts report massive amounts of debris and hazardous material in Gaza, with harmful substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, fire contaminants, unexploded ordnance and hazardous chemicals. When Israel cut off fuel to Gaza after the 7 October terrorist pogrom, power cuts meant that wastewater could not be pumped to treatment plants, leading to 100,000 cubic metres of sewage a day spewing into the sea. The sheer scale and long-term impact of all this environmental destruction has led to calls for it to be investigated as a potential war crime, and to be classed as ecocide, which covers damage done to the environment by deliberate or negligent actions.
Under the Rome statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, it is a war crime to intentionally launch an excessive attack knowing that it will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The Geneva conventions require that warring parties do not use methods of warfare that cause
“widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”.
Forensic Architecture argues that:
“The destruction of agricultural land and infrastructure in Gaza is a deliberate act of ecocide”.
I put Amendment 15 to your Lordships’ Committee with the intention of asking: how should a public authority act if it wishes to disengage with a company or enterprise which may be involved in acts such as these, which could amount to environmental misconduct under UK or international law, if that company is Israeli or if it engages in alleged misconduct overseen by the State of Israel?
The Bill is clear that the Schedule considerations override Clause 1 prohibitions on boycotts. However, it is not clear whether the Schedule also applies to Clause 3, which likewise overrules Clause 1. This could present a glaring contradiction in the current formulation of this Bill, and one which I very much hope the Government and the Minister will respond to. It needs to be resolved through this amendment. I hope the Minister will come back on Report having accepted the amendment to deal with this matter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 32A and 32B. Amendment 32A would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions. Amendment 32B would extend the definition of environmental misconduct to include damage, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.
It is quite positive that this Bill at least recognises that public authorities should be able to consider environmental issues when deciding whether to spend taxpayers’ money on goods and services purchased from outside the UK, or when deciding how to invest the pensions of public sector workers and retirees. However, this environmental carve-out is far too narrow. I do not understand how public authorities can be forced to ignore environmental destruction as long as that destruction is not a criminal offence. I have worked closely with Friends of the Earth on these amendments, and they were also tabled in the Commons by my honourable friend Caroline Lucas.
We are all deeply concerned about this fundamentally flawed Bill and the impact it will have on public bodies’ legitimate procurement or investment decisions about companies or products that are destroying the natural environment, including pollution overseas and climate breakdown. All public bodies must be free to avoid investment in fossil fuels, which are contributing to climate breakdown.
This Bill sets out an uneven treatment between local or UK-based businesses and foreign enterprises, particularly where they are owned or controlled by a foreign state. A local council will remain entitled to refuse to purchase timber from a business that is clear-cutting the local woodland, but if it is in a foreign country linked to a foreign Government then the council will be prohibited from even considering the impact of clear-cutting woodlands and rainforests around the world. These types of considerations—so-called ESG criteria—are now quite routine, even mundane, among both the public and private sector. Public authorities should be entitled to consider the same types of environmental issues that they would consider if interacting with a UK-based business. There is no justification for it to be any other way, other than a totally misguided belief that the nature, land, air and water in the United Kingdom is inherently more valuable or deserving of protection than that outside the United Kingdom. That sounds slightly colonial to me.
Why have the Government chosen to draft this so tightly, so that the only environmental considerations are whether or not the environmental damage constitutes a criminal offence? I hope the Minister can see the glaring flaws in this approach and the obvious harms it will lead to. I ask noble Lords across the Committee, including the Minister, to work with us on this issue so that we can bring something that we can all support to Report. Environmental crime must not be set as a bar beyond which anything goes in public procurement and the investment of public pensions.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 April 2024 - (17 Apr 2024)
19:20 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 208 - Motion B1 agreed.
19:33 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 195 - Motion D1 agreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1E.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D and D1. I am grateful to noble Lords on all Benches for their careful consideration of this Bill. We have debated the same issues for some time, and it is of course right that the Bill is properly scrutinised. However, the time has come to get the Bill on to the statute book.
Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which seeks to make it clear in the Bill that it must have due regard to international law and specific domestic legislation. As I made clear yesterday, the Government take their responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. The Bill simply ensures that Parliament’s sovereign view that Rwanda is a safe country is deferred to and binding in domestic law. This is to avoid systemic legal challenges frustrating removals. What it does not mean is that the Bill legislates away our international obligations. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations.
In relation to domestic law, I have set out in previous debates the provisions in the treaty that take account of the needs of children and those who are victims of modern slavery. Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees, having already hosted over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, including women and children, and it has the necessary provisions in place to support those who are vulnerable.
I turn to Amendment 3G in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill I fear I am repeating much of what I have previously stated, but it is important to make it clear and to re-emphasise that we will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.
Article 24 of the treaty states that the treaty will
“enter into force on the date of receipt of the last notification by”
Rwanda or the UK
“that their internal procedures for entry into force have been completed”.
Both I and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton set out yesterday the details of the internal procedures that are now in place and continue to be put in place. We have spoken at length during our many debates about the monitoring committee, so I do not propose to reiterate all the details which are clearly set out in the Government’s published policy statement. However, it is important to point out again that the joint committee and the independent monitoring committee will oversee the partnership and ensure that the obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. This will prevent the risk of any harm to relocated individuals, including potential refoulement, before it has a chance to occur. As I said yesterday, there will be an enhanced phase of monitoring.
As I also set out yesterday, Article 4(1) of the treaty sets out that it is for the UK to determine
“the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under this Agreement and the number of requests”.
This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further consideration. Pausing removals to a particular country in response to any potential changes which may affect that country’s safety and suitability for returns is the general approach the Government take across the board and will continue to take when looking to relocate individuals to Rwanda.
Moving to Amendment 6F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, as clearly expressed by the other place on several occasions now, this is an amendment the Government simply cannot accept. It seeks to undermine the key measures of the Bill and is completely unnecessary. We have made it clear that we cannot allow relocations to Rwanda to be frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges on its general safety. In this context, the safety of a particular country is a matter for Parliament, and one on which Parliament’s view should be sovereign. The evidence we have provided and the commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda through the internationally binding treaty enable Rwanda to be deemed a safe country. This Bill makes it clear that this finding should not be disturbed by the courts.
Turning to Motion D, which relates to Amendment 10F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, as I said yesterday—and I again reassure the House—once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will re-visit and consider how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP-eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve and have earned. The Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. We will not turn our backs on those who have served.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment B1, as an amendment to Motion B.
I have asked for a further amendment in lieu to be put down, because I have raised important issues which need to be resolved before the Bill finally passes. As has been mentioned by the Minister, the Act will come into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force. This means that your Lordships are being asked to say that, as from that very moment and without more, Rwanda is a safe country. That is not all, as Clause 2 states that from that date, every decision-maker, including the Secretary of State himself,
“must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.
That is so, whether or not the treaty has been fully implemented, and whether or not Rwanda ceases to be safe some time in the future. The Secretary of State, just like any other decision-maker, will be locked by the statute into the proposition that Rwanda is a safe country, with no room for escape. In other words, it is no use his advisers saying that things still need to be done before all the protections and systems that the treaty provides for are in place. Nor is it any use his advisers saying that as these arrangements have broken down, Rwanda can no longer be considered safe. The Secretary of State is required by the statute to disregard that advice. He has no discretion in the matter. That is what the word “conclusively” in Clause 2 means.
The Minister has told the House several times that the Government are not obligated by the treaty to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change. That may well be so, but that is not what the Bill says. The Secretary of State is bound by the statute to ignore any such changes. He is required by Clause 2 to treat Rwanda as safe, conclusively, for all time. If the Minister will forgive me, his head is buried in the sand, like that of the proverbial ostrich.
My amendment seeks to add two provisions to Clause 1. Before Rwanda can be judged to be a safe country, the mechanisms that the treaty provides for must be put into practice. Ratifying the treaty is an important step, but that is not enough. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the situation on the ground is still being developed. The treaty must be implemented before Rwanda can be considered safe. My amendment seeks to write into the Bill a provision whereby Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement from the independent monitoring committee that the key mechanisms the treaty provides for have been created. It provides that Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of the Act if the Secretary of State makes a statement to Parliament to that effect. In other words, it provides the Secretary of State with the escape clause he needs if he is to escape from the confines of Clause 2, should that situation develop.
I remind your Lordships of what Sir Jeremy Wright said in the other place when my amendment was being considered there on 18 March:
“But it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change … the Government … should give some thought to the situation of the Bill…it must be right for Parliament to retain the capacity to reconsider and if necessary revise it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; cols. 679-80.]
Developing the point this afternoon, he said that I was wrong in my then amendment to give it to the monitoring committee to decide whether Rwanda was safe, as this should be a matter for Parliament. I agree with him and, as it happens, I have already deleted the reference to the monitoring committee from this part of my latest draft. What I am proposing now is that it be left entirely to the Secretary of State to decide, although he would no doubt seek the advice of that committee.
Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland, both of whom spoke in favour of my amendment last time, also spoke in support of it this afternoon. Sir Robert Buckland accepted that there needs to be a system by which it can be verified that the treaty has been fully implemented. He said that to do this would reduce the possibility of legal challenge. He said that a reliable method of doing this was to use the monitoring committee set up by the treaty itself. He also said that there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with the situation if Rwanda is no longer safe, without resort to the time-consuming method of primary legislation. That is what my amendment seeks to provide, and as to the question of what happens in the future, my system is flexible: the Secretary of State can come to Parliament and say that Rwanda is not safe. He does not need primary legislation, so the Act is still there, and he could come back when the situation is cured to say that Rwanda can be regarded as safe now. It provides not only an escape clause but flexibility to enable the Act to continue if necessary, without the amending legislation.
The Commons reasons set out in the Marshalled List are exactly the same as last time. They state that my amendments are “not necessary” because the Bill comes into force when the treaty comes into force, and that
“it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the treaty”.
No doubt that is so, but that still fails to face up to what I am saying on both points.
In short, the coming into force of the treaty is not enough. We need confirmation and verification that it has been implemented before we can make the judgment that Rwanda can be considered safe. It simply is not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change.
I regret that I have had to press my points yet again. It is not my intention to obstruct the operation of the Bill in any way. My amendment is necessary to make sense of the Bill. It is modest, simple and easy to operate. The other place needs to think yet again.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. There are three Motions left: B1, C1 and D1. Motion B1, as we have heard, is the parliamentary sovereignty amendment—that, if I may say so, is what the noble and learned Lord has just described. If the Bill is about restoring sovereignty to Parliament, then Parliament must have an ability to scrutinise the ongoing future safety of Rwanda. Forgive me for paraphrasing.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and I thank her enormously for her words of support for Amendment 10F. I also thank her for her continued support throughout the time that I have been pressing this amendment in my preparations and other aspects of what I have been doing in your Lordships’ House.
I will speak to Motion D1 and Amendment 10F in lieu. I began my remarks yesterday with a promise not to rehearse the moral case for the amendment. I add to that the promise not to rehearse the compelling long- term strategic security case for it to protect our future credibility as an ally, nor to rehearse in detail the irrationality of the Government’s two principal lines of argument in refusing to accept the principle of exempting a small number of ill-served brave Afghan fighters, who are already here in the UK, from deportation. Rather, as this is the fifth time that I have had to make a speech in your Lordships’ House in support of a variant of this amendment, I refer noble Lords to cols. 906-08 of the Official Report for yesterday—that is for those of you who are not already word-perfect on my speeches on this.
Since yesterday the halls of this Parliament and beyond have echoed to suggestions, and in some cases reassurances, that we who support this amendment could expect a statement of assurance from the Government about the fate of this small body of brave soldiers who fought with our forces in Afghanistan and are in this dilemma, facing compulsory deportation to Rwanda, only because of our Government’s sclerosis and administrative shortcomings and the possible venal dishonesty of some forces that they served with, which have resulted in the wrongful refusal of the ARAP status that they would have been awarded and which would have included visas for them, thus enabling them to escape certain death rather than compelling them to take irregular routes here in the first place. If those assurances had been bankable, our party and I would have engaged with them. A promise of such assurances was supported by credible evidence of high-level exchanges, but that was withdrawn this afternoon. I understand that that is because of a political policy decision at No. 10 that was reflected in a statement by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson. I would read it out to noble Lords but they can read it for themselves.
We are left with the best that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for whom I have great regard, can offer. I will read the assurance from yesterday that he repeated today in his short, interrupted speech:
“I turn to Motion F and Amendment 10D. As we have set out before, the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us, and we will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that they receive the attention that they deserve”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 901.]
That is what we have, but I do not have any faith in the Government’s attitude to the brave men and women concerned from that assurance. I do not understand what it means. I do not take any assurance from it, given not only the way that these individuals have been treated but the way that your Lordships’ House and my noble friends have been treated over the last 24 hours. I also do not take any reassurance from it because, as a parent, a practising lawyer and a politician, on occasions in my life when I have “ensured that people receive the attention that they deserve”, it has normally resulted in me scolding them, disciplining them or telling them they were wrong and they will have to be punished. It does not seem to give any assurance that there will be any positive result; it sounds more like a threat than anything else.
As I said yesterday, now is the time to give these people the sanctuary that their bravery has earned. This worthless assurance will not do. I therefore feel compelled to test the mood of your Lordships’ House and to send the message to the other place that it is time the Government learned the political consequences of the failure either to give an assurance that is bankable or to accept this amendment. There is little, if any, support in your Lordships’ House for the failure to do so, and there is certainly no majority support in the country for us to treat these brave people this way.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were made yesterday for the two amendments that I understand are going to be pushed to a vote. I shall simply say this about the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: it provides Parliament and the Government with protection. Parliament, including this House, is provided with protection by the amendment in declaring that Rwanda is a safe country when we do not have the evidence of it being so. The amendment gives us security. Secondly, it provides protection for both present and future Secretaries of State, whose ability to act when Rwanda is perhaps declared as not being safe in the future is constrained by the Bill that we are being asked to pass without amendment. It is therefore essential for both Parliament and the Government to have the protection that this Motion provides.
In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I was hoping to hear from the Government a concrete guarantee that Afghan supporters and allies, who provided such great service to the United Kingdom, would be given the right to live in our country. No such guarantee has been given. Vague words do not stand the test here, and it is essential that this House stands by the resolve it has shown by ensuring that this matter is referred back to the other House to really consider its obligations to those who have served this country.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the speeches that we have heard this evening. What a brilliant speech that was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, setting out in clear and concise terms why your Lordships should vote for his Motion B1. To put it more simply, at the moment the Bill says that two and two is three and a half; the noble and learned Lord’s amendment makes two and two make four.
The Government should listen. The amendment would not delay or stop the Bill—it is not an obstacle to the Bill—but would simply make the Bill make sense. It uses the monitoring committee, set up by the treaty that the Government have put forward, to say to the Government in a very simple way, “Rwanda is now safe, because all the mechanisms outlined in the treaty have been put in place”. The Government have committed themselves to that, and if the amendment is accepted it will simply allow the monitoring committee to inform the Government of that fact.
More important, perhaps, is the second part of the amendment, whereby the monitoring committee could rescue the Government from what is in the Bill, if at some point in the future Rwanda became unsafe, by letting the Government know—or the Government themselves could act. Why on earth would the Government oppose that amendment? It is completely unbelievable that a sensible amendment like that has not been accepted.
I say to the Government—to those on the Front Bench both here and in the other place—that they should reflect properly on what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I hope that your Lordships will reflect on the words before us. We will certainly support his Motion B1.
The other brilliant speech was that of my noble friend Lord Browne on Motion D1. I have said this before, and I say it again, with a lot of regret. I do not blame the Minister or the others on the Front Bench, but it is inexcusable for the Government to say, 24 hours ago, to His Majesty’s Opposition and others that we could expect something to be done about this amendment —that we could almost accept that it would be accepted, changed and put into the Bill—only for us to find out, when we woke up this morning, that nothing like that had happened. I am not talking about the Front Bench in this place, but that is a terrible way for the Government to behave. It is inexcusable for us to be told what we have been told.
The Minister has carried on with the Bill for months now. He has included us, talked to us and treated us with respect. But somewhere along the line, those on the Front Bench here have been told what to do by somebody. We would like to know who. Who has turned around and said that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is unacceptable? Who in this House believes that we do not have a moral duty to those who stood by our Armed Forces, fought with our Armed Forces and in some cases died with our Armed Forces, and did all they could to ensure that the values of this country and the coalition that operated in Afghanistan were as successful as they could be? Who on earth in His Majesty’s Government has decided that those people do not deserve the protection of my noble friend’s amendment?
This is an astonishing situation. It is wrong. It is morally bankrupt. The Government have failed in their duty to protect those they promised to protect. That cannot be right. I say to noble Lords opposite, particularly when they are asked to vote on my noble friend’s amendment, that this is not only to do with whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal or Cross-Benchers, or of no persuasion at all. It is a matter of standing up for the moral certainty of what His Majesty’s Government, of whatever colour, stand for—that when they give their word to other countries, and to those defending the freedoms, the democracy and the values that we care for, those people can trust that word. The Government of today are breaking their word to those veterans, and that is what my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment seeks to address.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. The House of Commons has now considered and rejected these amendments on several occasions. I will keep my remarks brief and simply remind noble Lords of the key points.
We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability. The Bill complies with our international obligations and allows direct access to the courts and an appropriately limited possibility of interim relief, consistent with what is required by the ECHR. No word is being broken. We will not turn our backs on those who have supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.
It is simply not right for criminal gangs to control our borders and decide who enters the UK. It is not right that they exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk—their own and others’. It would not be right if this Parliament did not pass this legislation, which will enable us to protect those being exploited, protect our borders and stop the boats.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3F.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Hope of Craighead
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3G as an amendment in lieu of Amendment 3E—
“(7) The Republic of Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country for any of the purposes of this Act until the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the Objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Rwanda Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article.
(8) The Republic of Rwanda can no longer be treated as a safe country for any of the purposes of this Act if a statement is made to Parliament by the Secretary of State that the provisions of the Rwanda Treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.””
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not wish to say any more; I simply wish to test the opinion of the House on my Motion B1.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6E.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C; I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10E.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D; I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10F in lieu—
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Cass Review
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Dr Cass and her team are to be thanked for their rigour and their care with this report, in which they have navigated many complex and sensitive issues. This review into the NHS’s gender identity services concludes that children and young people have been let down by inadequate research and evidence on medical interventions, and they have been failed by inadequate services amidst a debate which has, sadly, been marked by extreme toxicity.
At the same time, at the heart of the complexity around gender identity services are two aspects that are simultaneously true. There are trans adults who have followed a medical pathway and say that, for all the pain and difficulty involved, it was not just life-affirming; it was life-saving. There are also people who followed a medical pathway and say that it has ruined their lives irreversibly and ask how anyone could let that happen. For those children, young people, and now adults, but particularly those who are being referred into gender identity services today, there is a duty to get this right.
The Cass review refers to many scandals, which exposes both the inordinate amount of time that children and young people are waiting for care while their wellbeing deteriorates, and medical interventions that have been made on what could be called shaky evidence. Can the Minister say how it came to be that NHS providers refused to co-operate with this review? How was it allowed that adult gender services would not share data on the long-term experience of patients? What accountability does the Minister feel that there should now be?
The Minister will know that the discussion around the substance of the review has been highly toxic. People have felt silenced, and it has required investigative journalism to prompt this review to take place. Tribute should be paid to journalists, including Hannah Barnes, and to the whistleblowers, who together helped shine a light on the Tavistock clinic. It is concerning to note that Dr Cass said that the
“toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the review significantly harder”,
and that will
“hamper the research that is essential to finding”
a way forward. This particularly vulnerable group of children and young people is at the wrong end of the statistics when it comes to mental ill health, suicide and self-harm. They have been badly let down, so we owe it to them to approach this discussion with the sensitivity it demands.
Parts of this report today will sound very familiar: services unable to cope with demand; significant staff shortages; a lack of workforce planning; and unacceptably long waits for the mental health support and assessments that children and young people need, such that in some cases children become adults before they even get a first appointment with the gender identity services. To this point, the Cass review recommends a follow-through of services up to the age of 25, to ensure continuity of care. Will the Minister indicate how long it will take to establish these services, and could the Minister set out what plans there are to cut waiting times for assessments for mental health and neuro- developmental conditions?
Last month’s decision by NHS England to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s is welcome. However, the loophole that exists for private providers risks illegal trading. In the other place, the Secretary of State said that she expected private clinics to follow the report’s recommendations to follow the evidence. I underline our support for these expectations on compliance. Does the Minister consider that further regulation might be needed to enforce the recommendations? Could he say something more about the timescales involved in making progress, both for the CQC to incorporate the recommendations into its safe care and treatment standards and for NHS England’s urgent review on clinical policy for cross-sex hormones?
Children’s healthcare should always be led by the evidence and be in the best interests of their welfare. Dr Cass’s report has provided the basis on which to go forward. This report must also provide a watershed moment for the way in which society and politics discuss this issue. There are children, young people and adults, including trans children, young people and adults, who are desperately worried and frightened by the toxicity of the debate. There are healthcare professionals who are scared to do their job and make their views known. I hope that we can now put children’s health and well-being above all else.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I believe that the Cass review is an extremely thorough summary of where we are now and of the pathways available to young people that we need to explore. Most importantly, this report gives a way forward for young people and their clinicians who feel anxious and frightened because they find themselves at the centre of a political maelstrom.
Interestingly, the most balanced response I have seen to the report came from Stonewall, which was consulted by Cass, and I have used some of its points here. Cass says that these youngsters have been sorely neglected by the NHS, which sidelined them away from mainstream care to services that have fallen short. She points to how we can start the process of making it up to them, by giving them the holistic care that they need and deserve.
Despite the way in which the report was received by certain gender-critical individuals, it does not question trans identities or recommend rolling back healthcare access. It does not say that puberty blockers are unsafe or dangerous. It does say that there is insufficient and inconsistent evidence about some of the effects of puberty suppression. In addition, it notes that cross-sex hormones are well established and have transformed the lives of trans people, and supports their use from the age of 16. Importantly, it does not, at any stage, suggest a ban on social transition for any age of child or young person, but recommends that this be done with the support of parents and clinicians.
Cass says that gender incongruence is a result of a complex play between many biological, psychological and social factors, of which sexual orientation can be one. There are many factors, and no simple answer. For example, saying that such young people are simply confused gay people, unhappy teenagers, or that it is all the fault of social media, is all too simplistic. Regrettably, this has not stopped the Government spinning their own version of who is to blame.
For example, this week’s Statement by Secretary of State Victoria Atkins said that Tavistock clinicians “almost always” put children on an irreversible path of blocking puberty, then prescribed cross-sex hormones and on to surgery as an adult. This is not my understanding of the situation. In 2019-20, only 161 under-19s were referred by gender identity development services for puberty blockers. It was estimated that only around one in six GIDS patients ended up being prescribed puberty blockers. Is not the picture bad enough, without painting something even worse?
There are currently more than 5,000 children on the waiting list for treatment. The NHS has confirmed that everyone currently on puberty blockers via the NHS—fewer than 100 children—will be able to continue on them. These children, and any new recommendations for puberty blockers, will not be prescribed unless they agree to take part in a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of puberty blockers properly. How long does the Minister estimate that it will take for this clinical trial to be set up? Speaking of waiting lists, I understand that it currently takes three years for a child on the list even to be seen. How will the trial ever be set up, except for the few now on puberty blockers, while the rest languish for years on waiting years while their puberty seeps away? Does the Minister not agree that it is time to make up this shocking treatment which has, or rather has not, been given to children by the NHS and put them immediately on a par in priority with other NHS services?
These are our children. They, and the clinicians who want to treat them, have been intimidated by the toxic environment that we have all helped to create. I have heard the Cass report described as a rock that we can now all cling to. We will never all agree about some quite fundamental issues regarding trans and the nature of trans, but we must never make our children suffer for it; we must never make them pawns in a zero-sum game. We must rise above it and argue well, with more light than heat, to protect our children, who, after all, must be at the centre of all we seek to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their important points and for their sensitivity.
First, I echo the Secretary of State’s gratitude to Dr Cass and her team for undertaking a considered, comprehensive and courageous review into an extremely contentious area of healthcare. Officials have described this to me as probably the best report they have seen, in its excellence, thoroughness and sensitivity. Since NHS England commissioned the review in 2020, it has meticulously unpicked what went wrong, what the evidence really shows and how to design a fundamentally different service that better serves the needs of children.
Noble Lords and Baronesses will be aware of why this review was commissioned, but it is worth repeating here. The statistics are startling. As recently as 2009, the NHS’s sole gender identity development service at the Tavistock and Portman trust received fewer than 60 referrals for children and young people, with just 15 being adolescent girls. Since then, demand has surged. In 2022, more than 5,000 children and young people were referred to gender identity clinics, almost three-quarters of whom were female. The near uniform prescription of an irreversible medical pathway on the basis of sometimes very minimal evidence was imposed on these children and young people with complex needs without full and thoughtful consideration of their wider needs, including neurodiversity, trauma, mental health conditions or who they loved.
In her Statement in the other place, the Secretary of State outlined the immediate priorities for taking forward the recommendations from Dr Cass’s report. This includes looking closely at what needs to be done to curtail loopholes in the prescribing practices of private or online providers to ensure that they fall in line with Dr Cass’s recommendations. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the CQC is on this, and made it clear to all providers straightaway. We hope that legislation will not be required, but we are prepared to table it if necessary, because we need to send out a very clear message.
Private providers have been put on notice. Prescribing is a highly regulated activity and the CQC has not licensed any gender clinic to prescribe hormone blockers or cross-sex hormones to people under the age of 16. Any clinic that does may be committing extremely serious regulatory offences, for which it can have its licence revoked and its clinicians struck off.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I share the view of Dr Cass and the Secretary of State—I know that noble Lords share it, too—that it is completely unacceptable that all bar one adult gender clinics refused to co-operate with the University of York research into the long-term consequences of treatment received at the Tavistock centre. To be completely honest, I do not understand how they could be allowed to do that and I think we all are united in saying that that is simply not acceptable. That is why we have gone back so strongly on exactly that point.
Since the publication of Dr Cass’s interim report in 2022, NHS England has made a series of important changes. On 31 March, the Tavistock clinic finally closed, having stopped seeing new patients a year earlier. To answer the points made about new services, two new regional hubs have been opened in partnership with the country’s most prestigious children’s hospitals to ensure that children are supported by specialist multidisciplinary teams, and another will follow in Bristol later this year. In the last few weeks, NHS England has made the landmark decision to end the routine prescription to children of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. On the day of publication of Dr Cass’s final report, NHS England announced it was stopping children under 18 receiving adult gender services with immediate effect, and an urgent review on clinical policy for cross-sex hormones will now follow without delay.
Children are at the heart of this debate. Dr Cass’s report demonstrates that they deserve healthcare that is compassionate, caring and careful. Their safety and well-being must come above any other concern. That is why the Government will work with NHS England to root out the ideology that has caused so much unnecessary harm, and to give the next generation access to holistic care and protect our children’s future.
I turn to the other points raised. In addition to the three clinics mentioned, eight regional clinics will also be set up to make sure we can provide services on this. Within all that, the point about providing continuity of care up to 25 will be a key part of that. On mental health treatments generally and helping people on that, that is what the £2.3 billion investment has all been about in terms of developing the hundreds or thousands of extra places.
With regard to clinical trial timings, that is a difficult one. I think all noble Lords agree—this was very much a feature of the round table we held after we had the question on gender identity—that there is a general feeling that of course you do not want to settle on any course of treatment for a young person while they are still at that stage of life, in terms of puberty, where they have not had a chance to discover their own feelings. We all know that it is a complicated time and so, more than anything, we want to make sure that people are not set on a course of action that is irreversible before they really know their own minds and bodies and what is appropriate in that situation. That is why we are so firm in trying to follow the Cass guidelines to make sure that that is not available in those circumstances. To be open and honest on that point, I am not absolutely sure whether those clinical trials are compatible with that, but I will come back in more detail on that point. I hope that that answers the points for now, and I look forward to answering other points raised.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, this is a deplorable situation. It is a formidably good report and I commend the Government on their firm action following its publication. I question why it took the NHS quite so long to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children under 18—that seems rather slow off the mark.
However, I have a more important point. I fear that one of the great damages from all this is to one of our national and international centres of excellence. The Tavistock clinic has been in existence for over 100 years. It was started by Hugh Crichton-Miller for the treatment of soldiers with shellshock. It has been the home of John Bowlby, Lily Pincus and RD Laing. It has done incredibly important work in terms of mental distress, mental health and emotional well-being. It is a national and international centre of training, with about 2,000 students a year. If I may take up the Minister, for whom, as he knows, I have an inordinate regard, I think he said that the Tavistock clinic had closed. It has not closed; the gender reassignment clinic has closed for ever. I ask the Minister and everyone in this House to try to help reclaim the reputation and the respect that the Tavistock clinic rightly deserves.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely, and I thank my noble friend for correcting me and giving me the opportunity to correct that. Again being very honest, this shows that part of the challenge in setting up the new services is that this has become such a difficult, toxic space, and finding and recruiting staff who want to work in this area is a real challenge as well.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Government, the Minister and indeed the Opposition for their very robust response and welcome to the report. I am really sorry that the Lib Dems have chosen to use Stonewall’s briefing in what we have heard tonight; I hope that is not the whole of the Lib Dem position.
I note that the Government have already met with the GMC over the weekend, and they have been in contact with the CQC. However, just last month, the Royal College of General Practitioners tried to cancel a conference posing exactly the questions covered by Dr Cass in her excellent report. It allowed this conference—it was called “First Do No Harm” and I had the privilege to open it—only after an enormous amount of persuasion; it did it under duress, with bad grace and some hostility. That was the Royal College of General Practitioners.
Will the Government also meet the Royal College of General Practitioners and indeed the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Professional Standards Authority and all the other regulators, many of which seem to have been blind when all this was going on, and ensure that they all engage with the conclusions and the recommendations of Cass, whether those professionals over which they have oversight are working in the NHS or in the private health sector? These puberty blockers were being prescribed years after we knew they were irreversible, when Stonewall still said they were reversible, and when the doctors should have known but still prescribed them. Will the Government therefore engage with all those regulators to ensure that Cass is implemented in full?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, and that is an excellent point. Again, I thank the noble Baroness in this area. The questions that she raised earlier in the year in terms of some of the language from the GMC really added to the debate and represented a step forward. Therefore, although I am sure it is happening already, I will doubly check that it is.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, my focus is on the misuse of drugs for unlicensed purposes. It is perfectly proper and sensible that drugs are used for unlicensed purposes in the right circumstances. For example, in the case of children, drugs are not tested on them; they have been tested and licensed for use on adults, and they are used quite properly—it is called “off-label”—for children for the same purposes. However, in this case, as Cass has found at paragraphs 20.11 and 20.12 of her report, in the case of puberty blockers there was what she describes as a “system weakness” in that off-label use. It went beyond the usual level of permissiveness in extending use to a very different indication. So she has recommended, in recommendation 32:
“Wider guidance applicable to all NHS services should be developed to support providers and commissioners to ensure that innovation is encouraged but that there is appropriate scrutiny and clinical governance to avoid incremental creep of practice in the absence of evidence”.
I have two questions. What steps are the Government taking to implement this important recommendation as a matter of urgency? It will not just be puberty blockers; there will be drugs used in a range of fields. Who will be charged with the responsibility for creating this guidance and then implementing it?
Lord Markham (Con)
With the wonders of modern technology, I hope I can answer two questions in one. On the previous question, yes, the regulators have been communicated with about making sure that it is very clear. On that point, I say to my noble friend that the regulators have been charged with making sure that very clear guidelines are put out on the drug use that he mentions; those are being set right now. While I am clearing stuff up, to be clear and to save me correcting it later, it will be eight clinics in total when they are all there; I might have said that it was eight additional clinics.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Government, and to Dr Cass especially, for a magnificent report that took both determination and courage; let us not underestimate that. She has achieved a huge amount: we now have four clinics up and running with people who understand the need to counsel young people. What we do not know is how many thousands of lives have been wrecked by the indiscriminate use of puberty blockers and hormones; it may eventually be uncovered. I also pay tribute to our party and our shadow Health Minister Wes Streeting for unequivocally backing the Cass report and committing the next Labour Government, should that be the case, to an evidence-based situation.
I put it to the Minister that puberty is not something that ends at 18. Dr Cass rightly defines it as a process that could go up to 25. She recommends that those services should include that kind of counselling, and I would welcome some confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. There is still more work to be done on this. I have said on previous occasions that this is a cult that has invaded a lot of the institutions of government and other institutions. It is not going to just lie down quietly; there will be attempts to evade this legislation, and we should be on our guard against that.
I want to end on a positive note. I welcome the Statement. I pay a further tribute to Dr Cass, a woman who came out of retirement and was probably looking for a nicer and easier thing than this to deal with. This Chamber owes her and her civil servants a real debt of gratitude.
Lord Markham (Con)
I remember that it was the noble Lord who, in the round table that we had on this, made very clearly the same point I was making earlier about puberty and age. It is only when you are right the way through it that you really are in a position where you start to know your own mind and your own body. I agree with the noble Lord that it can be as late as 25, and that is why that is definitely the intention behind the eight clinics that are being set up—that they can provide that continuity right up to the age of 25, given that there is such a state of flux in a young person’s life.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for giving us this opportunity. Dr Cass’s report is incredibly important. She has taken a scientific, as well as a kind, humane and humanitarian, approach to the children affected and to the way the report is written. In the recommendations, as well as the discussion over puberty blockers there is the importance of ongoing research, research capacity and data. One finding that emerged for her was that there was a lack of consistent collection of data, which means that for many of these children, the people who were looking after them were, in effect, flying blind. That cannot be allowed to continue in future.
Her recommendation 17 is that:
“A core national data set should be defined for both specialist and designated local specialist services”.
Recommendation 18 is that:
“The national infrastructure should be put in place to manage data collection and audit and this should be used … to drive continuous quality improvement and research in an active learning environment”.
My question to the Government is whether, among the organisations listed, there are also discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons, because there is also surgical intervention undertaken in some of the processes. Without a database of the numbers that undergo a surgical intervention, the type of intervention and the complication rates, and monitoring the effect of that surgery on quality of life, we risk carrying on flying blind with clinical treatments that are literally life changing.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right: it is only in that lack of data environment that, dare I say it, ideology can fill in the vacuum and start to drive the sorts of behaviours that we see. Data is always the best way to cut through and provide light when there is a lot of heat in an argument. She makes an excellent point about the Royal College of Surgeons. I am sure that it has been contacted along with all the other bodies, but we need to make sure that is covered off. As ever, I will come back in detail in writing to all noble Lords who have raised points. I will make sure that point is addressed as well.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my gratitude to Dr Cass is that the report has given the rest of us the strength to challenge something that we knew was irredeemably harmful. I have two questions for the Government. First, will they remind the NHS of the law? Gillick competence—I am abbreviating it—states that:
“Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they’re believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what’s involved in their treatment”.
It is simply impossible for any child under the age of 16 to understand what is meant by sex change or puberty delay. They cannot get their heads around it or possibly comprehend what it will mean for them in future, so Gillick competence has to be remembered.
Secondly, will the Government also remind the NHS that young people and others are confused and possibly endangered by the ridiculous use of phrases saying that “people who have ovaries” or “people who have cervixes” should come forward for treatment and so on? Can we please restore the word woman, or indeed girl, when it comes to medical treatment?
Lord Markham (Con)
To take the second point first—it was also made by the noble Baroness opposite—that is absolutely right; it can be a real danger. People with English as a second language might not understand that a “person with ovaries” refers to them. It needs to be very clear. It is fundamental that the first description has to be “male” or “female”; you can then put additional parentheses after that.
The noble Baroness’s first point is exactly right. Until young people are through the age of puberty and its effects, they are not in a real position to make up their own minds. That does not mean that they should not be supported during that process, but it does mean that we should not be doing anything irreversible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I watched the Secretary of State’s introduction to this Statement on Monday, live from my office. She asked the other place to
“bear the sensitivities of this debate in mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 55.]
I am afraid that it is clear from the printed record before us, and was even clearer watching the Secretary of State speaking, that it was delivered in a triumphalist, dogmatic tone, which meant that she did not follow her own prescription.
The Statement speaks of “myths” but fails to acknowledge the agency and lived experience of children and young people. I have two questions for the Minister. Can he reassure me that we are not going to lose, in this ideological debate, the need for massively more investment in services for children and young people in the NHS? The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to the huge waiting lists that are behind the report we are discussing today.
The Statement also did not mention—and I think we have to acknowledge this—that hate crime against transgender people hit a record high in figures out last October. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that children and young people seeking gender identity services should not have to live in a society where their experiences are used as a political football. They should not be treated as a weapon in the culture war. They should not have to live in a hostile society.
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I think I speak for the whole House in agreeing that no one, under any circumstances, should feel that they live in a hostile society —whatever case it is, whether it is transgender, race, sex or whatever. I totally agree with the noble Baroness there. I will absolutely clarify this in the follow-up in writing, but I know that, in this specific area, the NHS has already committed £18 million in this space. Of course, this is quite separate from the £2.3 billion that I mentioned before in the mental health space generally, which, from memory—and I will absolutely clarify this—is the provision of 350,000 extra places for young people, because we know how much the demand is out there.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Noble Baroness for clarifying the Lib Dem position because, unfortunately, the page on the website has disappeared this afternoon. May I ask my noble friend whether the Government acknowledge that a conversion practices Bill would have a detrimental effect on the recruitment of clinicians to the new children’s services, as highlighted in the Cass Review?
Lord Markham (Con)
I must admit that I am not sure that I quite understood the question from my noble friend.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
There are a number of conversion practices Bills currently in play, and Cass has said that such a Bill would have a detrimental effect on the recruitment of clinicians, because they would feel a chilling effect before they would apply.
Lord Markham (Con)
Understood. Again, I will come back in detail on that point. One of the points made to me about the difficulties of trying to recruit to these eight new services was that, when this is such a toxic space, how do you get good-quality people? I think we agree we need that more than ever, because it is such an essential and sensitive area. So I will take that back and make sure that nothing we are doing, such as that legislation, should have that sort of chilling effect.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, if I could add to the Minister’s correspondence list, this is really following up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Dr Cass rightly highlights that we need data about all the young people who present to the services—what service they received and what happened to them over time. Can the Minister include in his letter the measures that the Government will be taking to encourage those young people to participate? If they feel intimidated or that the data is going to be used against them, they are going to opt out, and then we are not going to have the dataset we need to understand the best treatment.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this grouping. I think we still have to hear one of them being set out.
The climate emergency is surely the most important issue facing our planet. We should not be responsible for tying the hands of any body, such as a local authority, that might be able to use its position to oppose actions that contribute to environmental degradation. At Second Reading, the Minister, moving onto climate change, said:
“I would like to clarify that the Bill will ban only considerations that are country-specific. It will therefore not prevent public local authorities divesting from fossil fuels or other campaigns that are not country-specific”.—[Official Report, 20/2/24; col. 593.]
But she did not mention the question of legality, because paragraph 10(3) of the schedule makes clear that environmental misconduct means conduct that
“amounts to an offence, whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory”.
Yet many of the actions driving the climate emergency are perfectly lawful. Indeed, as Friends of the Earth points out in its briefing, the fact that destructive environmental activity is allowed to continue legally could even be the rationale for a boycott or disinvestment campaign.
So I invite the Minister to reconsider what she said at Second Reading, or, better still, amend the Bill’s schedule so as to remove the reference to an offence under the law and work with other noble Lords whose amendments are in this group to see how we can take on board the concerns that they have raised in those amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and simply emphasise that the whole issue of climate change and environmental degradation is now a very major one, which divides generations. My children care about it much more passionately than my generation does. In the United States on the hard right, there is still a very powerful climate change denial lobby pushing against the inclusion of environmental sustainability and development goals in company statements and so on. So I think it would be wise to widen this part of the schedule, not just to deal with environmental misconduct but to accept some of the language in the various amendments that we have seen. Again, this goes back to the Government. They are thinking of the long term and about long-term planning and public opinion. It would be wise to see what can be done to adjust the language to accommodate the very real concerns which have been expressed.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, environmental matters are of course very serious, but the question is whether boycotts work. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, shows the determination on the part of some in this House to boycott Israel come what may. However, if you look at the list of the most polluting and environmentally damaged countries in the world, Israel does not feature, and the degradation in Gaza, which is true, started long before the current invasion—it goes back to when Israel quit Gaza in 2005. Now, the issue is boycotts. People are looking for ways to boycott Israel. I have not noticed any suggestion of boycotting, say, China, for its polluting activities.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I did not advocate a boycott; that was not my purpose. I was talking about the destruction of the environment in Gaza and the West Bank, and that is not disputable.
Baroness Deech (CB)
The environment is bad in Gaza, but this Bill is about boycotts.
Now, no less a moral authority than Helen Suzman said that boycotts do not work. In 1987, she said:
“If there were any chance that sanctions would dismantle apartheid, I would be the first to support them. But reducing South Africa to a wasteland would lead not to a nonracial democracy but to more oppression and misery”.
A boycott, in particular a boycott of the so-called Occupied Territories, would not actually change the international scene as far as a two-state solution goes. The only people who would be hurt are the impoverished Palestinians working in the businesses in the Occupied Territories. This was proven by the SodaStream case. SodaStream closed down because it was thought unacceptable to deal with it because it worked in the Occupied Territories. Hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs; SodaStream moved to Israel. We have to drop the illusion that a boycott of Israel, or indeed any other country, will achieve anything meaningful, let alone when it is carried out by a local authority as opposed to the Government. Environmental damage is indeed a problem, but I am not sure this Bill is the way to tackle it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 15, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I take a slightly different view from what has just been said. I think the Committee owes the noble Lord, Lord Hain, some thanks; he has managed to put together what it is like in extremis—how this Bill will be dealt with when it is faced with war. Now, I cannot recall a single war in the history of our planet that did not harm the environment.
I suppose that when we put this thing together, on the facts that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, gave, we are probably going to have to think about how much of the damage was caused by the Gazans. How much of a discount should there be for the amount of damage the Gazans caused? In particular, one of Hamas’s first acts after murdering children was to cut off the electricity and the water supply, and it continued to ensure that anybody that came to try to put back the electricity or restore the water supply faced violence. The pipes that would have been used to improve sanitation and have the flow of clean water were stolen and used to fire rockets into Israel. Some 25% of those rockets fell short, killing Gazans, leaving ordnance around Gaza, particularly in the north.
All the concrete that was there to build roads, hotels and social facilities was stolen by Hamas to build the tunnels. The tunnels in themselves were a great environmental risk, because they were not built to building regulations. They were quite close to the surface; they were beneath and beside houses; they affected the foundations, which meant that any disturbance, whether it be earthquakes or the dropping of bombs, made those houses so much more unsafe and susceptible to collapse.
There is the use of flying incendiary bombs, released by supporters of Hamas across into Israel, designed to burn crops. Burning crops causes all kinds of problems. It seems illogical that Hamas should have done that, but it did it in order to make life difficult for Gazans. That is why it is sitting on so much of the food supply; that is why there are lorries waiting to deliver aid into Gaza, but Hamas will not allow it.
I take exception to the quote relating to the Red Cross; if the Red Cross can go in to make that kind of assessment, it should be able to see the hostages. The Red Cross has made no attempt to meet with the hostages.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
What has this got to do with the boycotts Bill?
Lord Pickles (Con)
All I was doing was speaking to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about which he was immensely eloquent. He mentioned all the things I am mentioning now. The noble Baroness should perhaps pay a little more attention when the noble Lord, Lord Hain, speaks.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I apologise for being rude. I was merely trying to give the noble Baroness some advice on when it is sensible to interrupt and when it is best to keep your peace.
Finally, it seems sensible that not every public body will have somebody with the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on it to give this kind of advice. It seems very sensible that—
Lord Warner (CB)
Risking my life slightly, I wish to intervene. The noble Lord has made a lot of statements about the damage done either within the regimes run by the Gazan authorities—Hamas—or as a result of war. I have been to Gaza and the West Bank quite a few times, sometimes when there has been a reasonable peace and the people have been able to get on with their lives. During those periods, the pollution of water and of the sea and the problems of sewage were monumental. This is not something to do with the war, the wars, or the tumult from invasions; it is actually that the status quo in Gaza is appalling. It was not just me who said this. I seem to remember that a former Prime Minister, who is now the Foreign Secretary, described Gaza as an “open-air prison”. Does the noble Lord accept that there are some seriously long-entrenched problems of—
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, interventions should be brief and to the point. Can the noble Lord please get to the point?
Lord Warner (CB)
They are relatively brief, considering how long the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has been speaking, and some of the claims he has made.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord knows full well that this is an intervention, so can he please get to the point and his question of clarification?
Lord Warner (CB)
If the noble Lord had not jumped up I would have got to my question; it needed some context. Does the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, accept that there are some long-standing problems, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned, with the state of the environment in Gaza?
Lord Pickles (Con)
I am most grateful; I was actually just about to finish, but I will take into consideration what was said. I too have visited Gaza in happier times; some of the happy times I spent in the region were in Gaza by the Mediterranean Sea. The noble Lord is right: there have been some long-standing environmental problems in Gaza, which have been caused largely by Hamas. Let me give the noble Lord just one example. Hamas refused to co-operate with Israel on a desalination plant. Hamas could have had a desalination plant, which would have provided lots of fresh water, but it did not want it because it does not want to see ordinary Gazan citizens enjoy their life. Hamas wants them to be continuously in a state of disruption.
The final point I was making was that not every public body would have the benefit of the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, nor would it necessarily have someone else to offer a balance to what he said, so I think that decisions regarding Israel are better taken by the Government.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that interventions should be brief and about clarification on a technical point.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of this Bill to stop disinvestment in oil and gas companies associated with a particular country or territory?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will do something very controversial and invite the Committee to look at the terms of the amendment, coupled with the terms of the Bill. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in introducing the amendment, rather oddly for an environmental-based amendment, seemed not to see the wood for the trees, but it paid very little attention to the actual terms of the Bill, so perhaps we could do that; I know this is controversial.
Let us start with the amendment, which seeks to prevent a future Secretary of State amending the Schedule, by way of regulations, to remove environmental misconduct. The predicate for that amendment must be that, as drafted, the Secretary of State does have the power, by way of regulation, to remove environmental misconduct from the Schedule, so let us look at Clause 3(2) to see what this Secretary of State can actually do. By way of regulation, under Clause 3(2)(a), he or she can
“add a description of decision to Part 1”.
That is not relevant because we are not dealing with Part 1 and we are not dealing with decisions. He or she can
“add a description of consideration to Part 2”.
That is also irrelevant because we are not dealing with adding anything; we are dealing with taking away, are we not? So let us look at Clause 3(2)(c): he or she could add
“or remove a description of decision or consideration”,
but only
“added under previous regulations under this subsection”.
What that means is that if Secretary of State A adds a new consideration—let us call it the Wolfson consideration —Secretary of State B can later remove the Wolfson consideration, but the Secretary of State cannot remove what is already there because that has not been added by way of a previous regulation.
Therefore, this amendment is wholly unnecessary, as was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows the point I have made but it is correct. I hope he will now withdraw the amendment and not bring it back, and certainly, if I may say with respect, not use a very technical amendment to this Bill to make points that are both factually and materially erroneous.
For present purposes, I stand by the legal point I have made as to the construction of the Bill. This amendment is wholly unnecessary because the predicate to it—that the Secretary of State could remove environmental regulation—is entirely misplaced.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me start by making it clear, if it is necessary, that the Opposition do not support BDS—we made that clear at Second Reading—so my contribution tonight on this group of amendments is about the environment and the exceptions to it. Of course, currently the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking environmental misconduct into account. Environmental misconduct is defined as
“conduct that … amounts to an offence”
that causes
“significant harm to the environment”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said in introducing her amendment, this is quite a narrow exemption. It relies on UK decision-makers being able to be confident as to whether an environmental practice constitutes an offence in the UK or another country. There is no mention of climate change or the need to invest and to make procurement decisions proactively to protect the environment. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Dubs, who I know was very keen to address this point, cannot be with us.
Amendment 32C would provide that the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking into account the climate crisis and the need to achieve the Paris agreement goal or other climate change goals when making decisions. The Paris agreement goal is to hold the increase in the average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is a critical threshold. The amendment mirrors the language that is already in statute in the Pensions Schemes Act 2021. The Government included climate change provisions in that Act to require, as the Minister said at the time,
“occupational pension scheme trustees and managers to secure effective governance on the effect of climate change on the scheme”.—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 156.]
During the debates on those matters, Members of this House spoke of the need for pension schemes not only to consider the financial risks of climate change but to play an active part in combating climate change and achieving the shared international goals, so it is a proactive approach.
One of the fundamental problems we have constantly been addressing in this Bill is whether people will be too cautious: will the Bill have a chilling effect on investment and procurement decisions that we proactively want people to take? We have, on the one hand, legislation that requires pension scheme managers to consider the financial implications of climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy; on the other hand, we have this Bill, which makes no mention of climate change and which, through overly broad drafting, risks limiting what public bodies and local government pension schemes are able to take into account when making decisions.
Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place. What we have to be clear about is the unintended consequences of this legislation. We have to be careful about where it could lead, because future Governments may not be so proactive in supporting efforts on climate change. We have to be careful because this legislation, which empowers the Secretary of State, could be incredibly dangerous.
The Local Government Association has raised questions about how this Bill sits with local government’s existing procurement practices and its ability to take environmental, social and governance issues into account. I hope the Minister will agree that combating climate change, including considering a country’s environmental policies, conduct and record, should be a crucial part of decision-making on public procurement.
In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also raised the key issue of the ability of public bodies to be free to avoid investment in fossil fuels. That is a critical area, as extraction of coal and other fossil fuels is often part of government strategy and often controlled by Governments. Could this Bill be interpreted in a way that will stop those sorts of proactive, positive investments that the Government, the Opposition and most people in this country think are right? That is the problem I hope the Minister will be able to address. Fossil fuels are a controversial issue that people have taken very polarised views about; we need to be clear about the consequences of this legislation.
I did not see this group of amendments as being about BDS, but about how we support positive policies on the environment and how the Government intend to ensure that this legislation does not have a chilling effect on the very things they seek public authorities and public bodies to do. I hope the noble Lord will be able to address these specific points.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, may I make a brief intervention? I did not realise that Back Benchers were not continuing to debate, so please forgive me. I have a brief point on this group of amendments and, in particular, the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his Amendment 15. I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, but I suggest that this debate, in a way, encapsulates why it is important to consider the Bill very carefully. It also suggests the one- sided and sometimes very difficult debate that surrounds Israel and the BDS question.
For example, the noble Lord described the environmental damage involved in taking away olive trees from Palestinian land as some kind of environmental crime, but historically one of the big criticisms of Israel has been that it uses forestation projects to push Palestinians off their land, so the environmental issue can be argued in different ways for different purposes. Israel has planted over 200 million trees since it was founded, so it does take care of the environment.
On some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was using, one might suggest that one wants to boycott Israel or protect the environment in the opposite way from that which is often argued, and the double standards that have been applied to this debate. I urge my noble friend the Minister carefully to consider the unintended consequences of well-meaning environmental protection. I am, of course, very keen to protect the environment and support the comments made so excellently by my noble friend about the detail of Amendment 15. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in allowing me to make these points.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, before I address this group of amendments, I reassure noble Lords that the intention of the Bill is not to interfere with the ability of public authorities to campaign on environmental issues. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the Bill is well defined on this issue. It already makes an exception for environmental misconduct, including where this has been facilitated by a foreign state or as a result of the laws or policy of a state failing to prevent it.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, environmental misconduct includes conduct that caused, or had the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment and amounts to an offence under the law of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory. This is in line with the exception in the Procurement Act 2023. The Bill therefore already exempts considerations related to a range of environmental offences.
I begin by addressing Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot remove environmental misconduct as an exception to the Schedule by regulations. In response to the first of the noble Lord’s points, the Bill does not stop campaigns on general environmental issues such as fossil fuels or biodiversity. This includes where they lead incidentally to not procuring from or investing in a number of countries. I hope that this also answers the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
Environmental campaigns will be captured by the Bill only if they single out a country in a way that is influenced by disapproval of foreign state conduct. General campaigns that do not single out a specific country or territory would not be captured. However, the Bill must not leave a loophole for public authorities to take a general position on an issue mainly with the intention to target a particular state. For example, a public authority might shape a general position on an issue with the intention that it results in a boycott of Israel. The Bill should rightly stop that. If a case is flagged to enforcement authorities, they will assess the evidence of whether a public authority’s procurement or investment decision was based on a non-country-specific campaign with the intention of targeting a particular state. Enforcement authorities will have the power to ask for a range of information before making a decision.
To repeat some of the comments made by my noble friend the Minister in the previous group, I reassure noble Lords that the power in Clause 3 cannot be used to remove any exception to the ban in the Bill as passed by Parliament. This includes the exception to the ban for environmental misconduct in the Schedule. To go further, in answer to the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the limitation in Clause 3(7), which refers to
“Israel … the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or … the Occupied Golan Heights”,
does not mean that the exceptions in the Schedule cannot be used in relation to suppliers and companies with connections to Israel or the Occupied Territories. All that limitation does is restrict the power of the Secretary of State to use regulations to add further exceptions to the Bill if those regulations would have the result of removing Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights from the scope of the Bill. I am also grateful for my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar’s comments on this, which were helpful in explaining our position.
Amendments 32A and 32B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would broaden the range of considerations relating to the environment that are exempted from the ban. The Bill already allows public authorities to make territorial considerations that are influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct when assessing complicity in conduct that causes, or has the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment. Lowering this threshold would allow public authorities too broad a discretion to engage in the behaviour this ban aims to prohibit. These amendments would allow public authorities to boycott countries that have reduced the level of environmental protection in a country. Governments across the world frequently adjust their environmental targets. It would not be proportionate to allow an entire country to be boycotted for this reason.
An example of where the exception as drafted in the Bill may be relevant is if a prospective supplier has, or may have, engaged in environmental misconduct due to inadequate environmental protection laws in a state. The existing exception has been drafted to accord with offences under UK law, including under the Environment Act 2021. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, I reiterate that the Bill does not apply to campaigns that do not target countries or territories specifically, including campaigns against fossil fuels or for other environmental causes. The Bill will in no way prevent public authorities setting their own environmental standards as part of their procurement or investment strategies. The Bill defines “environmental misconduct” as conduct that is an offence
“under the law of … the United Kingdom or any other country or territory, and … caused, or had the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment, including the life and health of plants and animals”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the Environment Act. During the passage of that Act, the limitations of due diligence measures to only significant targeted illegal deforestation were made clear because, for example, a significant proportion of deforestation due to soy in Brazil or palm oil in Indonesia could take place legally. It would be extremely difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal activity. I do not think the Minister is correct in saying that there would not be a chilling effect. Certainly, the evidence is backed up by a lot of pension experts who have presented evidence to Members of this Committee in their briefings that that is exactly what will happen: public bodies will not be pushing their ESG duties. I hope that he will understand why I have specifically raised that point.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intervention. I should declare an interest, as set out in the register, in various investments in companies around the world, including in Brazil and Indonesia. I am familiar with the points he raised. I think I answered as well as I can with reference to the Procurement Act and consistency with that, but I would like to write to the noble Lord, if that is helpful, to clarify further.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to the debate I invite everybody who heard what I said, and those who did not hear what I said, to read it in Hansard tomorrow. Did anybody hear me advocate the BDS cause? Did anybody hear me advocate a boycott of the State of Israel? I did not and I never have in any speech in this House or elsewhere. If there is criticism to be made of what I said, I invite noble Lords and Baronesses to focus on what I said rather than what they think I might have said, or what others have said. I think that is fair, frankly, in terms of debate in this House.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—many in this House have considerable respect for the role that she plays—that I think she spoiled her argument by bringing in the South African comparison. She quoted Helen Suzman, who played a valiant role in the anti-apartheid struggle—a lone white role in many respects. At the time the noble Baroness quoted her, it was illegal to advocate a boycott or any kind of sanctions against the apartheid state. Indeed, she opposed boycott campaigns against all-white sports tours I organised, but if she had supported them and advocated sanctions, she could have been imprisoned under apartheid law. I would prefer to quote Nelson Mandela, who said that sanctions were very effective in bringing apartheid to its knees, along with other factors, so the noble Baroness spoiled her argument by quoting that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I will be brief because the night is late, and I am provincial and have to get a train. I have done a lot of research into what allegedly changed South Africa, and the majority of the writings were that it was not sanctions. What changed life there was having two leaders of moral stature who were prepared to talk to each other, which we do not have in the Middle East. As far as the noble Lord’s advocacy of boycott goes, I cannot recall when—I think it was way back in March when we started to talk about this Bill—but the noble Lord himself raised the issue of South Africa, and how things had changed there because of a boycott. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn, though I resist the parallel, is that something like that would work in the case of Israel. I do not think it would, as they are not at all similar, but the night is late, and this Bill is not supposed to be about it.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I agree that they are not that similar, and I have never suggested that they are. The reason I brought in the South Africa comparison, and majored on it, is that legal opinion says that this Bill would have made the anti-apartheid campaigns of the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s illegal. That is why I brought the argument into play. It is not to advocate a boycott, disinvestment or sanctions policy against Israel, which I have never done in this House or elsewhere. If noble Lords are going to disagree with me, as they are entitled to do, then they should make the case on the arguments as they stand.
Since the noble Baroness has intervened again on this, I am sure she has read widely on it, and I am not going to disagree with that, but Nelson Mandela did not agree with her. He said that sanctions were critical. They were not the only thing, and I did not say that they were. The internal contradictions of the system, the fact that the economy was almost on the point of collapse by the time that President de Klerk released Nelson Mandela, that the country was on the brink of civil war and facing the abyss in that respect, was why the people who had imprisoned him for 27 years and oppressed his people were forced to negotiate with him, both for his freedom and for that of his people. It was an accumulation of factors, but sanctions were certainly very effective. The noble Baroness spoils her case about Israel by seeking to deny that.
The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, made a strong point that there are others culpable for the environmental destruction, and I have never denied that. He made some important points about the culpability of Hamas as well.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting, but I have just realised that when I made my speech, I did not declare my interests. I would like to do so now, particularly those relating to friendship for Israel.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am happy to be interrupted on that point.
My point to the noble Lord, and to the whole House, is that this Bill is technically flawed. I refer to the explanatory statement that I put on the face of my amendment:
“This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot remove environmental misconduct as an exception in the Schedule by regulations”—
in other words, by executive decision. This should not be possible, and it should remain in primary legislation. That was the purpose of my amendment.
That brings me on to what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, argued. He—and I commend him for this—technically disputed the basis for my amendment, which he is entitled to do. I disagree with his interpretation, and I do ask the noble Lord to reflect on this: what was factually erroneous about what I said in terms of the case I put on environmental destruction in Gaza and the West Bank?
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for whom I have a great deal of respect and count as a friend, pointed out that Israel has planted a considerable number of trees, for which I commend Israel. My point is that there is terrible environmental destruction in Gaza and the West Bank now. Nobody can dispute that, and it has been going on for a long time, including the destruction and poisoning of the water supply for many Palestinian residents there.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I did not introduce a technical problem with his amendment. I sought to explain to the Committee, and to him, that the basis of his amendment—that is, that the Secretary of State could by regulation remove this exemption—was entirely flawed. Having mentioned this in passing as a technical response, he has now gone back to his favourite subject of attacking Israel. Is he going to provide a response to the fundamental problem that I raised with his amendment?
Lord Hain (Lab)
I have already done that. On what he calls my favourite hobby of attacking Israel, as it happens, as I said in the foreign affairs debate, the whole strategy for resolving this terrible dispute is fundamentally flawed. The lessons should be learned from the Northern Ireland experience. Hamas will not be defeated militarily, however much I would like it to be. I made it clear that I am a friend of Israelis as well as Palestinians, but we are not revisiting all of that. On the criticisms, apart from the noble Lord’s criticism of the case that I have made, I invite people to engage on the substance, rather than bringing in arguments that I have never made in order to adopt a kind of diversionary tactic on this.
To conclude, the Bill is flawed and the Minister, speaking for the Government, should look again at this matter. If there is an issue with the wording of my amendment, then we can discuss that. Unless that is done, people will interpret the Government’s stance as showing that environmental protection is not being given the priority under the Bill that it should. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bryan of Partick
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others are consequential to another in the name of Baroness Bryan of Partick to Clause 17, removing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from the territorial application of the Bill.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Hain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who, by adding their names, demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the inclusion of the devolved Administrations in the Bill. As noble Lords can see, Amendment 16—and the consequential amendments that I will not bother to list now—would remove Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from the territorial application of the Bill.
We are just 25 days away from the 25th anniversary of the first meetings of the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Those institutions have been around long enough for Ministers to be aware that they are not simply large local authorities. The official advice for civil servants and policymakers on taking account of devolution, as updated in 2020, reads:
“Devolution has fundamentally changed the constitutional arrangements of the UK. Officials need to be aware of how devolution affects the policies they work on or the public services they manage”.
The Government might have been well-advised to consider those guidelines when drafting this Bill.
Intergovernmental relations sometimes feel like one step forward and two steps back. There was the Dunlop review, whose whereabouts were raised in this House numerous occasions before it was discovered in the levelling-up department, where it was somewhat reinterpreted. More recently, there have been a number of important pieces of legislation where the Sewel convention has been ignored. Rather than using the Sewel process as a way of arriving at a shared approach, it has now become common practice to ignore it and take action without legislative consent.
The Interparliamentary Forum report published in January noted that there were
“ongoing challenges of intergovernmental relations including operation of the UK Internal Market Act, and the scrutiny of intergovernmental working”,
and
“substantial challenges in reaching agreement between the governments of the UK”.
Some academics have put this down to the Government having a unitary mindset, even after 25 years of devolution, and not accepting that there has been a fundamental change in the constitution.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking so soon after my previous contribution, but I will speak to my Amendment 20A. I associate myself with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, which I have signed.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for adding their names to my Amendment 20A. This iniquitous Bill challenges the very foundations of devolution in the United Kingdom—namely, that decisions should be taken at the local level, and that local leaders should be answerable for them, rather than decisions being taken at the centre by remote politicians and officials. I say that as a former Secretary of State for Wales who helped bring in the Government of Wales Act 2006, which strengthened the devolution possibilities for the now Welsh Parliament —the then Welsh Assembly. My amendments and those of my noble friends address one aspect of that: they seek to remove from the Bill matters for which the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should properly be responsible.
I will speak about Wales in particular. The Explanatory Notes acknowledge that the Bill affects the decision-making of the devolved Administrations. The memorandum of 8 September 2023 from Rebecca Evans MS, the responsible Welsh Minister, set out in detail the way in which the Bill intruded into devolved competences in Wales and why it was right to withhold the legislative consent of the Senedd—which has occurred.
Deciding whether a particular purchase or contract should be made by the Welsh Government, or any other public authority in Wales, is patently a function exercisable in relation to Wales under the terms of Section 3 of the Wales Act 2017. The conduct of foreign affairs is reserved to the UK Government under that Act, but the making of moral or political judgments about the conduct of foreign states is not conducting foreign policy. That is a crucial distinction denied by this authoritarian Bill, which abrogates powers to Ministers so that they can act by executive diktat—in this case, by overriding the devolution settlement in respect of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Moral and political judgments are made by every individual—and so they should be; they should not be dictated by the centre. That means that the decision-maker should be at the lowest accountable level. In the case of Wales, decisions should be taken by a county or county borough council, the Welsh Government or the Senedd. Those authorities would be answerable for the moral and political judgments they make at the local or all-Welsh level. Are the Government seriously saying that they have a monopoly on moral and political judgment? That is what the Bill saying, which is both arrogant and absurd. Council tax payers in Neath, Gower, Wrexham or the Vale of Glamorgan are best placed to decide whether their councils are making the right decisions, and electors in Wales can make the same decision about the Welsh Government’s and the Senedd’s choices.
I cannot agree more with the Welsh Government’s view that the Bill is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I support the Welsh Parliament’s decision to refuse to give it legislative consent.
There are also major constitutional issues. If the Bill is enacted, it will fly in the face of the fundamental constitutional principle articulated in Section 2 of the Wales Act 2017, with parallel provisions, of course, for Scotland and Northern Ireland, that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of—in this case—the Senedd in Wales, the Parliament of Scotland or the Assembly of Northern Ireland.
The Bill would also fly in the face of the principle of subsidiarity to which the Government ostensibly subscribe: namely, that decisions are made at the level closest to the citizen, consistent with effective delivery.
So far as our amendments are concerned, because there is a single jurisdiction of England and Wales—something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has reported on compellingly—the amendment of Clause 17 to remove the word “Wales” would not work technically. For that reason, it is necessary to achieve the removal of Welsh devolved bodies from the Bill in a different way from the way that can be achieved for Scotland and Northern Ireland, because England and Wales have a common legal framework and that is not the case for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is done by my amendment to the schedule. This would add the Welsh Government and public authorities that are responsible to that Government to those bodies excepted from the provisions of Clause 1. Effectively, it would mean that the Bill would not apply in devolved Welsh areas.
Our amendments are an opportunity for these issues of devolution to be canvassed, for the devolution settlement to be preserved and for the rights of the other Governments in United Kingdom and their legislatures to be asserted. I hope that the House, in some way, will manage to protect the devolution settlement, because otherwise the future of the United Kingdom is threatened.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and to essentially agree with everything they said. I rise to offer Green support; I am not going to engage in the technical details, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out so clearly, but I will simply say that this Bill should not apply to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I listened to the debate on an earlier group, when the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, talked about a small nursery, run by a charity, deciding to ban oranges from South Africa. That obviously is not right—it is the sort of thing that the Bill appears to be addressing—but how much more so when we are talking about an entire devolved Administration? If we think about the kinds of examples that might apply here, let us say that one of the nations’ devolved Administrations might choose to block a supplier of staff uniforms because the clothing is made under abusive conditions in an abusive regime. How can it not be right that the people of Wales can decide for themselves that they do not want to see people wearing uniforms from that kind of source?
In the earlier group, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb pointed out how the environmental derogations are utterly inadequate. How can it be that the Scottish Parliament could not decide to ban food sourced from deforested areas of the Amazon from being served in the Parliament? Those are the kinds of things that the Bill is currently providing.
It is worth looking over the history of this a little bit. I think it was two Prime Ministers back—it is rather hard to keep track, but I am referring to Boris Johnson. Under Boris Johnson, it seemed that there was a real desire to pick fights with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd in particular. Since then, we have seen some improvement; we have seen the Review of Intergovernmental Regulations, which said that
“decisions will continue to work on the basis of agreement by consensus”.
I think that is an important phrase to look at, although I note we have seen some backsliding recently, and perhaps this Bill is a symbol of that.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak specifically to Amendment 20A, to which I have added my name. I did so because the Bill is yet another intrusion on devolution. It is part of a pattern by which Bill after Bill in this House, Act after Act produced by this Government, raids the powers of devolved Governments and the devolved Assemblies. The Internal Market Act started that, along with the Procurement Act—and there are others. It is a complete pattern by this Government; an intention to reduce devolution in stature and in practice.
As a Wales Office Minister between 2012 and 2015, I recall that it was unthinkable that we, as a UK Government, would ignore the need for an LCM on something like this. We have now got to the point where it is routine for this Government to do that. In addition, in the case of this Bill, the unpredictability of Henry VIII powers will give the opportunity to the Secretary of State to make regulations that could have additional, profound implications for both Wales and Scotland, and throughout the UK.
The Government seem to forget the history of devolution. In 1999, when devolution was established, the Scottish Parliament had a much more comprehensive settlement than that provided for Wales. That proved to be a mistake. It was not just that Wales had fewer powers. The lack of a proper pattern to those powers and a comprehensive picture of them made it very difficult to make devolution work. I am conscious that I have signed an amendment led by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and that I am criticising the Government of whom he was a part. I am sure he would agree that Labour First Ministers led campaigns to increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly, now the Welsh Senedd, specifically because it just did not work with much more limited powers. We now have something much more workmanlike, effective and constitutionally coherent. This Government have set about dismantling it again.
Added to that, the Bill is unnecessary. In the Senedd, the Minister made it clear that the Welsh Government are of the view that the UK Government have sufficient powers in place within the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, enshrined in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and that those powers enable fair and equal treatment of overseas bidders where there is a relevant trade agreement. They do not believe that there is any need for additional powers. The UK Government already have the power to set sanctions for trade. All these arguments and discussions that we are having are irrelevant because those powers already exist. The Welsh Government fundamentally believe that the powers in this Bill would have a significant impact on the freedom of public bodies and democratic institutions in Wales. They have the majority support of Members of the Senedd on this. The impact would be on their freedom to decide not to purchase or procure in a way that impacts on their existing legal obligations in relation to human rights, abuse of workers’ rights and the environment. In practice, these powers are not going to fit comfortably with the structure of our legislation as it currently exists.
The fundamental reason why I signed this amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches is that this is yet another impact on devolution and the coherence and effectiveness of the way in which the Governments of the United Kingdom should work together in a positive and effective manner.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I think that noble Lords who have spoken have misrepresented the devolution settlement. It is clear that foreign policy is a reserved matter. When we come to this Bill, the question of the political or moral disapproval of the conduct of foreign states is a matter of foreign policy that can be determined only by the UK Government.
Noble Lords have been trying to describe devolution as they would like it to exist but the plain fact is that foreign policy is a reserved matter, and that is what is driving this. I do not think that the other matters that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, just referred to prevent action by the devolved authorities because of the quite extensive exemptions, which align with the procurement legislation, that are set out in the Schedule. We are talking about political or moral disapproval of state conduct, very specifically, and that is a matter reserved to the UK Government.
We have to remember that the devolved Administrations have form here in relation to Israel. To take the Scottish Government, back in 2014, they issued a Scottish procurement policy note which, in effect, encouraged Scottish bodies to boycott operations in the Occupied Territories. That note, which is quite difficult to find on the internet nowadays, because it seems to have disappeared into a black hole of an archive, was reconfirmed by current Scottish Ministers only a couple of years ago, so it remains the Scottish Government’s policy, which they cannot effectively implement because of the reserved nature of foreign policy.
To take the Welsh Government, in 2020 they informed the Welsh Parliament that they intended to issue advice to all Welsh authorities
“that they may exclude from tendering any company that conducts business with occupied territories either directly or via third parties”.
It was only after intervention from an organisation called UK Lawyers for Israel that the Welsh Government deferred their decision. So we have the Scottish Government and the Welsh Labour Government itching to boycott Israel, and to use that as a reason—
Lord Hain (Lab)
The noble Baroness accurately quoted the Welsh Government’s position as referring to occupied territories which are illegally occupied, including those determined by the British Government, not as boycotting Israel.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Whether that is relevant is another matter, because the boycotting of the Occupied Territories would also cause a problem under this Bill if Wales and Scotland were allowed to, in effect, opt out of the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but has the noble Baroness had the opportunity to read the FCDO’s advice on the Occupied Territories?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord has the advantage of me, because the straight answer to that is no. However, if he points me to it, I shall certainly read it before we consider that again. I believe that trying to boycott the Occupied Territories is the same as trying to boycott Israel. Certainly, the intent is the same, and they are covered by the Foreign Office.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to labour the point. The noble Baroness keeps using the word “boycott”. We are also talking about decisions on procurement and investment, and there is advice from the FCDO about investing in occupied territories.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I was referring largely to procurement because those were the decisions that were made by the two devolved Administrations that I cited. I would be very surprised if the FCDO had advice that boycotting procurement decisions relating to the Occupied Territories was something that it approved of, and therefore it was something that it thought the devolved Administrations could do. However, in any event, that is for the Foreign Office, not the devolved Administrations, to determine. I do not think we can get away from the fact that the current devolution settlements give foreign policy autonomy to the UK Government.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate with some astonishment. I will not raise the issue of the ECHR; we will come to that when we get to my Amendment 48. However, to keep chanting the view that it is for the national Government to make foreign policy seems to be ducking out of a fundamental democratic issue.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am very grateful. I agree with everything he has said. On his point about central government not always being correct, that would have been the case in the 1930s when a Conservative Government were appeasing Hitler and there was massive pressure from outside, from people in all walks of life who took a different view, that eventually forced a change of policy and Churchill took over with a different policy—thank goodness.
Lord Warner (CB)
Absolutely—I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, and this comes to my question as to whether the Government have thought this through. I do not know what the penalties will be for breaches of this law, but I can foresee that, on some issues, people will feel so strongly that they will be prepared to pay—you might say it is the cost of trade—the penalties so that they can demonstrate to the Government what they feel about a particular action in a particular country by a particular Government. Have the Minister and the Government thought through what happens if there is a willingness among groups of people to take a stand against this Bill, accepting that they may get some financial penalties and being prepared to pay those penalties because they feel so strongly about a particular issue?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will try to be brief at this late hour. I spent my entire career studying and writing about foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was kind enough when he made his speech some months ago to say that, when he joined the Foreign Office, he was told, “You’ve got to read William Wallace’s The Foreign Policy Process in Britain”, before he started work—so I know a little about it.
I emphasise there has always been, and remains, a difference between the approach to foreign policy in the security sense and defence sense—in which it is quite clear one has to have command, central control and therefore real concern about sovereignty—and to trade policy, international investment and procurement, which are usually controlled by a different department, often in competition with the Foreign Office, and in which subordinate entities of government, in most states, also have degrees of latitude. The German Länder pursue different international investment policies. I remarked earlier that the British Government are negotiating trade deals with Washington state, Texas and others within the United States. The idea that all foreign policy in the broadest sense, from immigration through to defence, has to be undertaken by central government is an extreme sovereigntist and unionist case, which I think should not hold.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I do not want to repeat some of the excellent points made, but I do have an amendment in this group about requiring a legislative consent Motion. For us, this is primarily an issue of respect. It saddens us: from the internal market Act, relationships between the UK Government and the devolved Governments started to go really badly wrong. It seems to happen again and again. I remember a couple of weeks ago, in this Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the Welsh Government’s desire to work to support the Welsh language as a fascist attitude. That has played on my mind ever since. Things have really deteriorated to such an extent that, in the personal relationships between politicians in the UK Government and the devolved Governments, which politicians used to take pride in putting some effort and work into, nobody seems to even try anymore. Bills such as this one come along where the Government do not seem to care whether it has any legislative consent and do not even try to persuade their colleagues in the devolved Administrations to see the benefits of a particular piece of legislation. That is very sad. I regret that deeply, and the Government really ought to do better.
This is primarily about freedom of expression for people who have been elected in their own right to represent their communities. It is wrong that Clause 4 prohibits statements. We will come on to that later, but they are to be gagged by the Bill, and that is to be regretted. It is a backwards step. We will debate that another day. I hope that noble Lords will understand just how offensive the restrictions in that clause are to elected Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As others have said, the Bill is disproportionate and unnecessary. The Minister and I have had exchanges about things raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the Scottish Government having offices in other nations, and he says that this is wrong because foreign policy is the UK Government’s domain, He is right about that—he does not speak for the Labour Party on these issues and is not right in the complete sense on the points that he makes on this. The Government agree and say that this is a terrible problem, that it is confusing for our partners overseas and that something should be done, but they are doing nothing about it. Instead, they feel that this is causing confusion in foreign policy. I just do not believe it. I do not believe that any other Government anywhere in the world is confused about our foreign policy because of some statement that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says has been put in a drawer somewhere in Edinburgh, was passed 10 years ago, and is somehow causing such diplomatic confusion. I do not see any evidence of that whatsoever.
It is sad that the Government no longer even try to pretend that they want to work in partnership with devolved Governments. We can do so much better. The UK Government already have sanctions powers, and they are now seeking unnecessarily to fetter and gag devolved Governments. This shows a terrible lack of respect and I regret it very much.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick and Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, seek to remove Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from the territorial application of this Bill. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are not here tonight, as they usually are in these discussions.
I disagree with these amendments for two reasons. First, the intention of this Bill is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. It will safeguard the integrity and singularity of the UK’s established foreign policy, which is set exclusively for the whole of the United Kingdom by the UK Government. My noble friend Lady Noakes explained that well—political and moral disapproval is the issue here—and she gave a Scottish example. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, takes a different view.
I see it this way: international relations and foreign policy are reserved matters and remain the responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament. Removing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be out of line with the devolution settlement and undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—one UK foreign policy decided by the UK Government. I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that decisions should be made as close to local level as possible. However, I do not believe that this would be appropriate for international relations, which is rightly reserved for the UK Government. The UK cannot effectively conduct a single foreign policy if each devolved Administration or indeed local authorities, as I think we were talking about, are conducting a separate policy.
The second reason I oppose these amendments is that the BDS campaigns, which risk undermining community cohesion, are a UK-wide problem. I will illustrate this briefly with some examples. In Wales, a 2014 motion passed by Gwynedd Council called for a trade embargo with Israel. In 2020, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, the Welsh Government informed the Welsh Parliament that they intended to issue advice to all Welsh public authorities that they may exclude from tendering any company that conducts business with the Occupied Territories, whether directly or via third parties. Only after intervention from UK Lawyers for Israel did the Welsh Government defer this decision.
In Scotland, in January 2009, West Dunbartonshire Council passed a motion agreeing to boycott all Israeli goods. That motion was reaffirmed in June 2010 and May 2011. In December 2010, Stirling Council passed a motion resolving to
“reassess its current procurement arrangements and ensure future agreements and contracts boycott all Israeli goods”.
In March 2013, Clackmannanshire Council passed a motion to
“resist, insofar as legislative considerations permit, any action that gives political or economic support to the State of Israel”.
In Northern Ireland in 2016, Derry and Strabane Council voted in favour of BDS. A motion was passed to investigate the most practical means of implementing the BDS campaign in the council. Finally, in Belfast in 2019, councillors attempted to bring forward a resolution to support BDS.
For these reasons—the need for a single UK foreign policy and the record of boycott campaigns across the UK—it is vital that the Bill’s provisions extend to each of the jurisdictions of the UK. This includes all public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This includes Ministers in the Devolved Administrations. This may alter their executive competence, so the legislative consent process has been engaged, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, explained. We have therefore sought legislative consent from the devolved legislatures to apply the bans in Clauses 1 and 4 to Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
International relations and foreign policy are reserved matters and remain the responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament. The Bill legislates in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, emphasised that the devolved Administrations are required to act within the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill will not compel public authorities to make a decision that would put them in breach of the convention, and it will not interfere with the rights of any public authority. One of the reasons why we chose the public authorities definition is that these bodies do not have convention rights, so the Bill is compliant with the convention, including the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I would like to reassure her that the powers in the Bill can be used only to narrow the scope of the ban, as it would be set in primary legislation. They cannot be used to place broader obligations on the devolved Administrations than what was agreed by Parliament.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am still trying to puzzle out what happens, to take the example of Scotland, if there is a great deal of resentment about this legislation, particularly Clause 4. What happens if the Scottish Parliament, presumably protected by privilege, decides to have a debate, there are a number of decision-makers under Clause 1 in that debate, and they voice their view in a way that is totally different from the Government’s view on that particular country and the issue they are debating? Would the UK Government then wind itself up to fine them? I am not quite sure what the fine levels will be. What if the Scottish Parliament then has another debate and decides not to pay the fine? This does not seem a fanciful position, given that the Government seem to be going out of their way to annoy the devolved Administrations. What will the Government actually then do, in practice?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If I may, I will come back to that at the end of the speech, because I want first to try to explain what we are doing with the devolved Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that the WTO already places non-discrimination requirements on public authorities. Although this is the case, these obligations do not cover all countries and territories and apply only to procurement decisions, not investment decisions.
To return to the subject of legislative consent, I think it is fair to say that we are disappointed that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have refused to give their consent to apply the ban to their Ministers and the respective departments and agencies. It is always the Government’s intention to legislate with the support of the devolved Administrations and, where relevant, the consent of the devolved legislatures. We will therefore continue to ensure that the interests of the devolved Administrations, including the devolved assemblies, are fully taken into account. Contrary to the noble Baroness’s suggestion, we do engage with the devolved Governments. I was in Northern Ireland last week, I visited the Welsh Government relatively recently, and my office has contacted the offices of the relevant Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I hope to meet with them in the coming weeks to discuss further how we can gain their support for the Bill.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I will be brief, given the hour. What advice would the Minister give to Welsh local authorities if they refuse to procure or encourage any local companies to do business with Xinjiang province in China because of its oppression of the Uighur Muslims? China, unlike Russia and Belarus, is not listed in the Bill in that way.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not quite sure what will happen about Xinjiang; that is a foreign affairs question. Obviously, although it is not referred to in the Bill, we have made it clear that we will use the Bill, where appropriate, to exempt areas. We have already said we will use the powers in relation to Russia and Belarus. I am going to talk to the Welsh Government, and I am sure this is a question that will come up. As I said, I hope to meet them in the coming weeks to discuss further how we can gain support for the Bill and what would be the right approach.
In Northern Ireland we have been formally seeking consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly since the restoration of power sharing and will continue to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, asked for reassurances that we have engaged with the Northern Ireland Executive. Officials have discussed the Bill’s provisions with officials in Northern Ireland and have been actively pursuing engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive now that power sharing has been restored. I hope to be able to meet Ministers in the Executive to seek their consent for the Bill soon.
In response to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what would happen if a public authority does not pay a penalty, we would advise public authorities to reconsider before refusing to pay a fine as the enforcement process, which I think we will come on to discuss on subsequent days, makes it clear that it could end up being enforced by the respective court system of the devolved area. The enforcement authority can apply to the court for the enforcement of an information notice. A failure to pay a fine is a civil debt, to answer the point that was made in an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, under Clause 10(3). This will be through the courts in the relevant devolved jurisdiction, so if a Scottish council was subject to an information notice or issued with a fine, that would be enforced by the Scottish courts.
I am conscious it is late. We have had a lively conversation on this subject. I hope that for the reasons I have set out the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response and everybody who has participated in this discussion. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, believe that there should be one voice in all international policy, but procurement is a devolved issue and, as we have heard, Clauses 1 to 4 require legislative consent. The worry is they require it, so they can ignore it, but I hope not.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, put his finger on the issue of subsidiarity versus centralisation. Are we going to have one centralised procurement body for the whole of the UK that will choose which procurement is in line with the Government of the day’s international policy? I do not think anybody wants to go down that route. There is strong concern about the backpedalling, as it was described, and the resentment that this will cause. Remember that 50%-plus of voters support independence in Scotland. They might not be ready to vote for it at this time, but give them a push further along, and we might find that that happens. More Welsh voters are coming to support independence, and Northern Ireland is being held together by constant vigilance. I hope that the concerns raised here are taken seriously and that the Government engage properly with the devolved Administrations, discuss their trade plans with them and do not treat them as a minor inconvenience that gets in the way of the big issues of government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.