House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
The Office for Budget Responsibility expects UK living standards to grow in all years of the forecast period.
Allan Dorans
The Building Societies Association described the housing market as “broken”, with first-time homebuyers facing the toughest housing market conditions in 70 years. With the International Monetary Fund projecting interest rates to be around 5% for the remainder of the year and the Government rejecting the Scottish National party’s calls to reinstate mortgage interest relief, does the Chancellor anticipate any relief for first-time buyers in the near future?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bank of England is independent. The good news is that the OBR expects inflation rates to fall to near target in the very near future.
Marion Fellows
The Warm this Winter campaign has found that households will have to pay an additional £1.3 billion to help energy companies to cover bad energy debt. What assurance can the Minister give that the extra charge will be passed on to indebted customers to alleviate their debt burden, rather than it being allowed to just alleviate debt for energy companies?
Laura Trott
It is good news that energy prices are set to fall. The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor abolished the surcharge in one of his first Budgets.
Patricia Gibson
The UK is set to have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and the lowest rate of growth in the entire OECD in 2025. Bizarrely, the Chancellor claimed ludicrously that the Tories are winning the war on inflation. With GDP per capita continuing to fall as part of the longest unbroken decline since records began, who does the Minister think in the real world really believes that this plan is working, and that the cost of living crisis is easing?
Laura Trott
It is important to note that inflation has more than halved since the Prime Minister took office, and is now at 3.2%. That will have a material impact on the cost of living pressures on households. In addition, support this year includes cutting national insurance rates across the UK and raising the local housing allowance. Benefits are up by 6.7%, the national living wage is up by 9.8%, and pensions are up by 8.5%. We are on the side of the British people.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, it is not solely households who face increased cost pressures: businesses across our communities do as well, particularly small music venues, which are shutting at the rate of two a week. Ahead of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into that issue, what thought has the Minister given to a VAT cut for grassroots music venues across our constituencies?
Laura Trott
I know my hon. Friend cares deeply about this matter. I know she has a report coming out in a few weeks, and I look forward to reading it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is crucial to bring down inflation and ensure that we create the right climate for reductions in interest rates and further tax cuts. Does the Minister agree that is the best way to tackle the cost of living pressures?
Laura Trott
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
In the past financial year, Buckinghamshire Council supported 4,186 people struggling with the cost of living through the £4.8 million of funding from the household support fund. The council’s Helping Hand scheme continues, with £2.4 million of funding through to this September. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Buckinghamshire households who are struggling with the cost of living should get in touch with Buckinghamshire Council to get the help and support that they need from the Helping Hand scheme, which is funded by this Government?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is completely correct. The household support fund has done so much to help people struggling with the cost of living. I commend the way that Buckinghamshire Council has handed out the money, and, indeed, will continue to do so throughout the year.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Westminster’s cost of living crisis disproportionately affects those on low incomes, young people, and people living in rural areas with limited travel options. One example is the soaring cost of car insurance, which is inexplicably higher in Scotland than in most other parts of the UK. A 22-year-old with five years’ driving experience might expect their premiums to go down, yet they pay on average £667 more than they did when they passed their test at the age of 17. Why are the UK Government doing absolutely nothing to hold insurance companies to account?
Laura Trott
I cannot comment on the specifics of car insurance companies, but what I can say is that for people struggling with the cost of living, whatever form that struggle takes, working-age benefits are going up by 6.7% this year.
Drew Hendry
Clearly, the Minister has paid no attention to this matter at all. This issue is exceptional to the UK. While prices for car insurance have more than doubled in the UK, they have gone up by only 18% across the EU over the same period, and car insurance has gone down by 20% in an independent Ireland. What are the reasons? Is it Brexit, or shameless profiteering? Or, as we suspect, has Westminster just given up on people in the cost of living crisis?
Laura Trott
I think that we have heard enough from the Brexit zombies on the other side of the Chamber.
Laura Trott
I am, if the hon. Gentleman would just like to listen. The national living wage is up by 9.8% this year, which helps with exactly the type of costs that he is talking about.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
The Government acknowledge the vital contribution that co-operatives make to the economy. The “Co-operative and Mutual Economy 2023” report found that co-operatives generated a combined annual turnover of £41 billion, a 3.7% increase from 2022 levels.
Jim McMahon
As the Minister outlines, co-operatives are worth £41 billion to the UK economy; moreover, they are, on average, 10% more productive than other businesses, twice as likely to survive the first five years of trading, and have higher rates of investment than other private businesses. What more can the Government do to encourage more co-operatives to thrive? Does he believe, as I do, that the creation of co-operative development agencies in every region has to be part of that?
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I note his long-held interest in the co-operative sector, and the work that he does on it. So, what are the Government doing? They are doing two things specifically. First, they recently took the further step of backing the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023; they also commissioned the Law Commission to review the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to make sure that co-operatives can do as much as possible to benefit the wider economy.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Over the past two years, Rotherham Council has spent £240,000 promoting co-operatives and employee ownership. Does the Minister agree that this huge amount of money would be better spent on fixing potholes and opening youth clubs, rather than on an ideological viewpoint, with no measurable outcome for the people of Rotherham?
Bim Afolami
I do not wish to comment specifically on Rotherham, but the best way of promoting co-operatives in general is to allow them to thrive as best they can, and to support their members in doing what they do best, which is to help their local economies—not necessarily through huge amounts of public subsidy, but through doing what the co-operative movement was founded to do, which is, as I have said, to support local economies and local people.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Thanks to a combination of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, the average worker on £35,400 will pay more than £1,500 less in personal taxes this year. In addition, maintaining fuel duty rates at their current levels represents a further £13 billion benefit to households over the three years since the introduction of the freeze.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister will know that people are still really struggling with the cost of living crisis. One way that the Government could help is by seeking a bespoke veterinary agreement with the EU. That would not only cut costs for businesses but stop food prices rising even more. A future Labour Government would do that, so why will the Government not commit to it?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady’s first comment was correct: everyone in this House recognises the extreme cost of living challenges over the past few years, and that is precisely why the Government have adopted the strategy of a laser focus on inflation, combined with tax cuts and, recently, national insurance cuts. We have a very constructive and positive relationship with the EU, and are always engaging with it on a variety of matters.
Paul Blomfield
In the run-up to last week’s elections, the Prime Minister never stopped talking about national insurance cuts, and the Minister talked about them again today, but the Government have been giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Does the Minister recognise that according to the Resolution Foundation, the combined impact of all the Government’s tax changes leaves workers who earn less than £26,000 a year worse off? Will he apologise to workers in South Yorkshire, whose average earnings are close to that level, for misrepresenting the position?
Nigel Huddleston
Of course we recognise the challenges for those on the lowest incomes, which is precisely why we have adopted a whole bunch of other measures, including on housing allowance. If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the national insurance cuts that we introduced, why did the Leader of the Opposition support them?
Mr Speaker
Congratulations, Mr Chishti, on your engagement at the weekend. You are not crossing the Floor, I understand.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Most definitely not!
It has just been said that there is a real cost of living challenge, and that is absolutely correct. A key part of that relates to the war in Ukraine, which poses real challenges for energy supplies to the United Kingdom. As a former Minister who applied sanctions to Russia and looked at the oil price cap, I know that we need to ensure that what happens in Ukraine is offset by actions that hold Russia to account and address the cost of living. The US has seized Russian assets to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine; the UK should do the same. That would help ease the burden on the UK economy and the taxpayer.
Nigel Huddleston
It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend in his place. He raises a variety of really important issues that show precisely why we work across Government—there are multiple Departments involved—on matters relating to sanctions. The invasion of Ukraine has had an incredible impact around the world, not just in the UK. Everybody in this House should welcome the fact that, because of action taken by this Government and the Bank of England, and other measures, inflation is now falling and will soon hit target.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservatives’ decisions in this Parliament mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher, and pensioner taxpayers will pay £960 a year more. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“This remains a Parliament of record tax rises.”
Higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. Does the Minister understand why the country has lost confidence in them?
Nigel Huddleston
Many people in this country remember the abysmal economic performance of the last Labour Government. The tax-free allowance was £6,475; it is now £12,570. More than 1.5 million people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. The Government have a focus: now that the economy is turning, we want to put more money into people’s pockets. That is exactly what we are doing with the national insurance cuts and other measures, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome that.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Improving public sector productivity is a major focus for this Government, which is why I announced £4.2 billion of funding to make our public services more efficient in the Budget.
John Penrose
As a former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend will know that evidence-based medicine transformed health productivity, systematically cutting out ineffectual treatments and replacing them with ones that worked better. Using the evaluation task force and the What Works centres to do the same for other public services, including back to work programmes, prisoner rehabilitation and early interventions for supported families, could be the productivity-improving silver bullet that he needs, so can I urge him to beat a path to their door?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the What Works programme, which has delivered more than 500 trials and is recognised internationally. There are some very good example in the NHS of what is working, including the NHS app. That is now used by 75% of NHS patients—including 17,000 over-90s, so let no one assume that older people are not internet savvy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Some £8.7 billion was wasted on defective personal protective equipment during the covid crisis, much of it paid to people associated with the Conservative party. People did not have to be Conservative party members to benefit from the fast track, but it did not half help. What is the Chancellor doing to get public money back from those people who sold that defective equipment to the NHS, and does it not just show that we cannot trust the Tories with public money?
Jeremy Hunt
What it shows is that we took very difficult decisions in the pandemic to speed up access to PPE for frontline workers, who were literally dying at the time—but there should be no hiding place whatsoever for anyone who commits fraud on taxpayers, which is why there have been over 100 arrests.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The only productivity improvement we have seen from this Government is the awarding of wasteful contracts. On top of all the PPE waste that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to, there are still £1 billion-worth of unresolved PPE contracts that this Government awarded, but that have not been delivered on. Only one company, PPE Medpro, is facing legal action. Why are the Government not taking legal action against the other companies that have not delivered on their contract with members of the public?
Jeremy Hunt
Let me be clear: there is absolutely no hiding place for anyone, whether they are connected to the Conservative party, the Labour Party or any other party. If they have defrauded the taxpayer, we will go after them.
Darren Jones
The Chancellor says that he is making progress, and that there is no hiding place, but that money belongs to our public services. The Government know that the contracts have not been delivered on, but they will not reveal the names of the companies and the contracts that have not been delivered on. If there is no hiding place, why would the Chancellor not name them today?
Jeremy Hunt
Because we are taking legal action, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, when we take legal action, that information belongs to the police.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The spring Budget delivered personal tax cuts, including cuts to national insurance, for 29 million workers. That means that someone on the average salary has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975, and that is the lowest effective tax rate of any G7 country.
Maggie Throup
While responsible tax cuts, such as the £900 cut to national insurance contributions, are welcome, can my right hon. Friend update the House on when we can expect VAT to be abolished on high-factor sunscreen? That would not only help to protect more people from one of the leading causes of preventable cancer, but could save the NHS approximately £55 billion.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend and I have talked about this issue on many occasions. She will know that high-factor sunscreen is on NHS prescription for certain conditions and is VAT-free when dispensed by a chemist. With my Chancellor hat on, I should say that we have had £50 billion of requests for VAT relief since Brexit. It is great to have the freedom to make those changes, but we have to be honest about the trade-offs. In particular, we must ensure that if we do apply reliefs, the benefits are fed through to consumers.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This weekend, I spoke to a constituent who has invested heavily in a restaurant in my constituency over the last 15 years. He was in desperation because his business, like two other businesses that have already closed in the town, is being crushed by VAT, business rates and increases in corporate taxes. He finds that he can no longer sustain a business that has become the love of his life. Does the Chancellor realise that the tax burden he is imposing on small and medium-sized businesses is crushing this economy?
Jeremy Hunt
We are doing everything we can to support small businesses. Businesses like the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions have received, for two years in a row, a 75% discount on their business rates. That is a massive leg up for businesses recovering from the pandemic. We have also made sure that any increases in corporation tax apply only to larger businesses. There is only one major party in British politics that wants to bring down the tax burden for businesses, and it is the Conservative party.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
In 2020, the Treasury undertook a comprehensive review of the Green Book and how it is used in practice, and we have made several changes as a result. We regularly update the Green Book to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, and we published a further technical update in 2022.
Chris Loder
I represent a rural constituency in Dorset in the south-west of England. My right hon. Friend will know that it is important to me and my colleagues in the region that the Government give due consideration to the south-west when it comes to allocating funds and investment opportunities to it. Typically, the Green Book has not adequately allocated funds in favour of Dorset and neighbouring counties. What steps will she take to correct that?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is, as ever, a brilliant advocate for his local area. I note that West Dorset is getting £4.4 million from the UK shared prosperity fund, and the wider Dorset area is benefiting from a range of other significant investments, including £9.7 million from the future high streets fund, but I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), I represent a rural constituency. Strangford is the reason I am here, and I want to represent it well. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that all updates to and volumes of the Green Book apply to Northern Ireland as well as to other areas across this great nation?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point—one that I will be discussing with the Northern Ireland Finance Minister in a couple of weeks.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Small businesses drive our economy, and we support them to thrive using levers across Government, whether through our small business rates relief, by increasing the VAT registration threshold, or providing reliefs such as the annual investment allowance.
Stephen Crabb
In England, many small businesses receive a 75% reduction in business rates thanks to action by this Conservative Government. In Wales, the Labour Administration have cut that level of support to 40%, meaning that excellent hospitality businesses such as Martha’s Vineyard in my constituency must find thousands of pounds more in tax. Does the Minister agree that that is not the way to support the tourism and hospitality sector at a challenging time, and that it is an example of the Labour party saying one thing here at Westminster and doing another where they are in government?
Gareth Davies
My right hon. Friend is right that in the autumn statement the Government extended retail, hospitality and leisure relief in England, essentially to cut tax for 230,000 businesses—a tax cut worth £2.5 billion. The Barnett formula allows the Welsh Labour Government to offer similar relief to Welsh businesses, and it is disappointing, if not surprising, that they have chosen not to.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On Friday, I visited the K C Jones Motor Repairs garage, a medium-sized business of very long standing in Oswestry in North Shropshire. One of the many challenges that it faces, alongside astronomical energy bills and a shortage of skilled labour, is the business rates that it needs to pay because it must have a high street presence in order for people to take their cars there. Will the Minister consider fundamental reform of business rates so that businesses that need a high street presence can continue to exist? At the moment, they are under huge pressure.
Gareth Davies
As I was saying, we have a 75% relief for most high street businesses. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the package as a whole. We have increased the VAT threshold, bringing 28,000 businesses like the one she describes out of paying any VAT at all, on top of a range of other measures.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The cherished independent shops and restaurants that line the streets of Morley serve the lifeblood of our community. In order to safeguard the very heart of our local economy, what bold measures is the Department taking to counter the oppressive weight of skyrocketing business rates imposed by the financially reckless Labour-led Leeds City Council?
Gareth Davies
I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of all businesses in Morley and across Leeds because I have seen it at first hand. I point out to her as well that the Government have reduced taxation on small businesses, we have increased the VAT threshold, and we have a 75% rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which she alluded to. It is this Conservative Government who are on the side of hard-working people and businesses across Morley and around the country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In the last decade, more than one music venue closed every week, including Moles in Bath. That has resulted in the loss of 4,000 jobs, 14,250 events, over 190,000 performance opportunities, £9 million of income for musicians and £59 million in lost direct economic activity. What are the Government doing to support small music venues?
Gareth Davies
We are doing a lot. We are increasing the VAT threshold, and we have a rates relief package. The recent spring Budget was one of the biggest packages supporting our cultural industries that this country has ever seen, and I encourage the hon. Lady to look at it.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Since 2022, almost 400 communities have lost their local bank branch, which has had a devastating impact on local and small businesses. Despite witnessing the decline of the British high street, the Government have been dragging their feet on rolling out banking hubs, which would help local and small businesses. Will the Minister finally back the Labour party’s plans to provide a banking hub in every community that needs one?
Gareth Davies
Banking hubs are driven by commercial organisations. Any area that loses bank branches is entitled to get a banking hub. Of course, we want to see more across the country, but we also have to recognise that banking has changed and the ways in which people bank have moved more towards digital, so it is right that commercial organisations take commercial decisions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
At the spring Budget, we built on the £15 billion of levelling-up commitments made since 2019. We announced a trailblazer devolution deal for the north-east mayoral combined authority and a £400 million extension to the long-term plan for towns.
Liz Twist
The cross-party Public Accounts Committee has revealed that the Government’s levelling-up funds were subject to a “worrying lack of transparency”, with rules for accessing funding changing while bids were still being assessed. Will the Minister therefore apologise to the 55 local authorities rejected for funding that were not told in advance that their applications had no chance of success?
Gareth Davies
This is the Government who implemented £15 billion of support for communities outside of London and the south-east, which is one of the reasons why median pay growth is higher in every region outside of London and the south-east. Of course, there is a robust methodology and criteria for selecting places for funding, and I encourage the hon. Lady to look at those criteria.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
With the Darlington economic campus now having passed 750 employees and being well on its way to providing over 1,500 roles in my constituency, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of its contribution to the local economy, to reducing inequalities and to our levelling-up agenda?
Gareth Davies
The Darlington economic campus is an important part of this Government’s operations and of our Government estate, but it is also important to the people of Darlington, and not just in terms of the jobs it has created. Of course, it builds on the back of significant funding on my hon. Friend’s watch: the £22 million town deal and the £6 million as part of the shared prosperity fund. That is one of the reasons why the people voted to elect Ben Houchen just the other day.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Regional inequality may be made worse by my constituents facing having to pay again for funeral plans after they were sold fake funeral plans by Legacy funeral directors. Many simply cannot afford to pay for those plans again and, instead of having the funeral that their families wanted for them, they will only be able to have the free service offered by the council. Does the Minister agree that banks should offer more discretion when looking at victims of fraud, and will he meet with me to discuss this specific case further?
Gareth Davies
I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in whose portfolio this issue sits, will meet with her.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
For many years, coastal communities have suffered economic inequalities, and we all know that the best way of changing that is to create the conditions for investment and the jobs that go with them. Despite the good work that the Government have done, we still need more funding in areas such as Cleethorpes. Could the Minister outline what plans the Government may have for bringing forward further schemes in the near future?
Gareth Davies
It is right to acknowledge that funding has gone in. I completely appreciate the specific challenges that coastal communities face, but it is important to look at the package of measures to level up—not just funding such as the shared prosperity fund, levelling-up fund and towns fund, but the 13 devolution deals, 13 investment zones and 12 freeports. These are all packages and measures that will help areas such as my hon. Friend’s, but I will always keep his area in mind.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Over the last two years, cost of living support has totalled £96 billion, or an average of £3,400 per household. As a result, living standards, which were predicted to fall 2% last year, rose by nearly 1%, and we are on track to reach pre-pandemic living standards two years early.
Mrs Drummond
I welcome the support that the Government have provided throughout covid and the recent energy crisis for my constituents in Meon Valley—I thank the Government. It has made a huge difference to people’s domestic budgets, but now inflation is falling and the economy is improving, can we look forward to the Government’s continued support with a range of fiscal steps, including cutting taxes?
Jeremy Hunt
We can absolutely do that. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that the biggest single thing we can do to help people with cost of living pressures is to bring down inflation. That seems to be something that escaped the shadow Chancellor this morning, when she said it was not a big deal to get inflation down to its target. It is a very big deal for families facing a cost of living crisis, and she needs to know that inflation falls by design, not by accident.
Nadia Whittome
The Chancellor can talk all he wants about inflation falling, but this is little comfort to my constituents who are still struggling to make ends meet. Even with the national insurance cut, annual post-tax earnings for the average family remain on course to be £380 lower at the start of 2025 than they were in 2021—a gap not predicted to close until 2029. This means yet more years of lost wage growth, so when will the Government get serious about tackling the low-wage, insecure work that they have allowed to become the norm in this country?
Jeremy Hunt
Could I suggest, if the hon. Member really thinks that inflation falling from 11% to 3.2% is little comfort to her constituents, that she might want to talk to a few more of them, because actually it is the biggest single thing that we can do to deal with cost of living pressures. If she says, “What are we doing to tackle the scourge of low pay?” we have abolished it by raising the national living wage to £11.44 this year alone. For someone working full-time, that will mean an increase in their pay of £1,800.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
On 9 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice launched a programme to raise awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to how and when to access child trust funds. The first part of this programme is a new toolkit. The Ministry of Justice will continue that programme of work to raise awareness of how to obtain legal authority to access a child trust fund, for which a court fee waiver is available.
Vicky Foxcroft
The only way for parents of young people without capacity to access their child trust fund is through a deputyship order. After consulting on the introduction of a mental capacity small payment scheme, which would allow a suitable person temporary access to release the funds, Ministers opted not to legislate, and instead introduced a toolkit, as has been said. Over 80,000 young people in England and Wales remain locked out of their child trust fund, so would the Minister agree to look at this again?
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I know how avidly she campaigns in this area. The House should know—and you should know, Mr Speaker—that I recently met my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) to discuss this very issue. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady as well to discuss it and to see if we can get a solution, because we do want to get this problem fixed.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting to which he referred. Will he compliment financial institutions that are doing their utmost to make it easier for their disabled customers to access their child trust funds and, if his ministerial colleagues can find a way of making that easier across the board, would that have his support and that of his colleagues in the Treasury?
Bim Afolami
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Indeed, working with not just the Ministry of Justice, but the Department for Work and Pensions is key to deliver this, as is working with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that any financial institution that does the right thing does not lose out or face any regulatory issues. That is indeed something that has my support and that of the Treasury, and we will work across Government to get this right.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
As stated in the spring Budget, the Government are considering the findings of the review by the Office for Budget Responsibility of VAT-free shopping, alongside industry representations and broader data. We continue to welcome further submissions and representations in response to those findings.
Andrew Rosindell
Data from Heathrow, the United Kingdom’s largest and busiest airport, shows that despite a near-full recovery in passenger volumes post lockdown, retail spend on affected goods is 32% below pre-pandemic levels. That figure is shocking. Heathrow airport joins hundreds of businesses in calling on the Government to reintroduce VAT-free shopping for tourists, or similar incentives. Will the Minister acknowledge the figures, listen to the industry and reinstate that popular policy, as British businesses are demanding?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I will not only listen to the industry, but I met Heathrow just last week to hear its representations. The challenge is the way that modelling, and forecast and behavioural changes can be confidently assessed. Government estimates suggest that a worldwide scheme could cost as much as £2.5 billion. The challenge is the so-called deadweight cost that could happen by subsidising spending that otherwise would exist anyway, versus the incremental benefit that we could get from new visitors coming to the UK. Of course that is a behavioural change based on a tax change. It is based on a variety of assumptions, and therefore the modelling and assumptions underlying it vary, but I am listening to all representations.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
The high income child benefit charge threshold was raised to £60,000 on 6 April 2024. The point at which child benefit is fully withdrawn was also increased to £80,000, and the Government estimate that that will take 170,000 families out of paying the charge in 2024-25. The Government also plan to administer HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026.
Mrs Wheeler
I have been contacted by many South Derbyshire parents who are caught in this unfair situation. Can the Minister be even more precise about the savings that this will now mean for my affected constituents?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and continual interest in this area. The changes to the high income child benefit charge mean that almost half a million hard-working families will gain an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children in 2024-25. She will recognise that that is a meaningful difference for her constituents, and for those across the country.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The shadow Chancellor often likes to ask what has improved over the past 14 years, so I thought I would update the House on some of the latest statistics about the British economy. According to UN conference data, we have now overtaken France, the Netherlands and Japan to become the world’s fourth largest exporter. The International Monetary Fund says that we will grow faster over the next six years than France, Italy, Germany or Japan, and there are 200,000 more people in work compared with a year ago, which means that, for every single day Conservative Governments have been in office since 2010, there are 800 more people in work, many of whom will be very pleased that we are sticking to our plan.
Debbie Abrahams
We should add to the Chancellor’s statistics that we have the widest economic inequalities in Europe. Last week, Professor Sir Michael Marmot published new analysis showing significant increases in health inequalities—how long we live, and how long we live in good health—and that is particularly the case between the north and south-east England. That is of course driven by the economic inequalities that I have just referred to. What assessment has the Chancellor undertaken on the loss in productivity directly as a result of that increase in health inequalities?
Jeremy Hunt
If the hon. Lady is concerned about economic inequalities, she will be horrified to know that they were even worse under the last Labour Government. They have been reduced under this Government. When it comes to health inequalities, it is this Government who are phasing out smoking for everyone under the age of 14—one of the biggest single things in a generation that will reduce health inequalities and mean that poorer people live longer.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
I can confirm that we are very alive to cost of living pressures caused by fuel duty. In fact, we spent £6.4 billion freezing the duties on fuel, which will save the average motorist £50 over the coming year.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
At the Budget, the Chancellor set out his intention to abolish national insurance—a £46 billion annual commitment with no clear plan as to how it would be paid for. One way to do it would be to merge income tax and national insurance. Does the Chancellor agree with analysis from the House of Commons Library that shows that merging those two would increase income tax by 8p in the pound?
Rachel Reeves
That is strange, because the day after the Budget, the Chancellor told Sky News that
“you can end that unfairness of taxing work: you can merge income tax and national insurance.”
The late Chancellor, Nigel Lawson—the Prime Minister’s hero—warned that merging them would
“destroy the contributory principle and create many losers, especially among the elderly.”
In fact, a retired pensioner with an average occupational pension income of £198 a week would pay an additional £738 a year in tax. Is the reason that the Conservatives will not come clean not that they are planning to pick pensioners’ pockets to fund the abolition of national insurance?
Jeremy Hunt
If the right hon. Lady listened to my comments carefully, and I do not always give her credit for that, she would know that our policy is to abolish employees’ national insurance, and that means we want to bring it down to zero. If Labour’s strategy is to win the election by frightening pensioners with fake news stories, I would just say that Britain deserves better.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
My right hon. Friend is right that this issue is critical. I am pleased that the ISSB recently announced its intention to commence a research project on a nature thematic standard, carefully considering the TNFD’s recommendations. His Majesty’s Government have established a formal mechanism to assess the ISSB standards for suitability for the UK to ensure that with a general sustainability standard, and more specifically with a climate sustainability standard, we are doing the right thing for the UK. The Government will publish an implementation update on sustainability disclosure requirements shortly to provide further information for industry—watch this space.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I have to say that I find this hypocrisy astounding. First, if the Opposition objected to the national insurance cuts, why did the Leader of the Opposition say that he supported them? If the Opposition are so keen on abolishing tax dodging, why did they not support our Finance Bill, which had measures in place to do just that? They did not support it; they abstained on it.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The Bank of England has said that quantitative tightening is not an official part of its monetary policy targeting, yet it is at risk of costing, fiscally, £179 billion in losses underwritten by the Treasury. That is having a major effect on the fiscal situation of the country. Will His Majesty’s Government encourage the Bank of England to hold these bonds to maturity, taking the carry cost rather than taking the hit from selling them in the market and crystallising an enormous loss?
Bim Afolami
In relation to the asset purchase facility and how that has worked over recent years, it is not His Majesty’s Government’s—or indeed the Treasury’s—intention to change the way in which that works with the Bank of England, but as with all measures, the Chancellor keeps everything under close review.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
What I would say to those families is that the most damaging thing of all is to have inflation at 11%. Now we have reduced it to 3.2%, and indeed we expect it to go lower. Interest rates are also starting to fall. If the hon. Member is worried about families in her constituency, she might be extremely worried by the shadow Chancellor saying that if interest rates fall, it is somehow not a big deal. It really is.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to revisit his decision to change the tax arrangements of furnished holiday lets in rural constituencies such as my own? Those businesses make an important contribution to the local economy, provide jobs and enhance the tourism offering. Indeed, they stop depopulation rather than adding to it. His decision is creating much concern among those who operate such businesses.
Nigel Huddleston
We recognise the important role that FHLs play in the tourism ecosystem right across the country. The problem was that there was not a level playing field with long-term lets. We are making sure that there will continue to be tax incentives and benefits from such letting, but they need to be on par with short-term and long-term lets.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The hon. Member is entirely right. That is why we froze fuel duty at the last fiscal event: a measure that costs £6.5 billion and will save the average driver £50.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I place on record my thanks to the Chancellor, who in his Budget devoted funds to Bournemouth for a police violence reduction unit? Does he agree that these units have a track record up and down the country of tackling knife crime by not just seeing extra police on the frontline, but engaging with schools to ensure that youths and students understand the folly of carrying a knife in the first place?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: violence reduction units reduce crime and save lives. I want to thank him, because he was one of the first colleagues who, ahead of the Budget, brought to my attention how impressive the results are. As a result, I was able to make it a national policy in the Budget.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the Government are taking this issue very seriously, and we completely understand that speed is of the essence. It is now only a matter of days before the report will be published; we have always said that we want to publish our response very quickly after that and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not hang around.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The best way for a business to thrive and for customers to receive a great service is for companies to employ individuals on merit. Does the Chancellor agree that the recent overreach by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority regarding their equality, diversity and inclusion policies is a step too far, and that it is inevitable that those policies will have a negative effect on us all?
Bim Afolami
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that the FCA bears in mind that it should not be distracted from its core focus on conduct and regulation by things that are more marginal for the people and businesses it oversees. I urge the FCA to take into account the representations made by my hon. Friend and by industry in that regard and many others.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has taken my comments out of context. I will tell him what is really out of touch: the shadow Chancellor saying it is not a big deal if inflation falls.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Cramlington has a world-leading pharmaceutical company, Organon, which employs 700 people and produces medicine for the UK market as well as abroad, with a particular focus on women’s health. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor please meet me to discuss the impact on pharmaceutical investment?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pharmaceutical industry is worth some £14 billion to our economy. I am pleased to tell him that the industry has seen a twelvefold increase in equity financing in just the past decade, and I would be pleased to meet him to discuss that further.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Soaring rent costs are the biggest reason why my constituents in Bath are struggling. The average monthly rent in Bath and north-east Somerset has risen by more than £200 in the past three years. What support will the Government give to people who rent in the private sector?
Jeremy Hunt
That is why we need to build more houses. The hon. Lady will be reassured to know that we are building record numbers of houses—in fact, more in the last year than in any single year under the previous Labour Government.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that high business rates are having a devastating effect on small and medium-sized businesses in historic market towns, such as Romford, that are large retail centres. As the Government are business friendly, will he please look at ways to reduce the burden of business rates on local businesses in constituencies like mine?
Jeremy Hunt
May I say what a pleasure it is to be asked a question by my hon. Friend? I think this is the first time it has happened since he has been back. There is no more formidable a champion for Romford. He speaks about business rates, and we have indeed been doing what we can to bring them down at every fiscal event.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What steps have been taken to support pensioners to know what benefits they are possibly entitled to? I understand that 1.4 million people access pension credit, but a great many more are entitled to it.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that is close to my heart, as a former Pensions Minister. We did a huge amount of work to increase the uptake of pension credit. I know that this matters a lot to Members, and work is being done in everyone’s constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The lifetime ISA is a positive instrument, but I understand that under its terms there are circumstances under which savers lose not only the benefits of the ISA but also part of their capital investment. That does not seem right; will the Minister please meet me to discuss it?
Bim Afolami
I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the lifetime ISA, which is a fantastic product brought in by this Government to help young people to get on the housing ladder. I am happy to meet him to discuss ways in which we can make it more accessible for more people in more circumstances.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Tulip Siddiq
Yes. In his response to me, the Exchequer Secretary said, “Any area that loses bank branches is entitled to get a banking hub”, but I have numerous examples of towns that lost bank branches, applied for a banking hub and then had their application rejected. Please could you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how I can get some clarity on this matter and what the Minister said about “any area that loses bank branches”?
Mr Speaker
Obviously, we cannot continue the debate. The hon. Lady has certainly put her point on the record. I do not think this will be the end of it; she knows how to carry it on through the usual channels, which I expect she will use, no doubt starting with the Table Office.
Debbie Abrahams
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Chancellor, in answer to my question, said that economic inequalities actually increased under the previous Labour Administration. A House of Commons Library publication released last month shows that that is categorically not the case. Would he like to take this opportunity to correct the record?
Jeremy Hunt
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady may have misunderstood me. What I said was that economic inequality had fallen since the last Labour Government.
War in Gaza
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the war in Gaza.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his urgent question.
We want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. Well over six months since Hamas’s terror attack against Israel, it is appalling that the hostages are still being held. Very many civilians are also dying in Gaza, and this weekend Hamas rockets killed four Israeli Defence Forces soldiers and injured others. As we have said, the fastest way to end the conflict is to secure a deal that gets the hostages out and allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. We must then turn that pause into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire.
Regarding the situation in Rafah, our position has been consistent. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military incursion, given the number of civilians who are sheltering there and the importance of that entry point for aid. Entry points for humanitarian aid, including Kerem Shalom, must be reopened quickly to allow aid in. Israel must facilitate immediate, uninterrupted humanitarian access in the south, especially the entry of fuel, and ensure the protection of civilians and safe passage for those who wish to leave Rafah. As yet, we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians.
We are, of course, following closely the latest developments on the hostage talks. At this stage, while events are still shifting, I cannot—as the House will understand—provide a detailed running commentary. As the British Government have said, we want to see a deal agreed that would ensure the release of hostages and a pause in the fighting. A generous offer was on the table last week, proposed by Egypt and accepted by Israel. We need to see Hamas accept a viable deal and we can start building the momentum towards a permanent sustained ceasefire.
In parallel, we continue to push as hard as we can to get much-needed aid into Gaza via vital land routes, alongside sea and air, to alleviate the suffering. Israel has now committed to significant steps to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. We now need to see that turned into action to ensure that aid actually gets over the border, and that it is safely and properly distributed. We look to Israel to meet its commitments to flood Gaza with aid.
Ultimately, we need a long-term solution to this crisis. This means the release of all hostages; Hamas’s rule dismantled; their ability to attack Israel removed; a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza; and a political horizon to a two-state solution. Israelis and Palestinians should be able to live together side by side, in peace and security. This is our goal. We will continue working tirelessly to achieve it.
Mr Lammy
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I have to say that it is extraordinary that the Government did not come forward with a statement today. This is a profoundly concerning moment in this awful war. Ceasefire negotiations appear to be going backwards. Today the war is not just continuing, but escalating.
Labour has been clear for months that we oppose an offensive in Rafah, which risks catastrophic consequences. The United States has said that it would be a disaster, the European Union has said that the world must prevent it, and the United Nations Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire. Benjamin Netanyahu is ignoring the warnings of Israel’s allies and partners, the United Kingdom included.
So can the Minister tell me what the consequences will be? We are already seeing the consequences for civilians: airstrikes in densely packed areas; the Rafah crossing—as well as Kerem Shalom, shamelessly attacked by Hamas—now closed; aid reportedly being blocked; and northern Gaza in full-blown famine. Some 1.4 million people are sheltering in Rafah, many of them ordered to go there by the IDF in the first place. Half the children in Gaza are in Rafah. Where can they go to be safe? The French Government said yesterday that the forced displacement of any civilian population is a war crime. Does the Minister agree?
Hamas are a terrorist organisation and their cowardly tactics are reprehensible, but that does not change Israel’s obligation to follow the rules of war, or the Government’s obligations on arms exports, so can the Minister say why he thinks that an attack on Rafah does not present a clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law? Can he also confirm whether he has received any assessment—not legal advice, but any assessment or policy advice—from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials that the threshold has already been met? Now more than ever, we need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and unimpeded aid to Gaza.
Mr Mitchell
The shadow Foreign Secretary has set out in eloquent terms what is effectively the policy of the Government and the entire House. He chided the Government for not offering a statement today, but I suggest that the Government have not been slow in coming to the House with frequent statements and responses to urgent questions, and we will of course continue to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Government’s discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the entire Government have been very clear about our advice to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I have set it out repeatedly in the House. When I last answered questions from the right hon. Gentleman here, I made very clear our position on Rafah as well. He asked about the consequences and how we deal with those. Britain and our allies, through the United Nations—and I remind him that Britain was pivotal in securing Security Council resolutions 2020 and 2028—are working together to try to improve what is a terrible situation, and we will continue to do just that with, I hope, the support of the whole House.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome the efforts made by the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East, who have been in and out of the middle east many times over the past two weeks in order to hear from our allies. However, as we see the launch of the Rafah offensive, what reassurances have been received that aid access and, above all, aid workers will be protected? We cannot see the entire aid industry flee from Rafah junction, as is currently being predicted. There is speculation about Al-Mawasi as a safe zone for civilians, but there is no infrastructure in what is essentially a desert, and it was not safe on the last occasion when, as we saw, the British charity Medical Aid for Palestinians was bombed—on which we have still had no answer. Finally, have we had any proof of life for those Israeli citizens who have now been held for seven months? For many, there has been no proof of life since at least Day 20. What are we doing to push for that proof of life, which families so desperately need?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that last point. We do seek proof of life. The families to whom she refers are desperate for information, but that information has not been forthcoming. We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian position in Rafah. Any plan would have to respect international humanitarian law, and we have yet to see such a plan. The immediate priority, as I set out in my opening remarks, must be a humanitarian pause in the fighting. As the House well knows, such a pause would allow us, potentially, to get the hostages out, but also to get aid into Gaza.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
A week ago from that Dispatch Box, the Minister said:
“Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it is not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 141.]
Despite repeated appeals for Israel not to attack Rafah, just hours after the dashed hopes of a ceasefire, that offensive is happening. Is this the breach of international humanitarian law you referred to last week, and will that breach immediately end UK sales of arms to Israel? Or is this yet another example of the UK declaring a red line only for Israel to completely ignore it without condemnation or consequence? We know how this plays out, Minister. You plead with them, they ignore you, they do what they want and you find excuses for them. A blind eye will be turned to the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and while the UK Government call for more aid to the survivors, they will continue to issue arms export licences. That has been the pattern of behaviour for seven months. Can we expect anything different now?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he will know that we are working flat out in these very difficult circumstances to achieve something different, and we will continue to do so. He quoted what I said the last time I was at the Dispatch Box, and I would point out that the words I have used today, in answering the same question, are virtually exactly the same. I have made it clear that there would have to be a plan that respected international humanitarian law, and we have not yet seen such a plan. That is entirely consistent with what I said before.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of arms. The Foreign Secretary announced on 9 April that the British position with regard to export licences is unchanged. We do not publish the Government’s legal advice, but we always act in accordance with it. I would point out that we publish data on export licensing decisions transparently and on a quarterly basis.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
Yesterday I met survivors of the Nova festival massacre—people who had fought singlehandedly for hours in Israel on 7 October against brutal Hamas terrorists. We all want peace, and we all want to see the end of civilian fatalities, but sometimes countries must fight for peace. Israel has a right to defend herself and a duty to protect her people from the brutal terrorist cult of Hamas. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will maintain steadfast and resolute support for Israel as she finishes the job of eliminating Hamas from Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
I am very pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend had the chance to meet those survivors yesterday, so that she can share with the House the hideous circumstances that they suffered. She makes it clear that Israel has the right of self-defence, and she set out eloquently why that is the case. But Israel must also abide by international humanitarian law.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I say to the Minister, if I may, “You’re better than this.” We all condemn Hamas’s attack and we all want to see the hostages released, but we are on the edge of witnessing a massacre, a mass murder of innocent men, women and children at the behest of fanatical zealots in the Israeli Cabinet. We need this Government to lead an international exercise to prevent this attack now. One way to prevent it is to make it clear to Netanyahu that if it goes ahead, this Government will pursue him as a war criminal at the international courts.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Government are working with their allies, with the powers in the region and through the United Nations precisely to ensure that that does not happen. He also knows that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and other Ministers who are in close contact with the Israeli Government have made it absolutely clear what the effects of a military campaign conducted within the small confines of Rafah, where so many people are kettled, would be. I have made very clear from this Dispatch Box the view of the Government in that respect.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
A couple of days ago, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, an Israeli commander reminded his men that on that day 80 years ago, the Nazis led Jews to the ovens for the sole crime of being Jewish. On 7 October, at dawn on a public holiday, Hamas and their supporters invaded Israel and murdered 1,200 more Jewish people, including children, and raped, dismembered and tortured people—and yes, they put one baby, alive, in an oven to murder it. They took dozens of hostages, and still have many in savage confinement of a medieval nature.
Many voices put pressure on Israel to do what they believe Israel should do. Does the Minister agree that more pressure needs to be put on Hamas to do what they should do—what any civilised human being would call for—which is to release the hostages and stop attacking aid points? One such aid point was attacked at the weekend, killing four Israeli soldiers—an aid point that, by the way, British aid comes through. They are silent about that, with every focus on Israel and none on Hamas.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. I want to emphasise to him, but also to the House, that the hostages are not an afterthought. They are at the very centre of this—there are more than 130, including women and children, and a holocaust survivor. The Government are trying to strike a balance. There is an urgent requirement for a pause in all the fighting to enable aid to get in and to negotiate the hostages out, which might then lead, as a process, to a sustainable ceasefire, which is what we are trying to achieve.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I think we all want an immediate ceasefire, and as we see the start of the destruction of Rafah and the impact that it will have on the civilian population, we are horrified. I want to ask the Minister a practical question that might get us a step further. How optimistic is he that a sufficient number of hostages will be released to ensure that agreement between the two sides can be reached and that Israel will then accept an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Lady, who speaks with authority and understanding on these matters, will know that the question she has asked me is at the heart of the negotiations, which still continue, and which we very much hope will be successful. As I have said before, I cannot give the House a running commentary on those negotiations, but I can assure her that the logic she brings to this debate does inform the Government’s support for getting a resolution to those negotiations.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Over the past few months, Members from all parts of the House have questioned the Deputy Foreign Secretary on the notion of consequences, and we have heard that again today. He is an experienced Minister, so he knows that every equivocation, every hesitation and every set of diplomatic niceties has led us to this calamitous moment for the hostages, for the Palestinian people and for the interests of both peoples in the long term. On 7 April, the Foreign Secretary said that support for Israel was not unconditional. I shall ask the question in a different way: is there any red line? Is there anything the Israeli Government could do that would so appal this Government that they would feel the need to act? If so, what is it?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend talks about the calamitous situation that we have reached, and no one in the House will forget that it started on 7 October with the brutal events that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) just described. My right hon. Friend asks me a rhetorical question, but the evidence will show that the Government have done everything we possibly can to try to alleviate the situation, sometimes unpopularly, and that our logic was accepted at the United Nations in the two Security Council resolutions that I mentioned.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Israeli Opposition leader Yair Lapid said at the weekend:
“A government that wants to return the abductees”
would be
“sending the teams to Cairo, not…crushing the hearts of the families.”
Lapid is right, but it is not only the hearts of the hostages’ families that are being crushed; it is those of the Palestinians who want nothing to do with Hamas terrorists. Many of them are being chased around the Gaza strip. The UK rightly defends Israel from the threat of attack by Iran, but will the British Government also suspend arms exports to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he will have seen that both sides have sent teams to Cairo, and we await developments on that with a degree of hope and optimism. On his second point, I have made it clear to the House where the Government stand on arms exports. We follow the legal advice—we do not publish it, in accordance with precedent—and we will continue to do so.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Members have said that the situation in Rafah needs to come to an end, but what needs to come to an end is the fighting. UNICEF has said today that Rafah is a city of children, and we should not be dancing around the issue or playing with words as though it were a game of Scrabble. We should call this what it is and call for an immediate ceasefire. Families of hostages want the fighting to end now, and my constituents in Bolton demand that it does. The international community is demanding an immediate stop. We are one of the most influential countries on the conflict, so will the United Kingdom call for an immediate end to the fighting?
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for keeping in touch with me on issues that are brought to his attention by his constituents. As he knows, it is exactly the Government’s policy to try to achieve that pause, which can then lead to a sustainable ceasefire. We will continue to do everything we can to achieve that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
What is the Government’s plan to get aid into Gaza now that both Rafah and Kerem Shalom are inaccessible? Even if they were accessible, with an invasion now started there would be no way to distribute aid. What is the Government’s plan to get aid in to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Palestinian people?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to identify that yesterday, Rafah and Kerem Shalom were shut with no aid able to get in. That is a matter of immense concern to the Government. She will know that as well as trying to get aid in ourselves by road transport, we have been a leading nation in assisting with the maritime route and with airdrops. Some 11 airdrops have been made, 10 of them by the Royal Air Force.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Constituents are understandably devastated by what is happening in Gaza right now, which is desperate for those on both sides. I am conscious of what the Minister has just said about aid being distributed, but will he ensure that all the resources possible are there to enable us to carry on with maritime delivery and airdrops? Does he agree that ultimately, it is in Hamas’s hands to return the hostages and remove any excuse for further actions in Gaza by Israel?
Mr Mitchell
We will certainly continue to boost the maritime efforts, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, are ongoing using both British military assets and our stores in the region, particularly in Cyprus, as well as technology for clearing the kit that is available there. We will continue to do everything we can in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, as we have been, to achieve greater entry of aid into Gaza.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The real concern now is that Netanyahu has one objective, which is to raze Gaza to the ground. That is what he is intent on doing, and it will include Rafah. This Government, along with all other western Governments, have told the Israelis that they must not go into Rafah. I ask the Minister once again: what are the consequences if they do? Will it be a slap on the wrist and a “Don’t do it again”, or is serious consideration being given to banning the sale of arms and to sanctioning individuals and the Israeli Government collectively? What are the Government going to do? Are they going to do anything at all?
Mr Mitchell
I have made it very clear what the Government are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman has outlined what Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying, but there are many different voices in Israel, as we have seen this weekend, including significant demonstrations in support of the policy of getting the hostages back. Britain is doing everything it can to help achieve that.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
For me, the defining feature of this appalling tragedy in Gaza is that the civilian population is trapped between the oppression of an appalling terrorist organisation and an appalling military onslaught. Given the increasing compression of that population within Rafah, in a much smaller geographical area, the need for precision, restraint and proportionality from the Israelis is ever more acute. Will the Minister please assure the House that he is doing everything possible to convince the Israelis of the need to preserve the sanctity of human life?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have repeatedly underlined the importance of Israel abiding by international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have underlined that point in their frequent contacts.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Despite the blatant disregard that we have seen for international law over the last few weeks, the international community has warned that the Israeli ground offensive in Rafah will be a red line. Even the Deputy Foreign Secretary told this House last week that he could not
“see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 140-41.]
With Israeli troops now ready to move into the world’s largest and most densely populated refugee camp, where 1.4 million people sit starving and fearful for the lives of their children, I have to ask the Minister just why he did not come to the House today to announce a strong UK response that immediately supports the International Criminal Court’s war crimes investigation and immediately ends arms sales to Israel.
Frankly, it is shameful that the Government have again come to the House with nothing. Will the Minister please answer the question that we have all come to hear answered? What are the UK Government doing to stop the bloodshed and the massacre that are about to happen hours from now in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, there is no difference between what I have said today and the response I gave on the last occasion I was at the Dispatch Box, to which he refers. He sets out, in eloquent tones, the nature of the problem we face, but he must recognise that Britain, along with a large number of regional powers, the international community and the UN, is trying to stop the very position he sets out.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Seven months ago today, many of us began receiving the most alarming messages from friends and/or family in Israel. By the end of that day, every red line of international law had been breached by the monstrous Palestinian terrorists who raped countless women, murdered 1,200 people and took hundreds of innocent people hostage.
Within hours, people in this country, and some pro-Palestinian activists, were on the streets cheering what happened that day. Since then, we have seen the dehumanisation of Jews through the dehumanisation of Israel. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” has been dusted off and every antisemitic trope has been trotted out. Some people in this House, whom we would have expected to be allies when it comes to gender-based violence, have had little or nothing to say about the horrors of that day.
Now, we hear calls for Israel to be denied the right to defend itself, while arms continue to flow to Hamas from Iran and North Korea. There is nothing kind or compassionate about that message. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm to me that any ceasefire, which we all want because we all want this tragedy to end, will include the complete removal of Hamas from governance in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right in what he says. The rightful aim of defeating Hamas will not be achieved by allowing a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, as I am sure he would agree. He mentions gender-based violence; he will recognise that the Government have supplied funding particularly to try to tackle aspects of that, where we are able to make a contribution and have some impact. On what he says about the nature of some of what has been said in this House and outside, the Government make it very clear that we are absolutely opposed to antisemitism and Islamophobia in all their forms.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Last October, the Israeli Defence Minister disgracefully described the Palestinian people as “animals”, and that is exactly how Israel has treated them, forcibly displacing men, women, and children from the north to the south of Gaza and now forcibly displacing people again, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians and creating famine conditions. Now there is the risk of a massacre. What we are witnessing this week is a clear escalation of Israel’s total disregard for civilian life and international law. We need an immediate ceasefire, but will the Minister finally agree to impose stringent sanctions on Israel, not simply on individual settlers, by ending support for its military capability in Gaza, suspending arms export licences and offering support for ICJ and ICC processes investigating Israel’s criminal actions? Where is our humanity?
Mr Speaker
Order. Emotions are running high. I want to get everybody in, but I am concerned that we will not achieve it at this rate. Please can we help each other?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady sets out in lurid terms the issues we face and the problems the entire international community is trying to address—
Mr Mitchell
She shakes her head, but the fact is that the Government are doing everything they can, as we have set out—the Foreign Secretary has set it out, the Prime Minister has set it out and I have set it out from this Dispatch Box—to try to effect the change that she and I so desperately wish to see.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement with regard to the United Kingdom supporting the people of Gaza with humanitarian aid. The Minister knows that I have written to the Foreign Secretary asking that the United Kingdom hosts an international donors conference for Palestine, as it did with the international Friends of Syria group, which was the largest convening of humanitarian donors at a conference held in the United Kingdom. I understand that the Foreign Secretary thought that it was a good idea, so where is the UK in leading the way in setting up an international donors conference for Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to identify a political horizon that is constructive; when this ghastly fighting is over, we hope that people will lift their eyes to a political horizon. Britain is doing a lot of work to try to support that opportunity when it comes, and at that point there may well be a role for Britain in the international community to convene something of that sort.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The invasion of Rafah by the Israeli army comes alongside further discoveries of more than 390 bodies in mass graves at the al-Shifa and Nasser hospitals, with the UN confirming evidence of torture, summary executions and instances of people being buried alive and others buried with intravenous needles still in their arms. At the most recent Foreign Office questions, the Deputy Foreign Secretary said that it would be hard to see how an invasion of Rafah would not be in breach of international humanitarian law. Given what I have just outlined, do the UK Government finally consider the invasion of Rafah to be a breach of international humanitarian law—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
Alas, such questions are not susceptible to yes or no answers. We have made absolutely clear our view about an invasion of Rafah. The full reality of the specific incidents the hon. Gentleman mentions is not clear. We need to recognise, as the British Government have made clear, that full and transparent investigations of those matters is required.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Hamas have apparently said to mediators that they do not have 33 living hostages who fall into the categories of women, children, elderly and sick. That is an appalling body blow for the relatives of those held captive in Gaza for more than 200 days. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to acknowledge Israel’s right to take military action to get those people home?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the awful plight of the hostages, as she has done repeatedly in this House. She is also right to make it clear that, under international law, Israel has the right to self-defence and to take proportionate action to recover hostages.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Like many others, I pray that pressure from this House and elsewhere can bring this conflict to an end, but we all know that that will require agreement on an Arab-led body to maintain peace, order and security. How close are we to that agreement?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to try to lift people’s eyes to the political horizon so that from this intolerable misery can come hope for the future. A great deal of work is going on to pinpoint and augment the sinews of such a political future. The Foreign Secretary has been in the region repeatedly—especially on the west bank and in Ramallah. We will continue to do everything we can to plan for that, alongside trying to resolve the desperate situation in Rafah, on which I have tried to set out to the House what Britain is doing.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary reminds us that we are now in the seventh month. Talks are not making progress, the hostages still have not been released and border crossings are closing; we are entering another dark chapter in this terrible conflict. The UN World Food Programme warns of a full-blown famine unless more aid can be delivered. This House is asking what we can do, so will the Deputy Foreign Secretary update us on the building of that new maritime port off Gaza? That is something that the international community can control, of which we can have full stakeholder ownership. Once it is operational, will British troops be involved in aid delivery?
Mr Mitchell
In respect of my right hon. Friend’s final point, we will have to see what is required. Securing the temporary pier off the coast of Gaza is a way of getting additional aid in swiftly. He will know that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay is in the area, and is effectively the command post for this maritime effort. Britain is also thoroughly involved, just as it is from the air and from land, in detail in the maritime effort.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The UK Government have long warned Israel that an invasion of Rafah must not happen. Civilian lives must be protected and aid must enter Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu has shown once again that he is not listening to his allies or the ICJ, and that he is hellbent on turning the whole of Gaza into a graveyard. Will the UK Government urgently impose a full arms embargo on Israel, which is the only thing the UK can do to try to stop the starvation and potential genocide of those left in Rafah?
Mr Mitchell
The early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question set out what we are all trying to address. On an arms embargo, he will know that the amount of arms that Britain supplies is negligible. Equally, we operate an arms sales regime that is strictly governed by the rules that I have previously set out to the House. We act in line with the legal advice we receive, and we will continue to do so.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Of course I am greatly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza right now, but I am also greatly concerned that nothing happens that gives Hamas an increased foothold in Gaza and puts them in a position to inflict more evil and misery, like that we saw on 7 October. I am also concerned that some of the proposed ceasefire agreements seem to involve releasing hundreds of Hamas terrorists and do not involve all of the hostages being released. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary give me a commitment that we will intensify plans for a Hamas-free Gaza, so that innocent people in Gaza can look forward with hope to a future of peace?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Hamas can have no role in Gaza in the future. Much of the work we are doing in that respect is designed to help to build up the Palestinian Authority, so that it can be involved in governing both the west bank and Gaza, as soon as the time is right.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary’s answers today are virtually identical to those he gave, including to me, last Tuesday. The situation has escalated, but the Government’s response remains the same. There are 600,000 child hostages in Rafah alone. There is no proof of life from them, but millions of our people are watching on their phones today the proof of death and mutilation of many of them. The Government say they are doing everything they can, but they are not. You could now stop sending weapons to the people who are raining down this death and misery, and the Labour party could ask you to do that, but did not.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member says “you”, but it is not me who is responsible.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman says that the answers I gave to him and others last Tuesday are the same. Those answers reflect, in so far as the parameters of the situation are the same, the fact that we are pursuing long-term policies designed to tackle the evils that have been set out so clearly this afternoon in the House. He also makes a point about the number of children who are denied food and medicine in Rafah. He will know that through medical aid and the British contribution, not least through a field hospital, Britain has been careful to ensure that where we can bring medical help, particularly to children, we are doing so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The 130-plus hostages have now been held for 214 days, in barbaric conditions, subject to rape and torture, and denied medical access from the International Red Cross. The sad reality is that Israel put a deal on the table that could have led to there being a ceasefire right now, in return for the release of some—not all—of the hostages and of Palestinian prisoners who have been convicted in courts of law. Secretary Blinken described that as an “extraordinarily generous” offer, yet Hamas refuse to accept it. Does my right hon. Friend take the view that Hamas have it in their power to accept the position of a ceasefire, so that the violence and war can come to an end naturally as a result?
Mr Mitchell
The point that my hon. Friend makes, which has been echoed in different ways across the House, is that we must ensure we do everything we can to make certain that the negotiations that are taking place at the moment in Cairo make progress and are successful. That is what everyone should be hoping can be achieved tonight.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
What I think the Deputy Foreign Secretary has been saying to us today is that we have not seen a credible plan for evacuation from Rafah, and that there is currently an incursion into Rafah. If I add those two things up, what he is saying, between the lines, is that Israel has currently breached the rule that the UK has set. I do not think he wants to say it here, but that is what I am hearing. If there is no credible plan to move those people and the attack is ongoing, when can we expect, if not today, an update from the Dispatch Box on the UK’s position towards Israel, arms sales and other things that have been mentioned?
Mr Mitchell
I have given the hon. Lady the update from the Dispatch Box, in so far as there is an update to give. She asks me about the words that we are using in respect of Rafah. I have made it clear that we have not seen a credible plan for military action in Rafah so far, so we are not able to judge whether it would be in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that is the point that I have been making to the House.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Israel is our friend and ally, but that does not stop us questioning its actions. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary says that he wants to see much more aid getting into Gaza. The actions in Gaza over the weekend have only made those miles-long queues of lorries even greater. Air and sea drops are difficult. Will he today, on behalf of the Government, appeal to our allies to allow those in those miles-long queues in Rafah to rapidly go into Gaza and relieve the suffering of the people there?
Mr Mitchell
We continually appeal for more aid getting in by road. We have made arrangements for maritime entry, and entry from the air, but getting aid in through entry points on the road system is, by miles, the best way. I said at the outset of my remarks that we were very concerned indeed about the fact that no aid got in through Rafah or Kerem Shalom yesterday. We are doing everything we can, as we have been since the start of this crisis, to ensure that more aid is getting in, and we will continue to do so.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The pro-Hamas network of the press, politicians and protesters is becoming increasingly hysterical in its efforts to stop Israel pursuing those who carried out the pogrom of murder, rape, torture and hostage-taking last October. Does the Minister accept that if there is to be long-term peace in the middle east, we must continue to support Israel—in its battle against Hamas, in defending itself, and in pursuing those who cynically hide behind innocent civilians today, and tomorrow use their death as a propaganda weapon?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that Israel has the right to self-defence, but I am sure that he would accept that it must be exercised within international humanitarian law.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Minister, what does “finish the job” mean, with 40,000 people dead, many of whom are children? Is it finished when every single man, woman, child and baby is dead in Gaza? Is that what “finish the job” means? The Government said that the invasion of Rafah would not comply with international law. The Minister says that we do not supply that many arms to Israel, but if we were to stop even that supply, would it not send the message that our Government abide by, and believe in the importance of, international law?
Mr Mitchell
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that although the Government do not publish the legal advice that they receive, they always act in accordance with it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My constituent Emily Fares has family in Gaza. Here is her message:
“We heard from our family yesterday, half of them have now fled Rafah after threatening evacuation orders fell from the sky. When we spoke to them they did not know where they were going—they mentioned al-Mawasi, but there is no building for them to stay, it is not safe there. There are no food provisions there. There is nowhere to go to the toilet, nowhere to wash. They are now utterly destitute.”
Forced displacement is a war crime. The Minister’s Government have it in their power to set up a scheme for people desperate to join family in the UK. If not now, when?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Lady sets out the heart-rending reports that she has received. That is why the Government, with as much vigour and co-operation with our allies as possible, are trying to do the things that I have set out.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The initial Israeli offence in Rafah began last night, and it has been described as “limited”. An operation is not limited if it results in the evacuation and forced displacement of around 100,000 people. An operation is not limited if it results in all crossings being closed, and humanitarian aid being completely halted. The House cannot downplay the significance of what is happening. The Minister said that the Government are doing everything they can, but will he make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government do not support this offensive, and that there must be consequences under international law if it goes ahead?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have made it absolutely clear that we have yet to see a plan in respect of any military operations in Rafah, but we have always made it clear that any such plans must abide by international humanitarian law.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
For months, the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and told us that the Government are asking the Israeli Government to do this, or requesting that the Israeli Government do that. The harsh truth is that Israel is ignoring the UK Government, and that our Government now need to act. Words are not enough; we need action to show that there are consequences for breaching international law. The Government must act now by ending arms sales and suspending the trade talks, because if they do not do what is necessary and take action to help prevent the attack on Rafah, will the Israeli Government not see that as our Government giving them the green light to commit yet more war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have seen what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said, and how we are working with our allies and countries in the region to try to improve the situation. He will know, as the whole House knows, that there is no magic solution. We have to persist with the arguments and the logic that are so clearly set out in United Nations Security Council resolutions 2720 and 2728, and we will continue to do so.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Over the past seven months, I and many other Members across this House have come to the Chamber to gain an understanding of what the red lines are for the UK Government, but it feels like there are not many. It felt like it was not a red line when babies in Gaza were removed from the wombs of their dead mothers. It felt like it was not a red line when children in Gaza looked up to the sky, not knowing whether aid or bombs were going to drop on them. Now, in Rafah, displaced refugees once again face the threat of forcible transfer, and again it does not feel like this is a red line. Given that there is precedent for halting arms sales to Israel, will the UK Government finally halt those sales? If not, can the Deputy Foreign Secretary please explain to us what cost is associated with a Palestinian life? What are the red lines? What does Benjamin Netanyahu have to do that is too much?
Mr Mitchell
The case that the hon. Lady makes should encourage everyone—the Government, but everyone else as well—to do everything they can to bring an end to this catastrophic conflict, which is causing such pain to so many.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I will start as I always do: I condemn Hamas, and I think all refugees on both sides should be returned, but the attack on Rafah has started. The escalation of humanitarian disaster and catastrophe continues, in contravention of international law. There has been too much hand-wringing and making of excuses. We have to call it what it is: we stand here while people are starving and children are dying of malnutrition, and while there is no support for civilians in the area. The case has been made for hostages to be released; what will happen when Rafah is bombed? What will happen to those Israeli hostages? This policy is doomed from the start. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary call for a ceasefire now and move forward?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have consistently sought a pause, so that the hostages can get out and aid can get in, and have worked tirelessly, I would argue, to try to ensure that aid does get in, including by inventing new ways of trying to achieve that. He started his question by pointing out that an attack had started in Rafah, but he will also know that negotiations are proceeding in Cairo, and we must hope that those negotiations are successful as quickly as possible.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
With nowhere safe for Palestinians to go, and overcrowding in places such as al-Mawasi, I ask again: where exactly do the UK Government think Palestinians displaced from eastern Rafah should go next? If the Deputy Foreign Secretary has no answer, why does the Government’s response remain the same?
Mr Mitchell
As I have repeatedly made clear, we think that there needs to be a pause in the fighting that can, as I have expressed on numerous occasions in the House, lead to a sustainable ceasefire.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Is it not time to recognise that Israel’s actions are not a disproportionate response to 7 October, but in fact part of a concerted plan to make Gaza unliveable, and to extirpate the Palestinian population there, while encroaching on Palestinian territories in the occupied west bank? As a result, is it not time that we ceased arms sales, stopped being complicit in Israel’s military actions, reinstated United Nations Relief and Works Agency aid, and joined other nations in condemning this dreadful genocide?
Mr Mitchell
As I have said to the House before, I do not think it is helpful to use terms such as “genocide”. It is important that the House recognises that the findings of the International Court of Justice have been misrepresented in that respect. Joan Donoghue, a former president of the ICJ who was still serving at the time of the preliminary decision, stated that the ICJ
“did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible”.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister talks about a pause; the United Nations voted for a resolution calling for a ceasefire. The Minister is now talking about looking at Israeli military plans for Gaza, when the international community has thus far made it clear that there should not be an invasion of Gaza. It feels as if he is going backwards. His Government have so far failed to restore UNRWA funding, which is making the matter and the misery worse. He has failed to take action to ensure that the Government support the implementation of the ICJ’s provisional measures and the International Criminal Court investigation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has a good track record, but he is failing us by taking us backwards on this important issue. When will he take action on those specific measures?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we speed up questions? Otherwise, some people will not get in.
Mr Mitchell
I do not recognise the early part of the hon. Lady’s question, but let me assure her, as I have assured the House in the past, that we are doing everything we can to address the dreadful situation that she has so eloquently articulated.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Minister’s reply on 17 April to my written question referred to wanting
“to see Israel take greater care to limit its operations to military targets”.
Can he confirm that he is finally aware that Israel has not limited its onslaught to military targets? Given that the Government’s own licensing criteria refer to the
“risk that the items might be used to…facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law…or serious acts of violence against women or children”,
how can continuing to arm Israel in its bombardment of Palestinian civilians possibly be justified?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady refers to a number of early incidents, which have been condemned. She will know that, in respect of each of those incidents, the Government have said that we want an independent and credible investigation and transparent conclusions, so that we know why and how those acts took place.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Minister has said that the policy has not changed, but the facts on the ground have. Ordering the evacuation of 100,000 people is not a small operation; it is big one. He knows that the clear test for suspending arms sales is a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law, but he has told the House this afternoon that he has no assurances that that breach is impossible because he has not seen a plan. Can he tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Business and Trade, and when, about its legal obligation to suspend arms sales now? Will he lay that out for us this afternoon, before he gives evidence to the Select Committee on Business and Trade on 21 May?
Mr Mitchell
The position on arms sales and legal advice is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware. He knows that we always follow carefully the legal advice, although we do not publish it, and we always act in accordance with it. He will also know that, in the light of that legal advice, as the Foreign Secretary announced on 9 April, the UK position with regard to export licences remains unchanged.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Gaza is bleeding and Gaza is starving. At least 34,700 people are dead, the majority of them women and children, while a man-made famine continues to take hold. How much further do things need to escalate before this Government finally take action, restore UNRWA funding and—finally—call for an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member raises the issue of UNRWA, which was also raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and I should have responded on that point. Britain is currently in a position of not owing any money to UNRWA, we have said that we are considering the Colonna report and we are waiting for the Office of Internal Oversight Services report. In due course, we will come to the House to tell it the decision we have made, but it is important to recognise that at the current time Britain is fully paid up in respect of UNRWA’s money and work.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
More than 14,500 children have been killed in Gaza. Is the Minister proud that the UK continues to sell arms for use in this action?
Mr Mitchell
I am proud that Britain is doing everything it can and that the Government are bending every sinew to try to resolve this desperate situation and to make sure that we get aid into Gaza—“flood” Gaza with aid, as the Israeli Government have promised—but also get out the hostages, whose families have suffered so much since the appalling pogrom on 7 October.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary has said that he is still waiting to see the military plans from Israel in relation to Rafah, but we are all watching the consequences of the execution of those plans, which is already under way. Part of what we have seen overnight has been the very deliberate destruction of any signage that describes the territory as Gaza, and the taking down of Palestinian flags and replacing them with Israeli flags. That is not necessary in any way to neutralise any security threat. Has he asked Israel what it is doing and why it has done that, and can he give me one example of a consequence now that this red line has been crossed?
Mr Mitchell
We continue to make it clear to Israel that it should not in these circumstances be conducting military operations in Rafah until there is a proper plan that ensures it stands by its duties and responsibilities under international humanitarian law.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Thousands of children killed, hostages not released, Israel accused of war crimes, global outrage at Israel’s conduct and Hamas very much in being—this is how not to fight a war. Even war has rules, so given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, can the Minister make it clear that the UK Government do not support the Rafah offensive?
Mr Mitchell
I have made it crystal clear where the Government stand on the issue of any Rafah offensive, and we will continue to do everything we can—as I have clearly, I hope, set out to the House—to bring about an urgent resolution of this extraordinarily difficult and catastrophic situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In recent months, Israeli forces in Gaza have been responsible for the killing of aid workers, medics and journalists, including British citizens among them, and they have been responsible for the targeting of civilian infrastructure. In these circumstances, what possible basis can there be in law for continuing to supply weapons to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
The decisions on weapons licences are not made across the Floor of the House, nor are they made on the basis of emotion. They are made on the basis of the rules clearly set down. They are governed by the advice that we receive from lawyers, and we act in accordance with that advice.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The 1.4 million displaced people kettled in the south of the Gaza strip, precisely where they were told to go, are now facing mass starvation—a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. The Rafah offensive cannot and must not be allowed to happen. The Deputy Foreign Secretary says that he is yet to see a plan, credible or not. But a plan clearly exists if the Israeli authorities are asking 100,000 people to move. Given that he has not been clear to the House on consequences or advice from officials, if there is a breach of international law, at which point are the British Government also complicit?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have made it clear that all countries, and Israel in this conflict, must abide by international humanitarian law. The hon. Member will be well aware that there are consequences for not abiding by international humanitarian law. Britain stands by its own international commitments in that respect, and expects others to do likewise.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister said that we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians. That has been the case since the shameful atrocities of 7 October. Seven months on and 35,000 deaths on, we get the same lip service and the same drivel about urging Israel to follow international law, all while those on the Labour Front Bench gave them political cover. The UK shamefully continues to send arms to Israel, so if this is found to be a genocide, as I think it will be, and Netanyahu therefore a war criminal, this Government and therefore this country will be complicit, will they not?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member uses lurid language, and he should recognise what the Government are seeking to do, together with our allies in the region and internationally, and support the Government in that endeavour.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I want the Deputy Foreign Secretary to imagine that he was in Rafah. If bombs were being dropped on his family and there was no safe place for them to go, I am sure that he would want Governments such as ours to use every available lever to stop the attacks and that he would rightly expect to receive protection. So why is it different for Palestinians? What will it take for this Government to call for an immediate ceasefire, stop arms sales to Israel and hold Netanyahu to account for his war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is right to set out the jeopardy of the families that she describes in Rafah. That is why, on so many different fronts, the Government, along with their allies, are trying to bring about a resolution to these matters. The fact that so far we have not been fully successful in that endeavour should not deter us from continuing to try to do the right thing in those respects.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister raises concerns about misrepresentation, so let us be clear: those protesting in Israel in support of the hostages were protesting against Netanyahu and his approach in Rafah. That was not the impression that the Minister gave. Those protesters and hostage families recognise, as does this House, that military action in Rafah, the man-made famine, and the displacement of 100,000 people to a place where they are trying to put tents up in rubble, is not going to lead to the release of hostages or to the two-state solution. It will probably lead to further war crimes. The UK cannot sit this out, so will the Minister at least be honest? He will not tell us why he will not suspend arms sales. Will he tell us whether our intelligence shows that to date British-made weapons and technology have been used in Rafah—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member asks me at the beginning of her question about the extensive demonstrations that have been seen in Israel. She is right about that, which is why I said in an earlier answer that there was a plurality of views in Israel, many of which do not coincide with the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
There is nowhere safe for people in Rafah. There is no relief for people in northern Gaza who are starving as aid is being choked off again. The situation in Gaza is intolerable and there are clear breaches of international law. None of that serves the cause of peace or hastens the release of the hostages. So I ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who has been short on detail today: where is the accountability and, specifically, what actions is he taking to ensure the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution requiring a ceasefire and the ICJ interim judgment?
Mr Mitchell
I have clarified one aspect of the ICJ interim judgment, which I hope is helpful to the House. In respect of the details that the hon. Member says are lacking today, I put to her and the House that we have been very open and clear about what we expect to happen. We have argued, and we have used our money and our influence diplomatically to make progress in this matter, and we will continue to do so.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary knows that international law applies to all, or it matters to none. He speaks of the right of self-defence, and the House would agree with that, but what we have seen is far beyond self-defence. Outside of all the noise around that day, on 21 February, this House set out its position and said in black and white—no ifs, no buts—that we do not support the offensive into Rafah. That is the position of this House as we stand here today. Given what he has said, it is clear that he does not believe that an offensive into Rafah would be within international law, so is he in that circumstance content with UK-supplied arms being used in that offensive? If not, what will he do about it?
Mr Mitchell
I have made clear where the Government stand in respect of arms sales. There is a strong precedent for how we handle these issues, which certainly was pursued by the Opposition when they were in government. We will continue to operate in precisely the way I have set out to the House in the future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The consequences of Israel’s Rafah offensive for the Palestinians are absolutely clear: death, destruction, starvation and disease on a scale even greater than the horrors we have already witnessed. It beggars belief that the Deputy Foreign Secretary comes to this House and cannot set out any consequences for Israel from that offensive. We are here because our constituents hold us to account for what is happening in Gaza. Why does he refuse to hold Israel to account for what is happening there?
Mr Mitchell
I do not recognise the hon. Member’s description on the question of accountability. We have been very clear on accountability in this House to all sides in this appalling conflict, and we will continue to be so.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The first thing that aid workers returning from Gaza talk about is the smell, because there are rivers of sewage in Gaza at the moment. The assault on Rafah means displacing people from a place with very poor sanitation to a place with no sanitation and catastrophic health outcomes. Only UNWRA can provide the sanitation needs at scale to solve this. The EU, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan and Sweden have all restored funding to UNWRA. The Deputy Foreign Secretary has talked about the zero sum with UNWRA, but funding needs to be fully restored and increased to stop this health and sanitation catastrophe. Why will the Government not increase funding to UNWRA?
Mr Mitchell
I have made clear the process that the Government are going through in respect of our future commitments to UNWRA. I have also made clear that, as far as the current situation is concerned, we have fully funded and met our commitments to UNWRA, and we will make decisions when we have completed our review of the Colonna inquiry and the Office of Internal Oversight Services report from the United Nations.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The earlier comment that Israel should get on and finish the job sent a chill through this Chamber and through the homes of millions of people in our country, because they know what that means: increased numbers of children being massacred in Rafah, and I would like the Deputy Foreign Secretary to distance himself from that comment. Given the evidence in the High Court that says that the UK Government have not received any legal advice on potential violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza since 29 February, can he say what confidence he has that the £13 million-worth of aerial targeting equipment licensed for sale to Israel at the end of 2022, or the £10 million-worth of military support vehicle sales approved in May last year, will not result in the death of civilians in Rafah?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, any Member of the House who asks a question is responsible for what they say and how they say it. From the Dispatch Box, I have given an answer to all the questions that have been asked, whether he approves of them or not. On his second point, where, with great skill, he seeks to flush out a different answer, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject of arms sales.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
At a recent event in Glasgow, I heard the parish priest of Gaza describe the situation as almost like hell on earth. If an individual were to escape that hell in Gaza and make their way to the UK by irregular means, because there is no humanitarian visa and no safe and legal route, is it the Government’s position that such a person should be deported to Rwanda?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question. When he comes up with a specific case where there is a need for a response, I will of course give it to him.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Like most people here, I want to see an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and access to humanitarian aid, but quite frankly I have been absolutely gobsmacked by the Deputy Foreign Secretary’s response. I see no levers that the Government are using to influence the Israeli Government’s behaviour, and I see the playing with words around what our obligations are under international law in relation to our arms licensing process. As I am reading it here from the UN, if there is a “plausible risk of genocide” we should not be supplying arms to any country. The ICJ has already ruled that there is a plausible risk of genocide, so will the Deputy Foreign Secretary stop dancing on the head of a pin and do something about this?
Mr Mitchell
At the heart of the hon. Lady’s question is throwing the word “genocide” across the Chamber, which I do not think is helpful. If she heard what I said earlier, I was, I hope, specifically helpful to the House, in showing why what she said about the ICJ and genocide was totally inaccurate, by quoting the former president of the ICJ.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and a massive surge of aid going to all parts of Gaza. As we have warned for months, an Israeli offensive in Rafah would be catastrophic and it must not go ahead. What are the UK Government doing to ensure there is maximum international pressure to stop the offensive from happening and to urgently secure an agreement that includes an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that everyone wants to see a pause in the fighting, a sustainable ceasefire, aid getting in in very significant volumes and the hostages getting out. That is the policy of the British Government. We are doing everything we can, together with our allies, to achieve those aims and we will continue to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Israel has a right to defend its people, a right to have the 135 hostages released, and a right to destroy the four Hamas battalions still operating, whose goal is to murder everyone who is of Israeli or Jewish origin. Following the devastating breakdown of ceasefire talks, will the Minister outline how the Government can continue to work with Israel to see the hostages released and the end to hostilities, bearing in mind that families on both sides of the Gaza conflict are grieving and want an end to bloodshed, and want a future for all their children?
Mr Mitchell
As ever, my hon. Friend accurately, in his first three points, sets out the situation. On his final point, we will continue to work with everyone to try to achieve a resolution to these issues in the way I have set out today.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Having promised that Rafah would provide safe sanctuary, they now demand that the Palestinians must leave. Having frustrated humanitarian aid, they have now seized and closed the Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings. Having killed 100 journalists, they have now seized and closed down al-Jazeera in Gaza. On Israel’s Government, the former US middle east envoy, Dennis Ross, stated today:
“At a certain point, Netanyahu needs to choose Biden over Ben-Gvir, he needs to choose the hostages over Smotrich.”
Do the Government agree with him that we are at that moment?
Mr Mitchell
We listen to everyone who comments on these matters, and we have been at a number of critical points throughout these appalling circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question that getting aid through entry points which are currently shut was vital, and we completely agree. We supported the maritime and air initiatives for that reason, but opening up those entry points remains the most important and most effective way of getting aid and humanitarian relief to desperate people.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Everyone in the House knows that the trickling of aid into Gaza has been a stop-start affair, but it is a critical lifeline to support Palestinian civilians none the less. Today that lifeline has been cut off yet again. May I ask whether this represents a failure of the Government’s policy, may I ask whether it amounts to a breach of international humanitarian law, and may I also ask, like everyone else, what the consequences will be?
Mr Mitchell
The Government are always in favour of people being held to account for their actions. The hon. Lady will have gathered from what I have said at this Dispatch Box, today and on other occasions, that when there is a need for a transparent inquiry the Government always stand up for it. She said that aid had trickled into Gaza. She will know that as part of the Government’s intensive efforts, we have tried to ensure that the volume of aid is increased, and she will have heard what the Israeli Government said about flooding Gaza with aid. We are doing everything we can to increase the flow and hold the Israeli Government to account for what they have committed themselves to doing in respect of aid entering Gaza.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
We all want to see an immediate ceasefire on the part of all parties, and the release of all hostages. The United Nations reports:
“Cases of acute malnourishment among children continue to rise due to the unprecedented food crisis, deteriorating health, water and sanitation services, and widespread fear and stress undermining the ability of mothers to breastfeed their babies.”
Aid through Rafah has been very limited, and now that route has been cut off. Does the Minister consider the cutting off of aid routes to the civilian population to be a breach of the ICJ’s interim report?
Mr Mitchell
We are trying to ensure that we get aid into Gaza in a number of different ways. The hon. Lady will have heard me set out those ways, and I think we have taken advantage of all the opportunities we can find to increase the amount of aid getting in. We will continue to do everything we can to intensify that approach.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The remit of the International Criminal Court does not extend only to war criminals in the Israeli Government and in Hamas; it extends to any Government who have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent these atrocities. The Minister may be happy to hide behind the defence of “My lawyers said it was OK,” but does he respect the right of UK civil servants to take their own independent legal advice on these matters, and will he give an assurance that no British civil servants will be put under any pressure to do anything if they honestly believe that it would contribute to crimes against humanity or war crimes in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The roles and rights of British civil servants in these matters are very clearly codified, and the Government respect that absolutely.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Deputy Foreign Secretary for coming here today and responding to the urgent question for a few minutes short of an hour and a half.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is on this topic.
On Friday Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, published a letter pointing out the uncertainties and bias relating to the casualty statistics produced by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Many academic statisticians have also pointed out that the Hamas figures are metronomically linear and obviously fabricated. Members on all sides have used these terrorist figures, some with careless abandon, but Sir Robert said that
“it would be desirable for Ministers, Shadow Ministers and other Parliamentarians to state the source of any estimates they use in the public domain and to recognise”
their limitations. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, advise Members to heed the urging of the UK Statistics Authority and to be highly cautious about using Hamas casualty statistics?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. As he knows, comments made by Members in the Chamber are not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has successfully put his own view on the record.
Defence Personnel Data Breach
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I would like to update the House on a data incident involving activity by a malign actor. In recent days, the Ministry of Defence has identified indications that a malign actor gained access to part of the armed forces payment network. That is an external system, completely separate from the Ministry of Defence’s core network, and it is not connected to the main military human resources system. The House will wish to note that it is operated by a contractor, and there is evidence of potential failings by it, which may have made it easier for the malign actor to gain entry. A specialist security review of the contractor and its operations is under way, and appropriate steps will be taken.
The contractor-operated system in question holds personal data of regular and reserve personnel and some recently retired veterans. That includes names and bank details, and—in a smaller number of cases—addresses. In response to the incident, we have undertaken significant and immediate action, enacting a multi-point response plan to support and protect our people. I would like to provide the House with details of this eight-point plan.
First, we immediately took the system offline. That has secured it against similar future threats. Secondly, we have launched a full investigation, drawing on Cabinet Office support and specialist external expertise to examine the potential failings of the contractor and to minimise the risk of similar incidents.
Thirdly, while our initial investigations have found no evidence that any data has been removed, as a precaution we have today alerted those service personnel affected through the chain of command. In addition, we are also sending out letters to a small number of veterans who have retired and who may have been affected as an additional precaution. The House will wish to note that the vast majority of the UK veterans community is, however, unaffected.
Fourthly, specialist advice and guidance on data security has been shared and will be available on gov.uk later today. Fifthly, we have additionally set up a helpline to support individuals. The number for the helpline is 01249 596665, and it will be available from today.
Sixthly, we are providing a commercial personal data protection service for all service personnel. That facility will constantly monitor each individual’s personal data and notify them if there are any irregularities. Even though we do not believe that their information has been stolen, we intend to do that in order to bring further peace of mind.
Seventhly, welfare and financial advice is available where needed through each individual’s chains of command.
Eighthly, on becoming aware of the incident, the MOD stopped the processing of all payments and isolated the system. I want to provide further detail on that step. We are making changes to the system to ensure that it is secure before recommencing payments through it. I confirm, though, that, in the meantime, all April salaries have been paid. Some service personnel will have experienced a slight delay in receiving some expense payments; however, we expect that to be fully resolved today, with the money in their accounts by Friday.
Furthermore, I confirm that we are ensuring that all high-value payments remain unaffected. For example, all outstanding Forces Help to Buy and terminal benefits payments have been facilitated by alternative secure transfer. As mentioned, salary payments and pensions for veterans have not been affected, and we do not expect them to be.
For reasons of national security, we cannot release further details of the suspected cyber-activity behind the incident. However, I can confirm to the House that we do have indications that this was the suspected work of a malign actor, and we cannot rule out state involvement. The incident is further proof that the UK is facing rising and evolving threats. As I set out in my speech at Lancaster House in January, the world is, I am afraid, becoming somewhat more dangerous. Last month, the Government therefore announced an increase in defence spending to meet those new threats, reaching 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.
Following this incident, I can announce today that although this incident is entirely unrelated to our own MOD networks, we are also reviewing all personnel data networks to ensure that our people’s data is secure. This was the work of a malign actor who compromised a contractor-run network entirely separate from the MOD core system. However, as I have said, we cannot at this stage rule out state involvement from elsewhere. This eight-point plan outlines the immediate and significant action we are taking to protect our most precious resource: our people. Even though this occurred on a contractor’s system, with a malign actor involved—and we cannot rule out foreign state involvement—I want to apologise to the men and women affected. It should not have happened, and this eight-point plan seeks to ensure that it is put right and cannot happen again. I commend the statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
There is deep concern in the House about this grave security breach. The House will accept and note the Defence Secretary’s apology to armed forces personnel. We welcome the statement and the multipoint plan, and I thank him for early sight of it.
There will indeed be serious concern in the MOD that news of this big data breach was splashed across the media before the Defence Secretary could set out the facts to Parliament. My overriding concern is for the safety of serving personnel and veterans affected, worried about the risk to themselves and their families and hearing first about the data being hacked from the media and not from the MOD. Our military put their own security at risk when they serve on the frontline, and the very last thing they should have to worry about is their data security back home. Any such hostile action against our forces is utterly unacceptable, and their protection must be the first-order priority for the Defence Secretary, whether on operations abroad or for their data at home.
Despite the Defence Secretary’s statement, he still has many serious questions to answer. On the breach itself, who held the data that was hacked? When was it discovered? When were Ministers told? How was it leaked to the press? On the contractor, Defence Business Services says that Shared Services Connected Ltd has the MOD contract for core payroll and other business services. How many contracts does SSCL or its parent company, Sopra Steria, have with the MOD? What action has been taken by other Government Departments with similar SSCL contracts? On forces personnel, how many serving personnel and veterans have been hit by the hack? Has every serving full-timer and reservist been affected? What support is being offered?
On last night’s media reports, has a leak inquiry been launched? The MOD’s data security record is getting worse while threats against the UK continue to rise. There has been a threefold increase in MOD data breaches in the last five years, with 35 separate MOD breaches reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office and a £350,000 fine last December. Sub-contractors are well known to be the soft underbelly of security, and this latest hack raises serious questions about how the MOD manages its outsourced services.
The media have clearly been briefed that China is behind the hack, but the Defence Secretary tells us only about a “malign actor”. The Government rightly have a rigorous system before official accusations or attributions are made, but if this data breach is found to have been carried out by a hostile state, it would represent a very serious threat to our national security.
The Government have been warned. The Intelligence and Security Committee confirmed in its China report last year that cyber-attacks by hostile states now happen daily, and now our wider armed forces community are being targeted. However, the Committee also found there was no cross-Government China strategy, “completely inadequate” resourcing, and defence intelligence with no systematic record of resources focused on China.
The Defence Secretary knows that we are united in this House. We will not stand for any such attacks and, with threats increasing, such flaws in our cyber-security must be fixed. Only then will we make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Grant Shapps
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the united way in which this House tackles such issues, and there is much of what he says that I can agree with. He asked a number of questions and I will try to rattle off some responses to him.
The chosen date to announce this breach was today, to ensure that we would be able to secure the systems, back up and make sure everyone had their payments made, even if it was not through those systems. The media release last night was coincidental and unwelcome, as far as we were concerned, but unfortunately a lot of people are involved in this. He asked how many personnel had been affected, and the number is 272,000. I stress that that means it is up to that number; the number is still being refined and will probably end up lower, but none the less it is a large number of people and they may have noticed that bank payments were not made, so some of the media will have picked up on that.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the welfare of our personnel is our absolute first priority. I hope that he will agree that the eight-point plan focuses heavily on that and consists of ensuring that they are getting every bit of help and support required. Although we do not think the data is necessarily stolen, we are making the assumption that it has been in order to ensure that personnel get the support required, including through their own data monitoring services, which we are providing to each and every one of them, whether or not they are affected in this particular case.
The right hon. Gentleman has named the contractor involved, and I can confirm that that is the correct name, SSCL. As I mentioned in my statement, we have not only ordered a full review of its work within the MOD, but gone further and requested from the Cabinet Office a full review of its work across Government, and that is under way. I also briefly mentioned specialists being brought in to carry out a forensic investigation of the way this breach has operated.
Data breaches and this level of attack are nothing new, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out, and the House will be aware, that these attacks are growing, to the extent that the MOD’s networks are under attack millions of times per day, and they successfully repel those attacks millions of times per day. I stress again, particularly for servicemen and women listening, that this breach does not contain data that is on main MOD systems, and which is of even greater concern to us. It is right that we invest in protecting the systems to ensure that these data attacks are repelled and are not successful.
I would gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he might expect me to, that one of the best ways to do that is to invest in defence. That is why we are committed to a 2.5% increase, with a fixed timeline and a plan to pay for it, because it means we will be able to do more things, including investing further in cyber-security.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
SSCL was a joint venture with the Cabinet Office—I think there was a legacy minority stake held until last year. As is public, it also provides services to, from memory, the Metropolitan police, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remark that the investigation will be across Government, because absolutely all areas of Government that are exposed need to be doing the necessary. What specialist support is he receiving from elsewhere in Government, and when might the malign actor be named?
Grant Shapps
As my right hon. Friend will know, the process of getting towards naming—if, indeed, a state-sponsored actor is involved—is a specific process set out by the Butler reforms, and it does take some time to reach such conclusions.
My right hon. Friend asked specifically about the ongoing work with the particular contractor. The Cabinet Office is calling in specialist analysts who will carry out that work over the coming weeks. There are two separate tracks in respect of the contractor in the MOD but also, separately, in the different places across Government that my right hon. Friend rightly identified. I stress to the House—because I suspect that this will be brought up a number of times—that we expect very high standards from our contractors that work with the lives and livelihoods of our service personnel, so we will take all appropriate actions.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement. There was not really much to disagree with in the questions from the shadow Defence Secretary, but I will perhaps ask for a little bit extra. On what the Secretary of State said in relation to there being a malign actor, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been bobbing, will not miss the wall when he asks the Secretary of State a question.
There is a bit of concern about the contractor, because it has previous when it comes to delivering Government contracts. Notably, there was a scandal over NHS business services and the running of immigration application systems. Given the seriousness of this issue for the Ministry of Defence, will the Secretary of State advise the House on whether he has confidence that the contractor is able to continue to deliver the contract? Will he consider a review of the specific armed forces payment network element and whether the contract should be brought back in-house and delivered by the MoD, rather than by some conglomerate based in Paris?
Grant Shapps
I can confirm that that review is already under way, and I can go further by saying that I am deeply interested in how this contractor, or indeed any other, behaves. I cannot jump straight to the conclusion of that research, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to jump straight to the conclusion of a security review. To answer his question in a more straightforward way, if it were found that there is a better way to do this and we could not be satisfied on security, we would of course consider other options, such as those he suggested.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
With one in five residents of Rutland being veterans or serving personnel, this news will be very concerning to our communities. In the last six weeks it has been concluded that the Chinese Communist party has been responsible for hacking our armed forces, for conducting a cyber-attack on the Electoral Commission and for cyber-attacks on French and British MPs; a German aide was arrested on espionage charges; and two British men were charged with obtaining information useful to an enemy. Attacking our institutions and the people who defend or represent our people is not the act of an ally or a friend, and the British police have explicitly deemed it the action of an enemy. So what is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that we finally get a cross-Government consensus and get the Foreign Office to change our position on this matter? These are not the acts of a friend or ally; these are the actions of a country that considers itself anathema to our values, our activities and those who defend our interests.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend knows that we take the view that it is absolutely wrong for Members of Parliament to be in any way sanctioned by other countries—I know that she has been sanctioned; I have been sanctioned in other areas, although not by that particular country—and she is right to point out those cases that have been proven, including when the Deputy Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box recently and talked about electoral data. However, it is not the case in this circumstance—I do not want to mislead the House—that there is a proven connection. I stress that although we can see that a malign actor is involved, we have yet to make the full connection to a state. Although, as I pointed out in my statement, I cannot rule out that that might be the conclusion, but we have no evidence to conclude that yet.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When did the MOD last carry out an audit or review of the security precautions put in place to stop a cyber-attack with this contractor, if it did at all?
Grant Shapps
I can tell the House that, specifically for the MOD estate, we do that all the time—every day. With regard to this particular contract, I am aware that we have been in contact with the contractor about its cyber-security arrangements. For the purposes of national security, I cannot go into detail in the House, but I can perhaps provide the hon. Gentleman with a little further context separately, if that is helpful.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the helpline has been established so quickly, and I encourage the Government to be proactive in publishing advice on what people can do, for example to secure their bank accounts. What specialist advice does the MOD routinely seek before outsourcing data on service personnel to external contractors, and what standards must be verified before such outsourcing to a civilian organisation is allowed to take place?
Grant Shapps
It is obviously completely unacceptable for a contractor to leave our brave servicemen and women in this position, so we take it incredibly seriously and are very concerned by what has happened. My right hon. Friend asks about the checks that are in place. Of course, this contract long predates current Ministers, but we are checking through the details at considerable speed. As Members can imagine, we think the contractor has many questions to answer, and the ones that he asks will be included in them.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Intelligence and Security Committee reported last year that the Government were not protecting the UK sufficiently against cyber-attacks, including from China and particularly against our armed forces. The Secretary of State says today that he is sorry, but why did he fail to listen?
Grant Shapps
As I mentioned a few moments ago, the MOD successfully defends against millions and millions of attacks each day. The threat is very real—we have that in common with all critical national infrastructure, other Departments and many businesses. That is one reason why the Government have committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP, with a timeline attached, so we will have more money to spend on defending against those attacks. It is one thing to wish for that defence but another to act, which is what we have done.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. We know now that the British Government were warned by the American security services nearly two years ago that the Electoral Commission’s system had been hacked and that a number of MPs had been hacked. In the two-year period since, the Government have said nothing about China’s role—it was China, and they were warned at the time. In fact, we now know that far more MPs than we thought—nearly 40—were hacked, which was never reported at the time. I am concerned that the Government refuse to say who is responsible in this case, and that it may be another two years before we discover it or it is said publicly.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a very simple question? The FBI director has said that China has a cyber-espionage capacity so vast that it dwarfs everybody else’s, and we now know the record of all the direct attacks on us in the House, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister said in 2023 that the Government were considering placing the People’s Republic of China into the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, why in heaven’s name do we not now place this malign actor in that tier and deal with it accordingly?
Grant Shapps
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about attribution. MPs and the electoral register have been hacked, and he therefore encourages me to jump to the conclusion at the Dispatch Box that the malign actor is China in this case as well. I am simply unable to do that at this stage. He would expect me to follow due process, but I rather support his view that if attribution is required, it should happen in a timely and speedy manner. I undertake from the Dispatch Box to ensure that that happens in this case, and that we do not have many months or years pass by without it being mentioned.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The malign actor did not need to access the armed forces payment network to find out the salary of a British private soldier. A quick search of Google—or indeed Baidu—reveals that the salary of a British soldier on completion of initial training is less than £24,000 a year, which is less than the average UK salary of £35,000 a year. Russia is currently paying its soldiers a starting salary of more than 2.5 million roubles for fighting in Ukraine. Will the data breach by the Conservative Government’s contractor shame the UK Government into paying some of our lowest-paid servicepeople a decent salary?
Grant Shapps
That was creative, if nothing else. The fact that we paid a nearly 10% pay increase—9.7% last year—to many ranks of our armed forces, and that the Conservative party has committed to spending 2.5% of GDP, which is a pledge I have not heard repeated by the Opposition, rather suggests that we are prepared to do something about pay and retention.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the great seriousness with which the Secretary of State is taking this appalling data breach, because it really has been awful. I too am convinced that the prime contractors have very significant cyber-security requirements, so it is extremely unlikely that a prime contractor would be hacked in this way. My understanding is that subcontractors and sub-subcontractors down the food chain do not have the same level of cyber-control. We have something called the Cyber Essentials accreditation, but even that is not compulsory. Will the Secretary of State look at the way subcontractors and sub-subcontractors are checked for cyber-security and make that accreditation compulsory rather than voluntary?
Grant Shapps
The concerning thing about this particular incident is that SSCL is a primary contractor, rather than a subcontractor, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the wider issue. The answer is yes: our intention—indeed, our instruction—is to go right the way through. As I said in my initial comments, we take this incredibly seriously. It is unacceptable that it happened, and we will take every possible measure, once we have got to the forensic truth of what happened, including against the contractor and any subcontractors.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I understand why the Secretary of State is reluctant to name China, but it seems that every Member in this Chamber believes it is probably responsible for the breach; that is certainly what the media are reporting. I hope the Secretary of State is able to commit to a very clear timescale for coming back with some clarity on that.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about a point that has been made by a number of Members. The outsourced contractors are clearly the weak spot in our system. Will he commit to examining and analysing every single subcontractor, with a view to bringing them back in house in the light of the threats we face?
Grant Shapps
The MOD, as is the case with most militaries, uses a lot of contractors and subcontractors. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly: yes, the review will encompass all that work, and if we believe we can do this better—many Members may conclude that this would not have happened had that data been held in the MOD and on our own systems—we will endeavour to do that.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
First, I thank the Minister for his call this morning. It is a little frustrating to be told that one’s bank details and national insurance number are winging their way to Beijing or wherever they have gone. Given that I was also caught up in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China breach, I wonder whether I am in the running to be the most hacked MP in Britain.
If it was weak security with the contractor, does that mean it was not a state actor? If the contractor had a high level of security, do we assume it is more likely that a state actor was behind the breach? If there was a state actor behind it, do we assume that it is China, because it has form on stealing mass data and has done so from the US federal Government?
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. Friend for his service, and I am sorry that he had to receive that phone call about what has happened. I stress that we do not believe the data has necessarily been stolen—there is a danger of running a couple of steps ahead. We have responded with the eight-point plan as if it has been stolen, because we think that is the best position to put everybody in, including my hon. Friend, given the seriousness of the potential breach. I will struggle to answer the detail of the rest of his questions for national security reasons that I hope he will understand. Once again, I undertake that the next stage of this, which is a process set out in the Butler reforms, will be carried out quickly and efficiently.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We know that the Government consider it likely that China is responsible for this hack, coming hot on the heels of the revelation that it was responsible for the hack on the Electoral Commission, as was confirmed in March. If it transpires that China is again responsible, will the Government finally stop talking tough on China and labelling it an “epoch-defining challenge”, and start acting accordingly by taking serious measures up to and including diplomatic expulsions?
Grant Shapps
I have outlined the Government’s position on this a couple of times, but I do want to note that the hon. Gentleman says “consider it likely”; I am saying that I cannot rule it out. Those are two different things. We need to allow for this forensic work to go ahead before we start attributing it. However, if there is attribution, there will clearly also be consequences.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Well, at least it wasn’t Capita. This will be very worrying for service personnel and their families and for veterans, who will feel disrespected by the fact that the Government seem to have briefed that it was China overnight and then not had the nerve to confirm that in the House today because someone rang up from the Foreign Office and said, “Don’t do that.” When, oh when, will we start standing up to the Chinese in the way that they are clearly not frightened of doing to us?
Grant Shapps
Indeed, it was not my right hon. Friend’s favourite contractor on this particular occasion. None the less, we will be carrying out a comprehensive review of the contractor’s work. Again, I want to make it clear to the House that we did absolutely everything that we could to avoid this being made public until I had the opportunity to come to the House. We proactively endeavoured to ensure that our own approach towards removing the data that was online—closing that system down, ensuring the personnel were paid, making sure the alternative payments system was in place for expenses and other things—could all happen ideally before we came to the House. We most certainly did not wish to see nor brief out the story. Unfortunately, as a large number of people were impacted or potentially impacted, it was almost impossible to expect them not to go and talk about it, and I believe that that is how it came into the public domain.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. He is a champion for ensuring that these contractors do the jobs they are actually paid to do. We are now trawling through all the detail and, as I have said before, we will not leave this hanging. We will take every appropriate action because, as he might imagine, my entire team and I are very concerned about the welfare of our personnel—brave men and women who do not deserve to have this happen to them. We do not want to see it happen in the name of the MOD, either.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his positive response in trying to assure our personnel. We saw this type of data breach with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, where information on officers and staff leaked, and the stress was palpable. What steps are the Secretary of State and Government taking to ensure that staff feel safe and protected, and that there is funding available for service personnel protection if necessary?
Grant Shapps
One big difference in this case is that it does not involve a member of armed forces personnel who did something wrong—this was done to them. It is not a case of someone opening an attachment or something of that nature. This is something that has happened through the system that the contractor ran. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus, as I hope I have today and as has the whole House, on the personnel and what it means to them, and in particular on reassuring them. I am grateful for the attitude and approach of the House, which I think will have largely done that for service personnel.
I will not reiterate each of the eight points. However, through the chain of command, the phone number that is now available, the information going on gov.uk and the wraparound services, including the fraud-checking service that staff will now individually have access to and many others, I hope personnel are reassured. Remember that we do not think the data has necessarily been stolen, but we are behaving as if it has in order to provide absolute security.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House so speedily with a great deal about the action that is being taken. I am concerned both about the reluctance to name the malign actor and about the tendency for things to get lost in the Cabinet Office, which has become such a morass of activity.
Who in the Cabinet Office is charged with this responsibility? Is it the National Security Adviser? Which Cabinet committee is overseeing this? Is it the National Security Council itself? I hope so. Which Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff is responsible for cyber-security? Who will be responsible for making sure that all these elements are working together to conduct this review very thoroughly? I suggest that the Secretary of State brings forward a White Paper very shortly on the lessons learned from this incident and others, to provide the reassurance that not least our service personnel need.
Grant Shapps
I stress again that it is not that I am reluctant to name the malign actor, but that we need more information before I can do so. We are not trying to avoid giving the House this information; we need to be certain before we are able to do so.
My hon. Friend asks who in the Cabinet Office is charged with this responsibility, and I have spoken directly with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure it is set from the very highest levels. My hon. Friend also asks who has overall responsibility, and it is the excellent Chief of Defence People, Phil Hally, who is very good. He has now chaired, I think, 11 internal meetings on this issue, in order to get everything ready for this afternoon. As I have said, it is with deep regret that we did not quite make it to today before the news started to break late last night. Phil Hally is responsible and will continue to be responsible for those efforts.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As an affected veteran, I feel a responsibility for representing and championing my former colleagues in this matter. Will the Defence Secretary please assure me on three particular areas? First, will he assure me that an appropriate diplomatic protest has been made, or will be made, to the guilty party? Secondly, will assurance be given to the House in due course that the firewall protocols given to defence contractors will match or exceed those given to the MOD itself? Thirdly, will he assure me that the information that has been hacked, if indeed it has been hacked, will be sacrosanct so that no malign actor can gain access to bank accounts after this event?
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. He makes three excellent points, and I absolutely assure him that the guilty party will be brought to book. I also assure him that the MOD was not responsible for failing to issue correct instructions, in terms of the contractual requirement to keep this data safe.
Members on both sides of the House have pushed this point hard, and I will make sure that it is not buried or lost in process. I will return to this House. I cannot promise to do that in the next few days, as the Butler process takes a while, but I will not allow it to drop. The House has my undertaking on that issue.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May I delve into how veterans are being reassured that their data is not being used by, for example, financial scammers? As a Royal Air Force veteran, I am the proud president of the RAF Association in Huddersfield, which I know will be very worried about this issue. Will the Secretary of State be using forces charities such as the Royal Air Forces Association, the Royal British Legion, the RAF Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and many more to reassure veterans that their data will not be used by financial scammers?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have written to each of those organisations today, both to enlist their support and to provide the detail and information to which the House has been privy this afternoon.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s specific question, a commercial organisation will now be monitoring the personal data of the individuals affected. That would include, for example, the data being used in a suspicious way, appearing on the dark web, or any other outcome. In a way, an additional layer of security will be attached to these individuals. Again, I can confirm that, as of this moment, we have seen no suspicious activity at all on those accounts.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is there any indication of how the thief wanted to use the data, if they have actually got it? Have all the staff been advised to change accounts, passwords and internet access in every way, so that no further harm can occur?
Grant Shapps
In answer to the first point, no, there is no indication. On the second point, our regular approach—I speak as someone with an MOD account—is that passwords have to be changed regularly in order to continue to use the system, so those security measures are in place. People do not need to change their bank accounts as a result of this incident. Apart from anything else, using someone’s bank details to make a payment somewhere else would be technically difficult, as a new account would need two-factor authentication, so it is not necessary for people to change their accounts. The monitoring service will provide an overlay of additional reassurance to them.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement in qualifying the scale of the breach and the operational changes he is going to introduce. More strategically, it illustrates how the changing character of conflict is impacting our world, with the digital terrain being as important as the physical terrain. That said, had this been a physical, kinetic attack on MOD main building, the House would be demanding some form of proportionate response. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be a NATO article 5 situation. Will the Secretary of State consider the bigger picture, because the rules of engagement and the Geneva conventions are out of date? The Secretary of State is right to say that threats are rising and evolving, but we need to address how errant nations are held to account and what constitutes a proportionate response to a cyber-attack.
Grant Shapps
It is certainly true to say that a malign actor is involved—we know that. It is possible, and I cannot rule it out, that it is attached to a country, but as soon as I say that everyone assumes it therefore is attached to a country. I am not in a position to confirm that at this point, simply because incredibly detailed forensic work is required to get to that point. My right hon. Friend is right that people differentiate, in some senses, between physical attacks and cyber-attacks, but both can be incredibly serious and have enormous consequences. Again, because we do not believe that the information has, in fact, been stolen and because we are monitoring it very carefully through the eight different measures, I stress that in this case there is a degree of feeling that we have caught it and we are controlling it. However, my right hon. Friend’s wider point is absolutely correct.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has been clear about the serious nature of the breach; he has said so several times from the Dispatch Box. He has also said that the contractor failed to follow MOD guidelines and therefore is culpable, to some degree, as far as we can see so far. What sanctions are in place to penalise that contractor? What sanctions will the Secretary of State apply at the limit if that contractor is found to be in breach? Finally, he mentioned addresses. Roughly how many addresses have potentially been leaked? I am deeply concerned not just about bank details but about the safety and wellbeing of those soldiers.
Grant Shapps
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern about the safety and wellbeing of those soldiers. Thankfully, the answer is that very few addresses have been leaked—a very tiny number. On sanctions and what will happen, we must not jump the order of events. We have to be confident we are able to run through the audit trail of exactly what has happened. However, I again make it clear from the Dispatch Box that if negligence has been involved, then we will take the strongest possible action as a result. He and the whole House understand that that is our concern this afternoon.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that there is cross-Government working to identify the vulnerabilities in the system? We have heard this afternoon that a subcontractor’s involvement was identified as a vulnerable point. Recently, my constituents had their medical records hacked because, as a small, rural authority, it was identified as more vulnerable. Are we, across Government and across the United Kingdom, seeking out those vulnerabilities to make our data safer from malign actors and indeed from plain criminals?
Grant Shapps
I reassure my right hon. Friend that the reason I immediately asked the Cabinet Office to be involved is that, although I can do checks on that contractor and others across the MOD and MOD-related contracts, I cannot do so across the rest of Government. That is exactly the job that the Cabinet Office will now undertake. When data is stolen—or rather exposed and potentially stolen—it causes a great deal of concern and we want to ensure that that cannot happen. I reiterate that the data was not being held by the MOD systems and did not affect the MOD systems, but as Secretary of State I recognise that our responsibility extends to whoever is holding the data for our personnel, and I apologise to those involved again. This should never have happened and we will make sure it is put right.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Defence Secretary has reassured us that there is no evidence yet of any data having been removed and there is no suggestion that the MOD’s core system and HR network have been compromised. Can he confirm whether there is any evidence yet of ransomware being used? What assessment has he made of whether any data has been published? Although he reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that the number of addresses that have been accessed is small, can he confirm that those veterans whose addresses have been accessed will be advised accordingly so that they can take security precautions, if need be?
Lastly, on the wider points, can the telephone helpline be used by anyone concerned about late payment of miscellaneous expenses? Will the Secretary of State relay to the Deputy Prime Minister my strong view that the time is ripe for a Cyber Re, or reinsurance, in the same way that we created Flood Re a while back, precisely to deal with the likely costs for small authorities, such as those alluded to, of having to repair their cyber-defences against such future attacks?
Grant Shapps
It is characteristic of my hon. Friend to include five questions in his one. The answers are: no evidence of ransomware; no evidence of data published; a very small number of addresses were accessed, and yes, those people will be contacted individually or as a group if need be; and late payments are unlikely to cause much of a difficulty, as I have said, because they will all be resolved by today and the money will be in people’s accounts either now or by the end of the week. However, if personnel have experienced any particular issues, they should take that initially through their chain of command. The phone number is also available and individual instances will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as he would expect. He has probably taken me slightly out of my area on Cyber Re, which I think will be something for the Cabinet Office to consider. It sounds like a smart idea, but I am afraid he has got me outside my tracks.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As the hon. Gentleman waited very patiently to ask those last five questions, I let him get away with it. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for responding to questions for over three quarters of an hour.
Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (New Drivers)
Tuesday 7th May 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (New Drivers) Bill 2023-24 View all Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (New Drivers) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about licences issued to new drivers for the period of six months after the issuing of the licence, for the purpose of increasing safety for road users; and for connected purposes.
Since I was elected in 2021 as the Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, road safety has been one of my top priorities and an issue frequently raised with me by concerned constituents. Speeding drivers, high-performance rental vehicles, off-road motorbikes and quad bikes, inconsiderate and dangerous parking and reckless driving blight our towns and villages.
Not long after my election, our community was shocked by a tragic road traffic incident on White Lee Road in Heckmondwike, in which a much-loved local woman lost her life. Our thoughts remain with her family and friends. I have therefore worked closely with the excellent Batley and Spen neighbourhood policing team, local councillors and the West Yorkshire deputy mayor for policing and crime, Alison Lowe, to support the Vision Zero strategy to eliminate fatal collisions on our roads.
That is an ambitious target, but one that other regions and countries have shown is possible with the right measures and resourcing. However, it requires a concerted effort to get there because, despite all the positive advances in road safety in recent decades—from the installation of seatbelts and airbags to drink-driving testing, speed limits, speed cameras and MOTs—it is a tragic and horrifying fact that 29,742 individuals were killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads in 2022. As I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a startling statistic. We must never forget that, behind it, thousands of families across the country are grieving and going through unimaginable pain. Lives are changed forever and families torn apart by tragic and often avoidable collisions.
Indeed, I was inspired to introduce the Bill following a meeting that I and colleagues had with Dr Ian Greenwood. Fifteen years ago, he tragically lost his 12-year-old daughter, Alice, in a horrific crash involving a young, inexperienced driver. That 18-year-old driver was racing four of his friends at night time on a rural road when they crashed into the car carrying Ian’s two children and their mother. Alice, whose sister and mum were seriously injured, was killed. The 18-year-old driver and their 16-year-old passenger were also killed—three young lives lost. In the face of such enormous personal grief, Ian has steadfastly and courageously campaigned for road safety reform, including the introduction of graduated driving licences.
Sadly, Ian is not alone. On “BBC Breakfast” this morning, we heard from Sam Robinson, the mother of Billy, who was in the passenger seat of a packed, overcrowded car with seven of his teenage friends when it crashed on the way to a birthday party. Billy and the driver tragically lost their lives. The consequences of that awful day will last forever. Ian and Sam’s stories are heartbreaking. I know how painful their grief is, and I hope that we can remember them and many others today.
The Bill is not about taking away young people’s freedom or fun; it is about trying to save their lives. By giving them the opportunity to build their experience and confidence during the first six months of driving after passing their test, we can try to ensure they have a happy lifetime of driving and the future that they deserve. Road fatalities and serious injuries are not inevitable. Our roads can and must be safer. As the Transport Secretary himself said in March:
“Despite Britain having some of the safest roads in the world, the levels of serious injury and road deaths remain too high.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 776.]
Although there are many ways in which we can and should look at improving road safety, the Bill focuses on one important area of significance: new, often young, drivers who have just passed their test. In 2022, around a fifth of all deaths or serious injuries on our roads were a result of collisions involving cars driven by a young driver. Many of us will remember—just about—becoming new drivers. There is the excitement of passing our test, the independence, the freedom, the feeling of growing up, but what about the inexperience, the nervousness, the underlying lack of confidence, or, sometimes, the overconfidence?
We have a few lessons on local roads that we probably already know quite well, read the highway code back to front, learn all the road signs, master the dreaded parallel parking and then complete a 40-minute practical test before being presented, excitingly, with our full licence for life. We want to celebrate with our mates—maybe with a road trip, or perhaps we offer to be the designated driver on a night out—but we are now driving in a variety of conditions, without the support or guidance of an instructor or an experienced driver. I am sure that we can all see the problem. The danger is obvious.
It is hardly surprising then that, according to the Department for Transport, when compared with vehicles driven by drivers of other ages, the most common contributory factors for fatal or serious collisions involving younger drivers was
“driver failed to look properly”,
followed by “loss of control,” “exceeding speed limit” and “learner or inexperienced driver.” The AA has also found that 71% of fatal collisions involving young drivers were on rural roads—roads where the driver is often unfamiliar with single lanes and blind corners, and roads where experience would instil caution—but currently driving lessons and tests may have failed to give the necessary experience. All this is reflected in the research produced by ALA Insurance Brokers in 2017, which found that almost 28% of drivers aged 25 to 34 admitted to being involved in a crash in their first year of driving.
This is where I believe we can take immediate action to increase safety on our roads. The Bill I am presenting today would place restrictions on newly qualified drivers for the first six months immediately after they pass their test, following consultation. Substantial evidence shows that, during that time, drivers are statistically much more likely to be involved in a collision, often with devastating consequences.
Other countries that have successfully introduced graduated driving licences have included zero-alcohol consumption for newly qualified drivers, as well as restrictions on the number of passengers in the car and on night-time driving, with exemptions, obviously, for work, medical and emergency reasons. Additional options to consider are the inclusion of rural roads, motorways or dual carriageways as part of the driving test, a requirement during driving lessons that a driver gains experience on different road conditions, and consideration of the engine sizes new drivers are permitted to drive within the first few months of passing their tests.
We should consult widely in this country, including with young drivers themselves—although I have to say that the ones I have spoken to would actually welcome some of these changes—and we have to look to other countries and their successful implementation of graduated driving licences. For example, in New Zealand, its graduated driving licence scheme has led to a 23% reduction in car collision injuries for 15 to 19-year-olds and a 12% reduction for 20 to 24-year-olds. We should be looking to countries such as New Zealand, as well as Canada, Sweden and Australia, and learning from best practice.
I am pleased that both the AA and the RAC are fully supporting the Bill, and that graduated driving licences more broadly are also supported by the road safety charity Brake, the Association of British Insurers, Project EDWARD—Every Day Without A Road Death—and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Indeed, Edmund King, president of the AA, recently said to “BBC Breakfast” that a six-month graduated driving licence
“is a very small price to pay, and in that 6 months the drivers can get much more experience on the road”.
I therefore strongly believe that this proposal will not only have a very direct effect in reducing the contributing factors to road collisions, but, most importantly, act as a reminder to all novice drivers—actually, regardless of age—that during their first few months driving on the road they should take additional caution, and take steps to gradually build their confidence and experience on different road types, in different conditions and at different times of day.
I hope Members across the House will consider this proposal seriously and work with me, ahead of Second Reading, to ensure the measures in the Bill are proportionate, evidence-led—the evidence is clear—and effective at significantly reducing road traffic collisions. Finally, I would like to place on record my personal thanks to Ian Greenwood, who I mentioned earlier, whose devastating personal experience prompted his extensive research and campaigning on this issue, which has assisted me throughout. I hope Members will agree that this relatively small measure will be highly effective and, in the years to come, only lead us to question—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hint was that this is a ten-minute rule Bill, and we have hit the 10 minutes.
This would be the opportunity, if anybody wishes to oppose the Bill, to make a speech. I have had no indication of anybody wishing to do so, and I see no one, so I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kim Leadbeater, Tim Loughton, Alicia Kearns, Edward Timpson, Holly Lynch, Lilian Greenwood, Mr Barry Sheerman, Naz Shah and Mrs Paulette Hamilton present the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May, and to be printed (Bill 212).
Defence
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defence.
In recent weeks, our armed forces have been required to use force to protect international shipping and to protect our allies. Our armed forces are the best of us; we increasingly need them, and we are increasingly asking more of them as well. When the threat picture changes, the first duty of Government is to respond, which is why this Government have committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, the biggest increase in spending for a generation.
Grant Shapps
I will just make a bit of progress first, keen as the right hon. Gentleman is. That will result in a £75 billion cash boost to our nation’s defences over six years from a flat cash baseline. Although we have had a long-held commitment to hit 2.5% when financial conditions allow, delivering that commitment now involves choices.
Grant Shapps
No, it does not. The outcome from the defence budget, which must be the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman is judging last year’s, includes supplementaries. In particular, it now includes the additional half a billion, which I can tell the right hon. Gentleman I chose to send to Ukraine as an active decision, rather than it coming into our main budget; I feel that that would have the support of the House. When we include all that, the budget increases. In any case, it already increased by 1.8%.
Grant Shapps
I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue this debate, but the fact is that it does as soon as we include the supplementaries.
Grant Shapps
I will not for the moment, because this point has been discussed ad infinitum. In any case, we are offering another £75 billion in cash terms, which I note that the Labour party has yet to do because the funding requires a determination, in our case, to get the civil service back to pre-covid levels and to help pay for the expansion of our defence. It requires sound economic management and, above all, an understanding that an investment in deterrence today is wiser and less painful than paying to fight a war tomorrow.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State not just confirmed that the amount of money in the budget designated for the British armed forces has, in fact, gone down?
Grant Shapps
No, I still have not confirmed that because, before the extra half a billion, if we take the outcome from last year and the amount that was pledged for this year—including supplementaries, to be clear, which is the same basis as last year—it is an increase of 1.8%. However, this is rather beside the point, because since the time we debated this question at the Select Committee on Defence, we have committed to putting in another £75 billion in cash terms from the baseline over the next six years.
Grant Shapps
I think the right hon. Gentleman will want me to complete this section. I would be interested to hear him apply that commitment to his own Front Benchers, because this Conservative £75 billion rise in defence spending is highly significant. It is precisely what our armed forces need to respond to axes of authoritarian states that are trying to reshape the world in their image, and it is the right thing to do.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Rather than Labour Members trying to poke holes in this commitment, would it not be better if they committed to doing the same thing?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend has pre-empted a passage a little later in my speech, in which I suggest that those right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches who want to see more money go into defence might first persuade their own Front Benchers to follow our lead and ensure that we get more money into it. I am very concerned about the apparent failure of the Labour party to match our funding commitment. Labour Members are being incredibly evasive about funding. In addition to not confirming whether they will do the 2.5% in the next six years—we look forward to hearing whether they confirm that—they are also promising, or perhaps I should say threatening, a review of defence. Our enemies will waste no time in putting the UK in their sights if they think that the next thing that would happen is a multi-year review—a waste of time and money that should instead be spent on our brave servicemen and women. Labour’s apparent refusal to follow our lead and back our fully funded spending plans would decimate our armed forces by cutting up to £75 billion from defence.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Why does the Secretary of State think that Paul Johnson, in an article on Monday 29 April, said:
“What annoyed me was not the commitment…”—
to the 2.5%—
“It was all about the misleading and opaque way in which the additional spending was presented. When it wanted to make it look big, the Government claimed it would boost spending by £75 billion; when it wanted to appear fiscally responsible… It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes, or even the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to see that there might be something not quite consistent about these claims.”
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the way this is presented is entirely the usual way for the Treasury to present increases in spending. If I take him back to the previous cash boost for defence—I think it was £24 billion and it was described, I think, as being over five years—it was presented on exactly the same basis, and I do not remember the hon. Gentleman making the same point then. Regardless of the numbers, surely the point is this: will the Labour party commit to this timeline?
Labour Members said that they wanted to get to 2.5%, and that they would do it when conditions allow. We have now said that we know conditions will allow because of the management of the economy. Will they follow us, or will they send their Back Benchers out to criticise an increase, even though their own Front Benchers will not match it themselves? Perhaps we should not be surprised, given that the Leader of the Opposition, not once but twice backed Jeremy Corbyn—sorry, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—to be Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition proclaims his support for our nuclear deterrent, yet he has stacked his Front Bench with anti-nuclear campaigners—I counted 11 who voted against Trident—while he goes up to Barrow and claims he is all in favour.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Secretary of State is doing, like last time he came out on this debate, his used-car salesman act. The fact of the matter is clear: the only way we get to £75 billion is if we freeze the defence budget for the next six years. Is he going to do that? Given what he announced last week, will he explain first where the money is coming from, and secondly what is the proportion of resource departmental expenditure limits and capital departmental expenditure limits? There is no detail at all. It is just an empty promise and a political slogan that he is batting around as his usual avuncular self.
Grant Shapps
The way the right hon. Gentleman tries to represent it is simply not true. If it were meaningless, why has his own party not taken the difficult decisions to get to the £75 billion which, to be clear, is the amount additional to what is currently programmed in? He is right that defence budgets may have increased over time, but £75 billion is still the additional figure. If it is so straightforward, why doesn’t he encourage those on the Labour Front Bench to do it? I think I know the answer. He asks how it will be paid for, and it will largely be paid for by cutting the civil service back down to pre-covid levels. Labour Members do not want to cut 72,000 from the workforce of the civil service so that it goes back down to pre-covid levels, and because of that they will not follow us in our commitment. That shows where their choices lie.
Labour Members say they want 2.5% and are keen to see that, but they are not willing to put in place the difficult decisions to reach that. By failing to take those decisions, they will be failing to fund our armed forces if they were to come into office. That would leave our nation more vulnerable, and play directly into the hands of our adversaries, including Putin.
In January, I set out a comprehensive case for increasing defence spending in response to what I described as “a more dangerous world”. After all, Putin is on the march, pursuing wars in the east of Europe while backing greater political influence and assassinations in the west. China has certainly become a lot more assertive in recent years. Russian mercenaries, Islamic extremists and military strongmen have overrun democracies and societies in Africa.
As Iran has nourished and manipulated its proxy militia and groups around the middle east, the Islamic republic itself has for the first time carried out an aerial assault on a democratic near-neighbour, Israel. Its Hamas terrorist allies brought mass murder to Israelis on 7 October, and they have brought pain to the Palestinians—both before and since—with the Hamas approach to running that area. Meanwhile, one of Iran’s other key allies—the Houthis—continues to hold global trade hostage in the Red sea. So, from Moscow to Tehran and from Beijing to Pyongyang, a network of authoritarian states is pressuring allies and our interests. Working together, they are more connected than they have ever been before.
Bob Seely
The Secretary of State is making a really important point. Without sounding too academic, do we actually know what war is nowadays? Clearly, there is conventional war, which we recognise, but what he is talking about is proxy war. Earlier, we were discussing cyber-attacks, China’s and Russia’s role in this sort of hybrid war, and the integration of military and non-military means, which is behind military doctrines in an increasing number of countries. Are we joined up enough to be able to fight these modern conflicts, which are part military and part non-military? Do we actually understand what conflict is in this century?
Grant Shapps
It is true—my hon. Friend will know this as well as or better than me—that in each generation the world relearns what it is to have conflict. We have seen that with Russia, we are seeing it at the moment in the middle east, and we have seen it, as discussed, through various cyber-activities, which are in fact entirely continuous; it is just that most of them do not succeed.
The world has changed, the defence reviews and the refresh looked to try to learn those lessons. One of the things, not least because of Britain’s forward-leaning approach to the war in Ukraine, has been that we have been at the forefront of learning some of those new lessons with drones and other technologies; indeed, we have been speeding up the introduction of new technologies such as laser weapons. It is important that we think about this as a whole rather than just through the traditional eyes of three armed services. We now have to think about space and the domain in cyber, and that is what our strategic command does.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a good case. Does he agree that, as this extra money is available, we should ensure that more of it is spent on procuring weapons and military requirements here in the United Kingdom, because we cannot be properly defended unless we can make our own military vehicles, our own steel and our own explosives? We are short of capacity.
Grant Shapps
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is incredibly important that we develop—or, rather, further develop—our own domestic defence industrial base. That is one of the reasons why we have spoken about putting that industrial base on a war footing, and it is one of the reasons why—this is not, as has been suggested, some sort of cheap gibe—it is important that the Government, or indeed the Opposition if they want to be the Government, set out the path in order that that investment can take place. That base will not be able to invest unless it knows what is happening on a multi-year basis.
Grant Shapps
I have been quite generous; I will make a little bit of progress.
That is why this Conservative Government will act now. We are going to deliver the greatest strengthening of our national defence since the cold war. Some will argue that the threats we face are perhaps not imminent or existential. They may claim that increased defence spending is not a good use of money, which perhaps should go on other commitments—there are many to discuss—but I argue that we have seen the consequences up and down the country of the more dangerous world that I described in that Lancaster House speech.
In recent years, we have suffered terror attacks. We have also suffered cyber-attacks on business, on Government, as we were just talking about, and on critical national infrastructure. They were mostly not successful, but the amount that it costs to get around them increases all the time none the less. We have suffered intellectual property theft. We have seen Hong Kong protesters dragged into the Chinese consulate in Manchester and beaten. We have seen Iranian journalists threatened and stabbed in London. We have seen former Russian military officers assassinated in hotels in Mayfair and poisoned in suburban homes in Salisbury and, just last month, British citizens charged with setting fire to Ukrainian-linked business units in east London, apparently on the instructions of Russian intelligence.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has compellingly described the current situation as moving from post-war to pre-war. Does he share my concern that the people of this country, as a whole, are not yet in a place to understand the seriousness of the problem, that there is in some sense, therefore, the beginnings of an issue of consent, and that it is harder than it should be for young people to get excited about joining some of our big contractors and supporting the work we are doing for our armed forces on diverse fronts around the country? If that is true, does he think that there is a specific role for the Ministry of Defence to lead the process of building consent across the UK?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One issue we face is that if you are not Iranian or Russian and living in the UK, you may believe that this does not affect you too much. My entire argument—indeed, the argument I made at Lancaster House—is that this is not just something that impacts on foreign nationals in the distance; we are all, in effect, under attack. For evidence of that, we can see up and down the land the direct impact on every single family as Putin drove into Ukraine. Every single household budget in Britain was under attack. Remember, the winter before last we were paying up to half of the average family’s energy bill. This really does matter back home. It is again why I stress that defence is the cheapest version of looking after ourselves, not the most expensive one. That is why it is so important that, with Putin inflicting that inflation on British households and British business, we wake up to that fact and understand it. I actually think the British people do understand. They do want us to do more. It is popular to make sure that we properly defend these isles and defend our interests overseas. That is why this party has been proud to bring forward this big boost to our national defence.
As was mentioned earlier, this year I have—because this battle is so very important for all of us, not least our Ukrainian friends—provided another half a billion pounds of aid to Ukraine. That will take our total 2024 military package to a record £3 billion, which is the most we have provided in any year. Previously, it was £2.3 billion and £2.3 billion. It brings our total support overall to £12.5 billion, in addition to other aid. In addition, to help Ukraine repel Russia’s mounting attacks, we gave, a couple of weeks ago, the largest tranche of military gifting assistance to date.
It is worth reiterating the size and scale of that, because I fear that with the announcement of the 2.5% and the trajectory—I think all Members believe that Ukraine’s win is absolutely existential and important—the scale of the gifting was perhaps not noticed. It included 4 million rounds of ammunition, 1,600 key munitions, including air defence and precision long-range missiles, all our remaining AS-90 artillery platforms, 60 combat boats, 400 armour-protected and all-terrain vehicles, and hundreds of bombs for Ukraine’s new fleet of F-16 combat aircraft. Just as we initially provided our Ukrainian friends with trained troops, anti-tank missiles, main battle tanks, missiles and so many other firsts, we will now ensure that the aircraft we cannot provide for them—we do not fly F-16s—are properly provided with munitions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to Ukraine is second to none. Does he agree with me that if Putin is seen to fail in Ukraine, the threat to western Europe, the United Kingdom and NATO countries will recede for a generation? If Putin is seen to gain any sort of victory in Ukraine, the opposite will happen.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is precisely the point, and that is exactly why it is right to invest in Ukraine. I do not want to make this a political speech—
Grant Shapps
This is a serious issue, and I am surprised by that sort of attitude. I want to ask, because it is a serious point, whether the Opposition are now ready to commit to that extra £500 billion if they were elected, because I have yet to hear that confirmed, and that is an important issue for our Ukrainian friends. I accept that the Ukrainians have the Opposition’s support, but they also need the pledge of money and the certainty that this House will provide it, come what may.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, a few minutes ago he said that we have now gifted all our AS-90 howitzers to Ukraine. We are buying 14 new Archers. We are then buying a completely different system based on Boxer, which will take some years to come into service, and our multiple-launch rocket systems are being refurbished. What is he doing to ensure that the British Army is not left without heavy artillery for the next few years, because what he is talking about is a dangerous risk?
Grant Shapps
As my right hon. Friend will realise, it is not a move I have taken easily. There is a balance to be struck between where the weapons can do the most good and the extraordinarily difficult fight that our Ukrainian friends are in right now. I thought, believe and think that that warrants the provision of further AS-90s. The new equipment, as I do not need to tell him, is vastly superior and will be in our hands quickly, not least because of the excellent work of the Minister for Defence Procurement, who has sped up the acquisition of new equipment through his brilliant integrated plan.
I want to be entirely clear with the House: there are choices to make when we do this gifting, and we have to make the choices as to where we think the equipment will be most useful and how quickly we can replenish it. One of the very good things about this significant boost in defence spending, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will appreciate, is that it will enable us to replenish not only equipment but, crucially, munitions, which have been a real concern of his and many others.
Grant Shapps
I will make a little progress, if I may.
We have pledged this half a billion pounds extra, so we are at £3 billion a year. The crucial point—it has perhaps been lost, or perhaps I have not said it from this Dispatch Box—is that over the course of the next Parliament, this party in government would provide £15 billion of guaranteed aid to Ukraine. When I speak to President Zelensky or my opposite number, Minister Umerov, they make it clear that the certainty of that funding is the most important thing we can do right now. I implore and invite other parties to suggest that they would follow that pledge, in order to provide that certainty to the Ukrainians right now. It matters now that the Ukrainians have certainty that that aid will be there, come what may and regardless of electoral cycles elsewhere, even though we will still be here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to defence and the extra money for the budget. I know that he is very committed to the defence sector in Northern Ireland, and we want to encourage that. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry on defence procurement for Northern Ireland and is suggesting that there should be a regional hub, because that will encourage more companies from Northern Ireland to be involved and be part of that spend for defence over the next couple of years. First, is the Minister aware of what the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is doing on procurement? Secondly, other firms such as Nitronica, an electronics manufacturing firm in Ballynahinch, wish to be part of defence procurement but have not had the opportunity. It is important that we all play our part. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me, but I am curious to hear whether there is a plan.
Grant Shapps
I certainly do agree: all parts of the United Kingdom have a very important role to play, especially Northern Ireland, where missile production, ships and electronics are particular skills. It is important for people there to have a level of certainty that we intend to invest and will carry on investing. Today we can outline exactly how much we would spend each year in the future. By doing so, it is worth them investing. It is cheaper for them to invest. The cost of capital to build and maintain factories falls when we provide that certainty. I therefore hope that the Labour party will match our long-term pledge to Ukraine and to defence spending, because there is no way that warm words about defence spending make a difference to the frontline; the difficult choices have to be made. We have made our choices and we will reduce the size of the civil service back to pre-covid levels. Labour can make its own choices, but I encourage it to join us in the defence boost pledge.
There is no more important element of defence than our nuclear deterrent. Again, it is good to hear that both sides of the House now seem to back the nuclear deterrent, but that cannot be done without backing the money to support it.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is true that both sides of the House strongly back the nuclear deterrent at the moment, if my right hon. Friend is talking about the Labour Opposition. However, with recent talk of the prospect of a hung Parliament, one could find oneself in the same situation as the Cameron Government in 2010, when the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and I were begging for a vote to be held to renew the nuclear deterrent, but because of the coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, that vote was postponed, at great expense, for four years until 2016. We would like to hear assurances from both Front Benches that no such situation will ever be allowed to arise again.
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to reassure my right hon. Friend from this Front Bench that no such delay would be countenanced. Just in the last few weeks we have issued the defence nuclear enterprise Command Paper—[Interruption.] I thought the Opposition Front Bench knew that there was a coalition Government, but perhaps they missed it. Perhaps they also missed the point that my right hon. Friend was making.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I can offer him the assurance that the Liberal Democrats embrace the continuous at-sea deterrent with four submarines. What is more, the strategic environment in which we were operating in 2010 was very different from that which we see today: the Liberal Democrats made the right call then, and we have made the right call now.
Grant Shapps
You heard it here first, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome that commitment, which was not available under the then coalition Government. It is an important moment, and I welcome that commitment from the hon. Gentleman, as I welcome it from Labour.
I gently remind the House that 11 Opposition Front Benchers have voted against the deterrent in their time here, including three members of the current shadow Cabinet, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary, and the shadow Deputy Prime Minister. The House is right to ask, and the country will want to know, whether that commitment is as firm as we now hear it is from the Liberal Democrats. It will also want to know, even if the commitment is said to be firm, whether Labour is prepared to fund it. Again, it comes back to the 2.5%.
John Spellar
Can we be clear that, as was kindly referenced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that situation was the result of a failure of political judgment and will by David Cameron? He could have said to the Liberal Democrats, “This is a matter of strategic national interest. If you don’t like it, you can give up your jobs and walk out of the Government.” They would have bottled it. The fact was that we lost six years and a huge amount of money, and we are putting CASD at real risk with enormously elongated tours of duty for our tremendous submariners.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman wants to relitigate the past, but I think we all agree that we cannot do anything about it. I want to talk about the future, and the future is that those on his own side have yet to commit to the 2.5% that is required to ensure that our nuclear deterrent can deliver on time. In March the Prime Minister and I published the defence nuclear enterprise Command Paper, setting out our long-held and unshakeable commitment to our own independent nuclear deterrent.
Mr Francois
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s desire to look forward rather than back but, just for the record, does he remember, as I do, that at one point the Liberal Democrat policy on Trident was to maintain the submarines but to send them to sea without any missiles?
Grant Shapps
I will be as diplomatic as possible: the Liberal Democrats asked us to investigate a range of options, and I am very pleased that the one we ended up with was the four-submarine continuous at-sea deterrent.
We are investing £41 billion in our next generation of the Dreadnought fleet, and investing in our replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead as well.
Derek Twigg
The Secretary of State mentioned the Command Paper. Page 89, in paragraph 10, refers to
“protecting ourselves…against attack from the skies”.
We know from what has happened in Ukraine, and more recently in Israel, how important our air defence missile system is. The Command Paper continues:
“To counter these threats, we will step up our efforts to deliver an Integrated Air and Missile Defence approach.”
Can the Secretary of State tell us where we are with that?
Grant Shapps
I should point out that there are a wide number of differences for us, because within Nato—this relates to article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty—we are in a different region from, for example, Israel, which was recently attacked. We have a number of layered approaches to defending our skies, including the quick reaction alert. However, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that we are working with our European friends and allies on a European sky shield to do something along the lines of what he has described. It should be understood, however, that there are considerations regardless of which direction we take, because, again, the money can only be spent once, and we would have to consider what else we were or were not going to achieve in defence. So we use a layered approach, but we are actively working on exactly what the Command Paper describes.
Grant Shapps
I am a little concerned about not giving others an opportunity to contribute, but I will allow the right hon. Gentleman one last intervention.
John Spellar
Was the Secretary of State not a member of the Government, and indeed chairman of the Conservative party, during the period we are discussing when the Government did not renew Trident?
Grant Shapps
I think the right hon. Gentleman will now understand why I was so pleased to trounce the Liberal Democrats when it came to that election—to squeeze them out of government and ensure that we could get on with Trident as we always wanted to. I encourage his party to join us in that commitment, backed up with money—not just photo-opportunities in Barrow, but money to deliver the nuclear deterrent.
I now want to make some progress. I want to talk about Putin’s war, and the way in which it has underlined the vital role of conventional forces. From the Red sea to the skies over Iraq, our armed forces are already doing incredible work globally in protecting and advancing our interests every day. In the ongoing Exercise Steadfast Defender, they are currently making up 20% of this year’s NATO exercise, itself the largest since the cold war. I have been to visit some of them in Poland.
We are investing £8.6 billion in Army equipment during this decade to make our ground forces more integrated, agile and lethal. That includes the new Boxer and the long-awaited Ajax armoured fighting vehicles, as well as the new Challenger 3 tanks, of which I saw the second prototype come off the production line in Telford just last month—the first British-made tank for 22 years.
Our United Kingdom is at its strongest when we stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and therefore our commitment to NATO will only ever increase. That is why it is so important that we have been prepared to set out how to get to 2.5%. At the 2014 NATO summit at Newport in Wales, we set a target of 2% to be reached by this year; we are now extending that to 2.5%, and we invite other countries to join us.
NATO has become stronger because of Putin’s actions in Ukraine. It has added members: two new members have joined us, and we therefore outgun Putin on every single metric. We have three times as many submarines and fighter jets, four times as many tanks, helicopters and artillery pieces, four and a half times as many warships, six times as many armed vehicles, eight times as many transport carriers and 16 times as many aircraft carriers. But it is important that NATO works together and sticks together. It is also important that we send a signal to NATO that the second biggest spender in absolute terms intends to increase that expenditure—that has been widely welcomed by other NATO members that I have spoken to in the past couple of weeks.
The importance of that iron-clad alliance is the third lesson of Putin’s war. Since 2022, we have worked hard with our NATO partners to enlarge the alliance and bolster its eastern flank. We have also worked hard with our closest partners on a range of top-end procurement programmes, from sixth-generation combat jets with Italy and Japan to cutting-edge nuclear-powered submarines with Australia and the United States.
The fourth lesson of Putin’s war is that the battle in Ukraine has needed ever more innovation—new tech, new drones. As we ramp up our defence spending to 2.5%, we will put high-tech innovation right at the heart of our plans. I recently visited the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and we agreed to ringfence 5% of the defence budget for research and development over the next year, and to improve our strategic defence research.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before the Secretary of State comes in, I am slightly conscious that 13 Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to make speeches, so there will be an impact on the length of those speeches if we are not careful.
Grant Shapps
I will be less generous with interventions and will rattle through the remaining important content for our military services.
We are building on the recent defence drone strategy and our £4.6 billion investment in uncrewed technologies over the next decade. As we discussed earlier, AI and other tech advances are transforming the way warfare is fought, and our pan-defence procurement reforms have enabled a speeding up of our ability to deliver new technology. I have mentioned DragonFire several times at the Dispatch Box, and it will be delivered five years early.
Fifthly and finally, Putin’s war in Ukraine has underlined the need for all NATO allies to rebuild their stockpiles and grow their defence industrial base. To keep our defence production lines running, we have reformed the procurement process to prioritise exportability from day one. That is now an accredited part of UK production when we make procurement decisions. Our £75 billion boost for defence includes an additional £10 billion to produce even larger stockpiles of munitions over the next decade. That gives certainty to industry and boosts our regions.
Defence supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK, and the boost for defence will provide even more opportunities—opportunities for apprentices and for seasoned engineers. Those jobs would be at risk if the path to 2.5% were not followed, so it is very important that we give that commitment to our defence personnel. We undertake to do that, but we will go further: we will also invest £4 billion in military accommodation, because we recognise that retention, as well as recruitment, is so important. That £4 billion would not exist without the increase to 2.5%. We are also ensuring that there are wraparound childcare services for service families and the service pupil premium.
I thank—as I know the whole House will—the committed, professional and courageous members of our armed forces for everything they do for us in more difficult times. They keep us safe. We are backing them with more money and, in a more dangerous world, I think that is the right thing to do. As I go to Washington with the Prime Minister for the NATO summit in July, we will be saying to other NATO countries, “Follow our example. Follow us because it is the right thing to do and because it is cheaper and more effective than waiting for wars and conflicts to break out.” I encourage other Members of this House to follow us.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome this defence debate in Government time. The defence and security of Britain is an increasing public concern in this country. You said that 13 Members had put in to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to each and every one of those contributions. We have pulled in some of the very best in this House on defence for this debate.
I start by paying tribute to our UK armed forces, who are in action defending international shipping in the Red sea, reinforcing NATO allies on the Russian border and protecting all of us in Britain 24/7. Our forces are respected for their total professionalism worldwide. They have a right to expect our full support, on both sides of this House, and in this defence debate they will get it.
This is an era of increasing threats to our UK security, our prosperity and our values. To deal with this more dangerous world, we need a new era for UK defence to deter threats, to defend the country and to defeat attacks. Over the next decade, we face an alliance of aggression from autocrats who have contempt for international law and freely squander the lives of their own people. With Putin’s war in Europe now into its third brutal year, the Ukrainians, civilians and military alike, are fighting with huge courage. They have regained half the territory taken by Putin and disabled his Black sea fleet, but Russia shows resurgent strength, with its economy now on a wartime footing and its Government spending 30% of their total budget on the military.
I am proud that the UK is united for Ukraine. In response to the Secretary of State’s invitation, the Opposition give our full backing to the Government’s increased UK military aid for this year and following years, as well as to the long-term UK-Ukraine security co-operation agreement. Let us take the politics out of this country’s backing for Ukraine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said to President Zelensky in Kyiv, while there may be a change of Government at the election, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to support Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
That is because the first duty of any Government is to keep the nation safe and protect our citizens. The defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin wins, he will not stop at Ukraine. I say very clearly that Labour will always do what is needed and spend what is needed on defence. When Labour was last in government in 2010, Britain was indeed spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, the British Army had over 100,000 full-time troops and satisfaction with service life was at 60%.
Bob Seely
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) has done really good work with me on the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I pay him credit for that. Whenever we take folks to Ukraine, we try to take as many from the Opposition side of the House as from the Government side. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will do whatever needs to be done, but expenditure requires long-term planning, so I just want to confirm for the record that he is saying that he will meet the £15 billion of expenditure that the Secretary of State has outlined and the £75 billion of expenditure the Secretary of State has outlined for the growth of the armed services budget.
John Healey
I will come on to the £75 billion in a bit, but the hon. Gentleman asked about Ukraine. The Government’s increase in military aid for this year and following years has Labour’s full support. Every commitment of UK military aid since Putin invaded has had Labour’s fullest support; that will continue.
We in the Labour party have deep roots in defending this country. Throughout the last century, it has been working men and women who have served on the frontline, fighting and sometimes dying for Britain. It was Labour that established NATO and the British nuclear deterrent—commitments that are unshakeable for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras as Labour leader and for everyone who serves on the Labour Front Bench.
We are a party with deep pride in forging international law and security—the Geneva conventions, the universal declaration of human rights, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty were all signed by Labour Prime Ministers—and we are a party with deep respect for the serving men and women of our armed forces. Theirs is the ultimate public service. They defend the country. They are essential to our national resilience at home.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and echo his support for the Government’s backing of Ukraine. Does he agree that perhaps over the last 25 years, across both sides of the House—I will take my own share of responsibility for this—and maybe across the west as a whole, we have been complacent about the post-cold war situation and about the fragility or vitality of our defence of western liberal democracy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way to demonstrate that we have understood that we are now in a different place is to reverse the cuts to our armed forces? Backing our soldiers—our men and women who put themselves in harm’s way—involves backing them with the resources to increase their numbers and to get the size of the Army up to, say, 100,000, so that we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are serious about standing shoulder to shoulder with our NATO colleagues and defending democracy and freedom around the world.
John Healey
I agree with the hon. Gentleman only to a point. In his speech to the House, the Defence Secretary set out the range of increasing threats that this country and our allies now face. Those threats are very different from those of 14 years ago, so it is not simply a question of reversing the cuts that we have seen in recent years; it is a question of matching the requirements needed for the future with the threats that we face.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that defence has to be a consensual matter. All the work I have done with the Labour Front-Bench team has been very consensual, because they have talked a great deal of sense. Every single thing that the shadow Secretary of State has said this afternoon could easily have been said by a Conservative Secretary of State—there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Will he therefore continue that worthwhile cross-party consensus by agreeing to match our defence spending commitment of 2.5% of GDP?
John Healey
We share the ambition to hit 2.5%. Our commitment to 2.5% is total. We will do it in our own way and we will do it as soon as we can. I will come on to the flaws in the plan set out by those on the Government Front Bench.
James Gray
The right hon. Gentleman is extremely generous to give way again. There is a very important difference here. Ours is an absolute 100% cast-iron guaranteed pledge to spend 2.5%. Will he match that?
John Healey
I am afraid there is nothing cast-iron about the figures, the plan or, indeed, the proposals for paying for it. I will come to that in a moment.
Before I took the first intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), I wanted to pick up a final point that was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the question of reviewing what we need to face the threats that we now face. The Defence Secretary is dismissive about the need for a strategic defence review, despite the fact that his own Department is preparing for exactly that, whatever the result of the next election. That was confirmed in the House last month by the Minister for Defence Procurement. He also made the point a month before, when the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) talked about a defence review and the Minister for Defence Procurement said,
“he makes an excellent point.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 27.]
The problem for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who was involved in the five years of coalition government after 2010, and the problem for the Conservative Front-Bench team, who have been in government for the past 14 years, is that people judge Governments on what they do, not on what they say.
The Defence Secretary mentioned his January speech at Lancaster House, and he is right when he argues that what we do on defence sends signals to the world. What signal does it send to Britain’s adversaries when our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded since 2010, as his predecessor admitted in this House last year? What signal does it send to our adversaries when defence spending has been cut from 2.5% under Labour to 2.3% now, when day-to-day defence budgets have been cut by £10 billion since 2010, and when the British Army has now been cut to its smallest size since Napoleon?
Mr Kevan Jones
The present Defence Secretary was chair of the Conservative party until 2016. Is it not also a fact that, when the Conservative party was in coalition government, it cut the defence budget by 18% and not only reduced the size of the Army but made people compulsorily redundant? Had a Labour Government done that, we would have heard howls and cries from Conservative Members.
John Healey
I said a moment ago that Governments and Ministers are judged by what they do, not by what they say. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and independent Library figures confirm that 18% cut in defence spending over the first five-year Government led by the Conservatives after 2010.
What signal does it send to our adversaries that defence procurement has been condemned by the Public Accounts Committee as “broken,” that at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money has been wasted through MOD mismanagement, and that procurement delays to Ajax and Wedgetail are putting our NATO commitments at risk? What signal does it send to our adversaries when forces’ recruitment targets have been missed each and every year for the past 14 years, when satisfaction with service life and morale have fallen to record lows, and when military families live in damp housing and use food banks to get by?
Even after Putin invaded Ukraine, this Government cut a further 4,000 troops from the British Army, took 287 days to sign a new contract to replace the NLAW anti-tank missiles to restock our armed forces and, according to the National Audit Office, created a £17 billion black hole—the biggest ever—in the defence equipment plan this year. It is no wonder the Secretary of State wants to talk about the future, not the past. This is the Tory record of 14 years of failure on defence. Our armed forces simply cannot afford another five years of the Conservatives.
Let me say again that people judge Governments by what they do, not by what they say. The Defence Secretary now thinks he has the answer to every problem—a magic wand, a get-out-of-jail-free card—but the Prime Minister’s announcement last month that the Conservatives will raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 is of course the same level that this country spent with Labour in 2010. Boris Johnson made the same promise two years earlier, and the Conservatives have not delivered it in any of the five Budgets or autumn statements since. None hit 2.5%, none reversed the real cuts in resource spending and none matched Labour’s record.
Everyone recognises that defence spending must rise to deal with increasing threats. We share the same ambition as the Government, and we are totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We want a plan that is fully costed and fully funded in Government budgets. Our armed forces deserve no less.
John Healey
I will give way to two of his colleagues who have not yet intervened on me, and then I am sure I will come back to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).
Mr Francois
Governments should be judged not by what they say, but by what they do. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wedgetail. If Labour were in government, would it specifically commit to going back to the original five Wedgetail AEW aircraft, rather than the three that are now on order? Is that what Labour would not say, but do?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of serving in this House and debating defence issues from the Opposition Benches. He knows we simply will not have access to the classified information on threats, the capabilities we need, the state of the armed forces or even the true state of public finances until we open the books. Those are the sort of decisions that we will make in a strategic defence review within the first year of a new Labour Government. That is the way that we will balance the requirements for national security with the responsibilities for sound public finances.
Bob Seely
Is there not a simple problem here, though? Labour may be committing to a defence review, but that review will take nine or 10 months—maybe a year. That simply means that it avoids spending or matching those increases for a period of at least 18 months. That is a significant problem.
John Healey
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with those on his own Front Bench, because the Department is at the moment planning a fresh review, whatever the outcome—[Interruption.] Yes, it is, whatever the outcome of the election. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that the 2030 target is not in the Government’s financial plans; it is in a press release. We cannot rebuild the UK’s armed forces, let long-term procurement contracts, deter those who threaten us or defeat Putin with press releases. If this 2030 plan had been in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly costed and fully funded, but it is not and it was not. There are more holes in the Defence Secretary’s numbers than there is in Emmental cheese. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called the £75 billion figure “essentially meaningless”. The Institute for Government has said that the Conservatives’ 2.5% plan does not add up, and that cutting 70,000 civil servant jobs will get nowhere close to delivering the savings needed to fund 2.5%.
To produce his fake figure of £75 billion, the Secretary of State has invented a zero-growth baseline for the next six years, unlike and in contrast with the Treasury’s official 0.5% real annual growth baseline. To get 2.3% as a different baseline for the annual increases in his plan on page 20 in the annex of his report, which he likes to parade, he has added all the one-off spending this year to the defence core budget—that is £3 billion for Ukraine, £1 billion for the nuclear contingency, half a billion pounds for operations and £300 million for ammunition, all in the figures for each of the next six years. Finally, the Secretary of State has used a trick that the Government tried before, in the 2015 defence strategic review, when Ministers pledged to cut 30% of MOD civil servants just to make their spending plans add up. However, after 2015 and that plan, civil service numbers in the MOD of course did not go down to 41,000; they went up to 63,000.
The new promised increase to defence core budgets will not start until April next year. For the next 10 months, day-to-day budgets in real terms are still being cut, the Army is still being cut and recruitment targets are still being missed. Nine out of 10 of the veterans promised a veterans ID card by the end of last year are still missing out, and around 500 veteran households are being made homeless every three months.
Our armed forces cannot afford another five years of the Conservatives. With threats increasing and tensions growing, we must make Britain better defended. Labour’s plan for defence will reinforce homeland protections with a new strategic review. [Interruption.] It will fulfil NATO obligations in full, with a NATO test on our major programmes.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
John Healey
I am finishing off now; the hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak.
Labour’s plan will renew the nation’s contract with those who have served through an independent forces commissioner. It will make allies our strategic strength, with new French, German and EU defence agreements, and renewed UK leadership within the AUKUS alliance. It will direct British defence investment first to British jobs with deep procurement reform. Labour is the real party of defence. With Labour, Britain will be better defended.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
As both Front Benchers have made clear, we are all in this place indebted to the hard work of our armed forces personnel. Alas, we live in a dangerous world. The optimism that followed the fall of the Berlin wall and China joining the World Trade Organisation has proved illusory. The Defence Committee is currently investigating the grey zone: the gathering of intelligence, the manoeuvring for advantage, the pressurising of independent states, the disruption of democratic processes and the deployment of proxies. Into that category can be placed the hack of the defence payroll discussed earlier today, which follows the hack of our electoral data.
However, those are simply symptoms of a much wider pattern of step-by-step aggression. If, at a future date, our adversaries were to step over the threshold into kinetic warfare, no one could argue that we had not been warned. For any who believed that the modern world was too sophisticated, nuanced and interdependent ever to consider the brute force of state-on-state aggression, least of all in Europe, their delusions were shattered in February 2022. As we speak, in Ukraine hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in the gallant defence of their homes and families from an autocratic aggressor operating on the simple mantra that “might is right”.
In our last defence debate, I called on the Government to recognise the current threat by setting out a clear path to increasing the UK’s defence investment to 2.5% of GDP. The announcement of just that trajectory is most welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on that achievement and on the vital additional support to Ukraine. It is all the more welcome that that increase was not achieved by some hockey-stick projection of what will happen in five years’ time, but is being realised on a linear basis, with a step up each year. That provides credibility and certainty of delivery, and will send a message to our adversaries and a clear message to British industry that we need it to invest in capital equipment, skills and innovation.
The announcement also sends a powerful message to another critical group: our NATO allies. We are celebrating 75 years as the most effective and successful defence alliance the world has known. As the Secretary of State referenced, it remains the case that NATO enjoys, on paper, a substantial overmatch in matériel against Russia. That is well and good, but NATO must constantly up its game. Russia has shown itself oblivious in its tactics to the human cost of its devastating war in Ukraine. Against that backdrop, it is essential that we maintain a substantial conventional overmatch, especially in deep fires and ensuring air superiority, with the stockpiles to maintain it. We need to continue to do so, notwithstanding Russia spending eye-watering amounts to replace their losses in Ukraine with more modern equipment.
NATO also needs to ensure that military capabilities recognise the new geopolitical realities, namely the close relationship between China, Russia and other potential aggressors: North Korea, with its nuclear capability, and Iran, with its regional proxies looking to seize opportunities from the distracted west. A clash, were it to come, could come simultaneously from multiple quarters. Europe must recognise the implications of that and pull its weight.
When I spoke last, I said that I found it hard to believe we would not end up feeling the need to invest up to 3% of GDP, but that any such decision should be based on a bottom-up analysis of necessary capabilities. It will also be influenced by one other critical factor, which is that the increase in our commitment should be noted not just by our adversaries and our industry, but by our allies. NATO must set a new benchmark of 2.5% to reflect the new realities. That additional £140 billion of defence investment across the alliance would go a long way to reassuring us all that defence is receiving across this continent—a continent in which a live war rages—the greater priority it demands.
This debate is a general debate on defence. Members may wish to tackle a whole range of issues, each of which would be worthy of a parliamentary debate in its own right. To name but a few such themes, there is the balance, given the announced new investment, between the current equipment plan and innovative weapon systems emerging from the Ukraine war; the role of the Royal Navy, the balance of its current commitments, the shipbuilding programme and the continuous at-sea deterrence; the modernisation of the Army, particularly its armoured components; the increased prevalence of unmanned aerial systems, the importance to the Royal Air Force and the industrial base of the global combat air programme, and our future role in the space domain; and our home defence, to which the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) alluded earlier. When I asked the Prime Minister whether, post the failed Iranian attack on Israel, we would be reviewing the need for a multilayered UK air defence, that was because I believe we should. Increasingly, citizens will be vulnerable not just to land-based missile or drone attack, but from the same from vessels at sea, with limited warnings.
These are all valid areas of debate, but I want to restrict my remarks not to those internal defence debates, important though each is, but to the wider issue of how, in a much darker world, defence needs to be working with our allies across Government and with broader society as a whole. Arguments are being made that, in the circumstances, our full focus and commitment must be to Europe. Strengthening our ability to play what would be a vital role in that theatre is of course necessary, as the Committee’s report “Ready for War?” set out. However, we have strong continental allies with land-based and land-focused forces, and the contest of the future will be determined not by a stand-off in eastern Europe alone; as in earlier eras, the search for resources, for critical minerals and for dominance of sea routes will remain.
We have influence and we are trusted in many parts of the world. We have genuine friends, a concept unknown to our adversaries. Our role in supporting our allies—for example, in competing with an expansionary China—may lie not in the South China sea, but on the coasts of Africa, in the Gulf and in the high north. We should not lightly neglect the assets we have. In particular, our history has provided us with geographical reach and a position that our adversaries would love to usurp. As senior US military and naval officers are not slow to remind us, UK bases overseas remain absolutely vital, not least Diego Garcia. We must be deeply protective of assets with so much strategic value in protecting the free world, including supporting regional allies.
There is also how defence is viewed inside Government. For anyone who has had the privilege of the serving as a Defence Minister, and I am delighted to say that there are many of us on the Defence Committee, the picture is familiar: the darkened room, probably Cobra, with the ominous description of whatever dire visitation is expected, be it fire, flood, plague, strike or even the failure of security baggage checkers, and all faces turn in our direction. There will always be a requirement for MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests and the military will always rise to the task, but it should not be called upon as often as it is. Our armed forces must be training and preparing for their tasks, and their rest and recuperation time is critical if we are to retain and recruit. Departments must be more resilient in peacetime, and must have in place plans for worst-case scenarios, including war, as was once the case, and these should be checked and should be exercised.
Lastly, there is defence working alongside society. In the quarter of a century in which our own national defence appeared to be assured, our ability to think holistically about the strategic interplay between all aspects of our society and how that can help keep us safe has atrophied. Defence cannot be put into a discrete box; we need to think clearly about long-term national plans and how they support our resilience.
I will name just a few examples. The skills agenda on nuclear is commendable. With no disrespect to our Liberal Democrat friends, these are very long-term commitments—we cannot play the hokey-cokey with nuclear. It is a long-term endeavour, so that skills agenda is incredibly important, but are we doing enough to set out exactly what cash will be invested in upgrading our scientific capability? Are our plans for small modular reactors being driven at the pace we require, not just to minimise costs but to appreciate swiftly all the implications that that new technology may unleash? Given the undoubted brilliance of UK research, are we doing everything we can to ensure we are spotting the crossover opportunities? We can be certain that our adversaries are using every possible avenue into that UK research. When ideas move from research to production, are we calling out those who make—often cavalierly and without proper consideration—trite judgments on what may be ethical or unethical investment, and in doing so are undermining our ability to live in a society where such a debate can even take place?
There has been some commentary in the press about peacetime conscription. While I welcome the honesty of sharing worst-case scenarios and the focus on increased investment in defence that that has brought, I personally view the idea as misplaced, but I would make an observation. In the coming decades, we risk skill pinch points in critical areas of defence. They are the very areas that are at the forefront of technology, and therefore at the forefront of demand in the private sector. Are we doing enough to identify brilliant young men and women, and setting out a specific and unique path for them to enter His Majesty’s armed forces for a limited period post university? Some may wish to stay longer term; others may join the reserves. That would require a different approach. The Government would have to consider a whole raft of inducements, including financial ones, but we should not overlook the willingness of young people to accept fascinating challenges and to serve if called on to do so. Done well, that cadre would be recognised by industry as having been hand-picked as the leading lights of their generation, and with among the most sought-after of skillsets, they may even provide the impetus to the zig-zag careers proposed by the Haythornthwaite review.
We need to invest: in innovation, in capital equipment, and in the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased that the Government are doing just that. It is vital, it is timely, and every penny must be well spent.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am glad to be in the Chamber for this debate. It is an important debate; those of us on the Defence Committee would probably say that we do not have them often enough.
I wanted to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Members—my right hon. Friends, I hope—for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the reduction in defence spend, and the discussion we had at the Select Committee recently. As is our duty as a Committee, we challenged the Secretary of State on expenditure, and I wanted to pinpoint one specific issue, which relates to people—at least for us on the SNP Benches, people are the bedrock of a defence policy and posture—and to concerns about defence infrastructure and security, especially for those of us who live around nuclear defence infrastructure. We might not necessarily agree with it, but it is there, so we would hope it is secure at all times.
Coming back to the point that my right hon. Friends made, I wanted to look at some specific concerns about the Ministry of Defence police budget. In 2010-2011, the defence police budget was £154.8 million, equating to £226.78 million today when adjusted for inflation. Right hon. and hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was a Labour Government at that point. However, the budget in 2022-23 was £161.3 million. Leading back to the question posed at the Committee, that is a real-terms reduction of about £65.5 million in the defence police infrastructure over the past 12 years. That is something that Ministers might want to come back to later on.
The shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), made some comments about the £75 billion, and I share his concern. Like me, he understands that the assumption from the Government is based on a baseline of spend, as a percentage of GDP, that is frozen in cash terms, so without borrowing or extra debt, it comes nowhere near £75 billion. I wish the Government well on that point.
I would maybe want to have a wee bit more of a conciliatory approach to this. There will be at least some consistency from the SNP Benches, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Although he and I have different views on the nuclear deterrent, we are at least consistent. It was quite interesting to see someone else getting taken over the barrel for that—it makes a change. On the commitment to Ukraine, the Minister can take it from the SNP that, whoever the Government happen to be this year or next year, say, we will also be steadfast on the support for Ukraine. The right to defend national territory, and the right to national self-determination, are elements of human dignity for any modern nation state and alliance. As I said, the gist of my remarks is in three things: people, place and our partnerships.
Let us talk about the ordinary ranks. That is a term that I find quite problematic. I come from a services family. My brother was a sergeant, and my nephew is in the forces as well—in the “ordinary ranks”. There is really nothing ordinary in serving.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Let me come to that in a second, but in common parlance, I think they are always called the “ordinary ranks”—[Interruption.] The Minister may want to listen for a wee second. Whether it is “other” or “ordinary”, that type of terminology says nothing about the men and women who served in Iraq, such as my brother; in Afghanistan; out in the Red sea, no matter what happens there—and there is concern that there might be mission creep—or in other deployments such as the joint expeditionary force in Estonia, which I know, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia, that the Estonian Government welcome.
Those ranks deserve more from us—not just from the Government and the official Opposition, but from all of us as parliamentarians. They deserve it that we take them more seriously in the structure of how we support and pay them, and in their entire terms and conditions. I know that there is probably profound disagreement about my approach, which would be an armed services representative body. Although I am saddened that the official Opposition changed their position, if they form the next Government, the SNP would support their new approach, which we think is at least a step in the right direction.
However, I do not think that having a Government appointee represent the armed forces personnel is the right step forward, because the lived experience of members of the armed forces who have been on the frontline needs to form part of an understanding, as with any engagement on terms and conditions with a trade union, for example—although an armed forces representative body from this party is not a trade union and does not have the right to strike our proposals. We have to say to those ranks that we believe they can come together as a collective and have critical engagement with Government and, more importantly, with Parliament more broadly. We need to have that discussion with them; they need to be part of defence policy and posture. They are people we want to send to the frontline to fire a gun or a missile, but technically we are saying to them that we do not believe they have the capability of coming together to discuss and debate collectively their terms and conditions. I find that slightly bizarre.
If we do not engage with those ranks in a more robust fashion, as equals, we will go around a consistent revolving door of reports, as we have seen for years in Committees, especially the Defence Committee. I am mindful of the report produced by the Women in the Armed Forces Sub-Committee—I intimated that I would mention them—which was chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who is not here today. That report was profound. Do I think that if we do not have real engagement with the frontline, there will be substantial change? I have grave concerns that there will not be.
James Gray
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that close engagement with the other ranks. He might well benefit from serving on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, where he will discover that all of our time is spent with the other ranks.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for that opportunity, but I have previously declined it for various reasons. I will get into that in a wee bit more detail and, although the hon. Member may not agree with me, I may want to reflect on some of the profound experiences that we saw in that report. I am afraid that we would not hear those things talked about on the armed forces parliamentary body. I am talking about ordinary service personnel, in private meetings with parliamentarians as part of a Committee inquiry, talking about the dreadful conditions that they suffer because of their gender, sex, sexuality or ethnicity. Some of it has been like a revolving door.
James Sunderland
I spent 27 years of commissioned service in the British Army. The hon. Member does the British Army a disservice.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I recall the hon. Gentleman chairing the Armed Forces Bill Committee during the pandemic, when we heard some really profound and challenging evidence. I do not think that he and I would disagree that it was challenging. The report from the hon. Member for Wrexham, a former reservist, was challenging. It was the bare reality of what many members of the armed forces had to go through. I am sure that he was in the Chamber when members of Pride were here to hear the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT members of the services. That happened; it is not a figment of the imagination. It does not say anything about the abilities and capabilities of the vast majority of the armed forces.
To me it is more about the structure. How different it would be if we had a body in which members of the armed forces, elected by their peers, could engage with any Government in the future. We would then be in a far better position to have that debate and to actually target support where it is needed. I have not yet heard a convincing argument against that.
I am glad that the official Opposition have a policy on this matter. It might not be one that I think is appropriate, but it is a reflection that the time has now come to have some type of body to take up that physical challenge. I believe that their example is from Germany, but I am also mindful of the example of the Kingdom of the Netherlands—one of our closest military allies—where a member of the armed forces could also be the general secretary of a trade union. Having a distinct armed forces trade union does not stop them carrying out their duties as members of the armed forces.
One or two of our NATO allies have unions and actually have the right to strike, although that is not somewhere I would be going in terms of policy. I just think that having such a union is critical, given some of the conditions that members of the armed forces and their families have faced over many years. We have heard about them in Select Committee reports, in debates on housing and in statements. My friend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about Capita and some of the profound problems that members of the armed forces face on a daily basis. I honestly believe that they would be in a far better position to deal with these challenges if they were able to come together and deliberate and engage with whoever the Government are.
It is important to reflect on some of our Scandinavian allies when it comes to a more coherent approach to how we go forward as parliamentarians, because this is not just about members of the armed forces; it is about the role of Parliament as well. I have heard Members talk about having a more collegiate approach. Were we to follow the Danish or Swedish examples—this could be done whether or not the Government have a huge majority—it would mean that for an entire parliamentary term we could have an agreed military defence posture and an agreed budget. We could bring the main parties together and make a collective parliamentary decision.
The Nordic-Scandinavian model means that there is a good foundation to create a robust defence posture, with full parliamentary support. Even we in the SNP would agree to that. We may disagree on the nuclear deterrent, but Parliament has voted for that. But on the vast majority of issues I think the vast majority of parties in this place could agree and support a Government, which is critical given that the times in which we live need a coherent approach and full and robust parliamentary support.
I do hope that both the Government and the official Opposition will consider that if and when the next election is called, and whoever should form the next Government. That brings people together. It is also about us as parliamentarians taking our responsibilities appropriately, and about creating transparency and openness. Even in the United States, there is far more transparent and robust engagement with the Government on Capitol Hill by the Armed Services Committee. Of course, our Defence Select Committee has no such powers, in any shape or form, but if we had more open and transparent engagement at parliamentary level, we could hopefully overcome a lot of that.
The other thing I want to talk about, in bringing my remarks to a conclusion, is partnership. I am really glad that the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned some partnerships in bringing his speech to a close. Since 2016, we on the SNP Benches have been pushing for a more coherent mutual defence agreement with the European Union. He will need to correct me if I am wrong and that was not a part of what he said in his concluding remarks. The reason for that is not to replace NATO, but to understand that some of the complexities that EU members face—for example, when it comes to logistics, road design and bridge weights—could be tackled far more easily through the EU in partnership than, say, through NATO. That is because if we are trying to move a tank from the west to the eastern front, it has to get across France, Germany and so on. [Interruption.] I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say that as a Euro-Atlanticist. It is really important that we create defence relationships with people who share our common interests here in the Euro-Atlantic area, because, as others have mentioned, we face a crisis of retention, a crisis of recruitment and unfathomable black holes that I would not wish on any Defence Secretary, whether the present one or anybody who wants to be one. The next Government will face unimaginable tasks, but if we put people, place and partnership at the heart of that, we in the SNP—although with our differences on the nuclear deterrent—would certainly be willing to support that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call Mark Francois, I remind colleagues that there is a certain pressure on time, which I am sure will be borne in mind.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to participate in this important and timely debate on defence. It comes at an exciting time for defence, following the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement that we will now increase the UK’s defence spending from a little over 2% of GDP at present—more if we include Ukraine —to 2.5% by the end of the decade. Moreover, that welcome increase is linear in nature, rather than the traditionally back-loaded version, so it provides a solid path against which both our armed forces and our defence industry can appropriately plan.
As ever with these announcements, my colleagues on the House of Commons Defence Committee will want to scrutinise in detail the Secretary of State’s claim that that represents an additional £75 billion for defence over the period. A lot seems to depend on where we draw the baseline in making the calculation. Nevertheless, the declared increase to 2.5% indisputably represents billions of pounds of extra investment over the six years in question, which helps to send a powerful signal both to our allies and to any potential aggressors that the United Kingdom is prepared to defend itself, its values and its interests, both across the globe and at home.
Allied to that, we also had the recent announcement by our very proactive Minister for Defence Procurement of a wholescale reform of how the UK plans to procure its military equipment in future. The new system, known as the integrated procurement model, was announced in February. If I were asked to characterise it in one sentence, I would say that it represents moving from a bureaucratic peacetime model of procuring equipment to a much faster wartime model. Indeed, in Poland the Prime Minister spoke powerfully about putting the UK defence industry on to a war footing. That is very much in keeping with the Secretary of State’s speech at Lancaster House in January, in which he said that we are now moving from a post-war to a pre-war world—about which I fear he may yet be proven right.
Taken together, this suggests that after years of concentrating on wars of choice—in Iraq or Afghanistan —we are now again focusing on the possibility of having to fight a war of necessity, and perhaps even, ultimately, a war of national survival against an adversary on the scale of Russia and/or China.
For someone who has always believed that the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, I warmly welcome what one might call this new type of clear-eyed realism, which now seems to be infusing our defence planning in a way that, at least with regard to wars of necessity, has arguably been absent for many decades. For instance, we are now recreating across Government a national defence plan, akin conceptually to what was considered everyday normal business during the cold war.
I hope that I am not betraying a confidence when I tell the House that the Minister for Defence Procurement and I, and others such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is in his place beside me, have discussed several times the need not just to change policy in terms of procurement, but crucially to change culture if the reforms are to have real meaning.
I note that the dynamic head of Defence Equipment and Support, Andy Start, when speaking at the Royal United Services Institute recently, explained that the reforms began in March and that the operating model will reach what he calls a “minimal viable product” by the autumn, with the whole programme in full flow by next year. As someone who has previously expressed a great deal of frustration about the bureaucracy and tardiness of our procurement system, I can only wish the Minister for Defence Procurement and the head of DE&S Godspeed in implementing these reforms as fast as possible, particularly as the international outlook continues to worsen. We urgently need a sense of urgency, as it were, and it appears that, finally, we are starting to develop one.
All that said, I would like to highlight one area in which I believe we still remain both operationally and strategically vulnerable: the realm of air defence. Given the concentration, over more than 20 years, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we effectively disinvested in the air defence of the United Kingdom relative to other priorities. I am pleased to note that in the last few years we have reinvested in some of our radar stations in Scotland and along the east coast, which I warmly welcome.
Nevertheless, the experience from Ukraine strongly suggests that if it were ever to come to a shooting war with Russia, which has made great use of mass cruise missile strikes, most of those fixed radar sites would likely be lost to cruise missile attack in the first 24 to 48 hours of hostilities, in addition to threats from ballistic missiles. Against that eventuality, we retain a small number of mobile radars—the number is classified, but it is small. It is true that we might also be able to rely to some degree on NATO assets or other specialist assets from elsewhere, but certainly in terms of fixed NATO radar stations they might also be subject to the same cruise missile attacks, and the precious NATO airborne early warning and control system—AWACS—aircraft could be tasked elsewhere in war.
In terms of fighter aircraft for the defence of the UK, the Royal Air Force currently possesses 137 Typhoon aircraft in three tranches, the oldest of which—in tranche 1—are, on present policy, due to be retired in the spring of next year and either cannibalised for parts or sold off to foreign buyers, likely for a pittance compared to their initial acquisition cost. Considering that the Russian air force still possesses thousands of combat aircraft, that would be an act of absolute folly, and one that I personally have likened to selling off our Spitfires prior to the battle of Britain. As I was told by BAE Systems executives on a visit to Warton a few years ago, because of the extremely complex supply chain that goes into the manufacture of Typhoons, it would take at least four years to build one from scratch, or three years if, as they put it, we hurried it all up in an emergency. If, therefore, the UK were to fight what some strategists describe as a “come as you are” war, in which people have to fight with equipment that is immediately available or can be reconstituted at short notice, there would be no prospect of building additional Typhoons in time to fight.
Moreover, both Russia and China have had a long-standing policy over many decades of putting older equipment into a war reserve that can be drawn on in times of conflict to replenish stocks. That is exactly what the Russians did in the Ukrainian conflict, when they pulled mothballed tanks out of depots from as far away as Siberia, to make up for the very large number of losses of more modern fighting vehicles at the hands of very spirited Ukrainian defenders who, one might add, were armed in many cases with British manufactured NLAWs.
Conversely, the UK Ministry of Defence has virtually no concept of a war reserve, although events suggest that we should rapidly be developing one. As a comparator, the US keeps thousands of retired combat aircraft, some very recently retired, in a giant desert boneyard, as it is known, in the Mojave desert, in hot and high conditions where aircraft do not rust. The Americans regularly rehearse taking aircraft out of the stockpile and refurbishing them to return them to the frontline. It therefore seems to me that it would be madness to sell off over 20% of our fighter force. Surely it would make much greater sense to put those aircraft into storage, either in the UK or in the Mojave desert, to begin to constitute a warfighting reserve of our own.
Not only would that come at very little expense, but it would constitute a reserve air wing of up to three squadrons in time of war, not least as the Tranche 1 Typhoon, armed with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and advanced short-range air-to-air missiles, is still more than a match for Russian long-range bombers, which might attempt to assault the UK via the back door over the north Atlantic, carrying multiple long-range cruise missiles.
John Spellar
Is it also the case that these aircraft have considerable aircraft life left in them? It is not as though they are approaching redundancy.
Mr Francois
The right hon. Gentleman, a former Armed Forces Minister like me, is absolutely right. Many of them still have half their so-called airframe life remaining. As I have said, they are more than capable of intercepting and shooting down the threat aircraft that they would have to match. That is all the more reason to keep them against a rainy day, rather than flogging them off or breaking them up for parts. Crucially, creating such a war reserve would demonstrate a sign of intent to any potential aggressor that after many years of doing the opposite, the UK is now preparing to fight a sustained conflict with a peer enemy, should that become necessary. Hopefully, in so doing, we will make that eventuality far less likely.
Linked to the vulnerability of our radar stations and the shortage of fighter aircraft are the extremely worrisome delays in airborne early warning. The Royal Navy’s early warning aircraft, Crowsnest, is many years late. It has only recently entered service for the air defence of the fleet. For the Royal Air Force, the Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft were withdrawn shortly after the integrated review was published in 2021, leaving us without a mainstream airborne early warning aircraft. The E-3 was meant to be replaced shortly thereafter by the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail, but the programme has been subject to multiple chronic delays and is still not in service.
The RAF is clearly embarrassed by this and is attempting to deploy chaff between in-service dates, when the aircraft could take off the runway, and an initial operating capability, when the aircraft might actually be ready to fight. The latest information I have is that the ISD could now be in autumn 2025, whereas the IOC could be in the first or even the second quarter of 2026, which is still two years away. That leaves a critical gap in our air defence capability for which the MOD, and Boeing in particular, must be held robustly to account. Moreover, the initial buy of five Wedgetail aircraft was inexplicably cut to three several years ago by ministerial fiat, even though we were contractually obliged to buy all five radars, which themselves were very expensive.
In short, the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail is rapidly becoming the RAF’s equivalent of the Army’s Ajax programme—a procurement disaster that has gone on year after year at vast expense to the taxpayer, without actually entering operational service, as Ajax still has not. The Defence Committee, alarmed by that, has invited the head of Boeing Defence, Space and Security, Mr Ted Colbert, to appear before the Committee at Westminster to provide an explanation, although we are still attempting to finalise a precise date for his personal appearance.
Boeing is an organisation in crisis after the sad deaths of more than 300 people caused by the two crashes of its 737 MAX aircraft. We have seen further serious safety incidents, most recently in January when a door flew off an Alaska Boeing 737 MAX 9 in mid-flight. That incident was followed by a number of so-called whistleblowers, involved either at Boeing or in its supply chain, coming forward with very serious allegations about failures in the way the company builds its aircraft. No doubt partly as a result, Mr Dave Calhoun announced that he will step down as chief executive at the end of the year. In the first quarter of this year, Boeing reported a net loss of more than $350 million, and it is still experiencing serious production problems across a range of aircraft, both civilian and military, of which the UK Wedgetail is but one example. The US Air Force also has numerous issues with Boeing, not least in its much-troubled KC-46 air tanker programme.
For many years, Boeing as a company has done extremely well in winning major multibillion dollar procurement orders from the MOD, in return for which it has placed very limited amounts of work on those programmes with the defence industry in the UK. To give specific examples, according to the MOD’s recent figures, on the E-7 Wedgetail, the estimated UK content is around 10%; for the AH-64 Apache, it is only 7%; for the P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, it is barely 4%; and for the original CH-47 Chinook helicopters, it was just 2%. According to the answer to a written parliamentary question I tabled, the UK content for the new order of CH-47 extended-range Chinooks for our special forces will generate a UK workshare of about 8%. Taken together with the purchase of the Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic reconnaissance aircraft, for which no workshare figure is publicly available, that represents some $10 billion of business for Boeing from the UK MOD for which the UK workshare has been 10% at best and 2% at worst. Boeing has done incredibly well out of the UK MOD, while UK industry has done incredibly badly out of Boeing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is also bad news for the defence budget? Those contracts are in dollars, and the dollar exchange rate puts huge pressure on the defence budget.
Mr Francois
Another former Armed Forces Minister is right, and he will know that the effect of the dollar exchange rate on buying so many big off-the-shelf items from the US has cropped up time and again at both the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
The problem does not apply just to air platforms. Boeing had a major logistics contract with the MOD called the future logistics information system, or FLIS, which was due to run until late 2020. However, as was evidenced by the Public Accounts Committee, in late 2020 the MOD signed a five-year contract extension called “Bridging the gap”, worth £515 million to Boeing, which was not even competed. That raises questions about the degree to which the MOD seems to be mesmerised by Boeing as a company, to the detriment of value for money for the UK and for our industrial workshare. Indeed, the PAC subsequently reported:
“We are…concerned to hear that the MoD awarded the contract for this £515 million programme to a large defence prime contractor without a competitive tendering process.”
That is all the more surprising given that in the 1990s, the standard policy of the MOD was to ask for a 100% offset in major off-the-shelf procurements of military equipment from abroad, especially from the US. For instance, in the late 1990s, for the purchase of the C-130J Super Hercules, Lockheed Martin was required to place work to the equivalent of 100% of the multibillion-dollar contract value with UK industry. The work could take one of two forms: direct offset, which is work on the aircraft platform itself, such as propellers or undercarriages or logistics support, or indirect offset, which is other high-quality work to be placed with the UK defence industry over the life of the programme, but not necessarily directly related to the platform itself.
Under the Blair Government, for whatever reason, the policy was quietly dropped. That has allowed a situation to develop whereby the MOD has bought a number of big-ticket items from the US without receiving any legally binding guarantees of compensating workshare for the UK industry. I therefore suggest to the next Government, of whatever political colour, that if they are reviewing defence, they might want to look at reintroducing the concept of 100% offset for any further major offshore procurements.
In some cases, it is operationally the right thing to buy something off the shelf from the US. I would argue that Wedgetail—at least when it was five aircraft, anyway—was the right decision, but I do not think it acceptable that we hand out such handsome contracts to foreign suppliers without UK industry being given its fair share.
In conclusion, a cynic might say that Boeing is a company increasingly in crisis, which is falling apart even more rapidly than the aircraft it purports to build. That is serious for us in the UK, as like it or not, Boeing is one of our major defence suppliers and is responsible for supporting key equipment in service. We do not want that company to fail. Therefore, we can only hope that the incoming management will take a firm grip of the situation and turn it around—the sooner, the better.
Lastly, it is very good news that we are reversing the downward trend in defence spending and are now investing more, rather than less, in the defence of the realm. That is very much to be welcomed, but it is a question not just of how much we spend, but of how well it is spent. I very much hope that with the new integrated procurement model and perhaps a couple of humble suggestions that I have been able to offer this evening, we can put more of that money to good use to ensure that we, our people and our allies remain safe in an increasingly dangerous world. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. There are 10 Members still seeking to speak. There is considerable expertise in the Chamber tonight—I appreciate that—and I am sure that all Members will want to make a succinct contribution. Frankly, the Chairman of the Defence Committee confined his remarks to 12 minutes, and I hope and expect that other colleagues on both sides of the House will do likewise.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am mindful of your dictum, Mr Deputy Speaker.
May I start by following up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about Boeing, because it is about not just getting the contract right in the first place, but enforcing it afterwards? Even when Boeing and other companies have given assurances and agreements, they have not been held to account for them. I fear that the MOD will find a similar problem relating to the hack of the accounts of our personnel, in that the Treasury adamantly, stubbornly refuses to take past performance into account when assessing future contracts. That has to change. For heaven’s sake, I thought that one of the supposed advantages of Brexit was that we could take back control. By the way, our European competitors have been able to do that within the confines of the EU, but we have an ideological battle within the civil service, and Ministers have to take it on across Departments.
May I also apologise for—as is quite obvious—having a cold? It was acquired in good service, as the results in the west midlands last week showed, which colleagues will have noticed. I was hoping that the Minister for Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) would respond to the debate and that he would at least acknowledge, if not welcome, that the council for the home of the British Army is now run by the Labour party, with its excellent leader, Keith Dibble. There is a lesson in that for us. Keith Dibble has been on the moderate side of the Labour party—pro-defence, pro-good sense—for many years and has built up a Labour group that can actually relate to the good people of Aldershot and Farnborough. That is also true in the wider sense for the Labour party. At certain stages in our history, Labour in opposition has been less sound on defence. That is not just a correlation, but a causal factor. Indeed, when Labour is sound on defence, as we always have been in government, the British people have confidence.
This year, we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of NATO—an organisation set up by the Attlee-Bevin Government, who also developed Britain’s nuclear capability. Throughout the changes of Government over that period, we have had a continuous at-sea deterrent. I have to say that Conservative performance has quite often not matched up to their rhetoric—we heard quite a lot of rhetoric from the Front Bench today.
At the end of the cold war, we had “Options for Change”: taking the peace dividend, cutting recruitment, running down equipment, and withdrawing our forces and armour from Germany. It looks as though we are going to have to remedy that at great cost.
We spoke earlier about the nuclear submarine renewal. In March 2007, under the Labour Government, this Parliament agreed to a motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Dame Margaret Beckett) on the principle of the renewal of the nuclear deterrent submarine programme, with the gateway stage to be further decided between 2012 to 2014. At that stage, David Cameron declined to do that, having allowed himself to be blackmailed—I say he allowed himself, because I do not think the Conservatives would have broken up the Government and given up their jobs, as California was not beckoning at that stage. We have therefore suffered considerable extra cost. Workforce teams have been broken up, the rhythm of submarine manufacture up in Barrow has been lost, and there has been an effect on the crews and our equipment. That is a real worry.
I also have a worry about our current submarine programme. I absolutely agree with the principle of the nuclear national endeavour, but I am very concerned about some of the detail. On the nuclear skills taskforce, the Government say:
“we are investing to increase our intake of nuclear sector graduates to around 2,000 in the next four years”.
When I posed a question to the Department for Education, I was told that there are 65 undergraduate enrolments in nuclear and particle physics courses and 190 postgraduate enrolments—a total of 255. I do not think they will all go into the defence industry, and I have found it hard to get data about how many of them are actually British citizens. Given the security requirements—if those who issue security clearance can get their act together—the Government are seriously underestimating the need to expand those courses and prioritise British students in our nuclear national endeavour programme.
On expenditure, I know from previous debates and from the Defence Committee that many Government Back Benchers agree with the critique and recognise that the dead hand of the deadbeat Treasury—not just recently but over the past 100 years or so—has seriously undermined Britain’s defence capability time and again. In the inter-war period, there was the infamous 10-year rule—defence expenditure was based on the assumption that there would not be a war for 10 years—and in 1915 there was the shell crisis.
It concerns me that, while history may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. Back in July 2021, the Defence Committee had General Hodges, the head of the United States Army Europe, giving evidence. He reported on the 3rd Division participating in an American warfighting exercise in Texas. The British Army ran out of every bit of important ammunition in about eight days of exercises. Nothing was done about it.
That was known, yet, when the Ukraine war started in 2022 and it became clear very early on that it was going to be very much an artillery war—there are newer drones and missiles and so on, but artillery plays a crucial role—it took from early 2022 through to July 2033 for the MOD to sign an agreement with BAE to produce the extra shells. There is not that sense of drive and urgency, especially when we are dealing with a country such as Russia that has put its whole economy on a war footing. Even now, we have only two artillery shell plants: Durham and Glascoed. Glascoed recently had demonstrations outside it by people trying to close it; why they are trying to stop them producing shells for Ukraine is another matter, and I certainly hope the union representing those workers will be taking up the case.
The United States has recognised that it cannot have single points of failure. In Glascoed there was recently an explosion; if it had been more serious, what would that have done to our capacity? The United States is building new, Government-owned, company-operated sites. It is not worried by the complaints about nationalisation; indeed, the powers given to the president to command industry are considerable. Yet we are still going through the same old, same old, relying on the companies putting in their cases. We do not have the luxury of that time.
I have been critical of Ministers and senior civil servants, but the senior military must bear responsibility for the situation as well. Year on year, they have focused on platforms rather than munitions or accommodation, and the costs of that are being seen in report after report from our Committee and indeed in the media. We must recognise that we now have a shortage not just of matériel, but of industrial capacity, plant, supply chain, skilled and production personnel, and any capacity to surge. We also have numerous single points of failure. I have mentioned the United States. France is commissioning a new explosive plant costing half a billion pounds, again recognising the shortfalls and the critical weaknesses in the system.
I am very pleased that although there has been a lot of focus on the nuclear pillar 1 in the discussions about AUKUS, in pillar 2 there is a lot of work on creating industrial capacity. I credit the Government with the work they are doing there on creating industrial capacity, but I stress that that cannot just be focused on the high-tech end. In many cases, our munitions and platforms depend on industrial skills and basic engineering, which are crucial to ensuring that they are maintained and that they work. We must recognise that we need that industrial base.
As the allies showed in world war two, we can shift domestic industry, plant and personnel to war production; Russia is demonstrating that today. Short-term cost-cutting, identified by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, will not do. Companies need workflows to create the workforce and the cash flow and to provide training opportunities for the workforce of the future. The Barrow submarine yard demonstrates the perils of running down the workforce. However, this is also about a pool of labour. For example, in the context of submarines there has been a great deal of talk about ensuring that people are trained in welding, but if other industries in other sectors are not also training welders, then—particularly if there is any drop in the workforce—they will go off and work in the oil and gas industry. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened, and incidentally it has also happened to parts of the United States shipbuilding industry.
We need a much more holistic approach across Government, because if people are being trained in one industry, it is impossible to control the flow out if there are opportunities elsewhere: there must be pressure on other companies to train as well. I have to say to the Minister that that is why the decision to offshore the commissioning of the fleet solid support ships is so incomprehensible. Given the need to maintain a workforce in certain yards and hence to maintain the skill base, shipping that out to Spain is scandalous. Furthermore, no other country, inside or outside the European Union, behaves in this way. The dead hand of the Treasury is dictating a policy that runs down our industry and ends up being much more costly in the long term.
The Ukrainian crisis has also revealed the need for effective collaboration. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford pointed out, we used to negotiate proper contracts of shared benefit, but going for “cheapest is best”—allegedly—has driven that into the ground. We need to work with other countries, which will include, as we have seen in the provision of munitions for Ukraine, working with European companies and European Parliaments. There will be no necessity to create new structures, but work will need to be done, and I suspect that there will be some willing partners in a number of the major European industrial countries, and that will mean a need for more real rather than financial engineers.
Finally—for I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker —I want to touch briefly on the subject of hybrid warfare and the so-called grey zone, on which our Defence Committee is conducting an inquiry. I do not want to pre-empt its findings, but I do want to urge the Ministry of Defence and the wider Government to take a broader, societal approach. The opponents we are facing, in Russia, China and North Korea, have the Soviet, Leninist methodology and ideology, across government and society. We have shown our ability to counteract that in previous conflicts, both hot and cold, but I think particularly of the Political Warfare Executive and the actions of the United Kingdom and the United States during the cold war. Sometimes the debate becomes a bit too focused on technology and techniques without an understanding of the political and ideological underpinning of conflict.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
One of the points that we have made previously in the Defence Committee concerns support for the Russian military archive, which was eventually moved to Shrivenham. Is it not about time the MOD took that archive far more seriously, given that it provides all the benefit of what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about?
John Spellar
What the hon. Gentleman refers to was just a manifestation of the running down of our Russia-watching capacity, in that context but also much more broadly within the system. I think there has been an attempt to repair it, but this should be a salutary lesson.
The present transformed security landscape requires money, manpower, mindset and matériel. We have to move further, and we have to move faster.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome this defence debate in Government time but, as we run out of time, I am reminded that we used to have five debates every year on different defence topics. Trying to cover the whole waterfront of defence in one debate is proving very taxing.
I will concentrate today on defence policy, which determines how we spend defence money, and indeed how much we decide to spend on defence, so that we are best prepared for whatever may occur—both the threats we can foresee and the events we cannot anticipate—including deterring and containing our adversaries, preferably without conflict. Incidentally, it is far cheaper to use defence money to prevent wars than to save money that then has to be spent on fighting a war.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP, which clearly sets defence as a higher priority. I fail to understand how this can be tempered by “as resources allow” or “as conditions allow.” The cyber-attack we discussed earlier underlines that we are already at war, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to put us more on a war footing, which means being able to rebuild munition stocks and create resilient supply chains, but it also means increasing our pace and creating a sense of urgency across Government.
We can no longer look forward to an era of global peace. We must jettison what might be termed the peacetime mentality that led my colleagues in Government to accept the restraint of the Liberal Democrats on renewing our strategic deterrent. I was shadow Defence Secretary opposite Geoff Hoon, and I remember that the sound defence review under George Robertson was never fully funded. The proportion of GDP spent by Government on defence fell and fell, and so did the size of the armed forces, the number of ships, the numbers in the Army and the number of aircraft. There are lots of pots and kettles in this Chamber.
I welcome the new consensus—although the Opposition have not quite put flesh on its bones—that we are going to increase money for defence. I respect the aspirations of the shadow Secretary of State, but I fear he may be restrained by the same kind of Treasury mentality that he says afflicts this Government.
This shift to a wartime mentality demands a shift in culture, not just in the MOD but across Government, led from the centre by No. 10, the Cabinet Office and the National Security Council, to create a national defence plan that must cover, as has been noted by other participants in this debate, a far wider spectrum of policy—not just cyber-security but energy security, food security, border security, technological security, economic security and even climate security.
The Liaison Committee, which I chair, is shortly to report on how Select Committees can better scrutinise and promote national strategic thinking and national strategy across all areas of Government policy. I hope the House will be interested in that report.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has proved beyond doubt that we live in a world of hyper-competition between the democratic world and the autocracies that show no sign of self-restraint. There are no boundaries, which we expect of civilised countries, that they will not cross. The democratic world is only just waking up to the threat that presents.
I will make three further points that are relevant to this debate. First, there are lessons to be learned from delaying the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Defence is not something that can be switched on and off, depending on how we feel about what is going to happen next year. The defence capability of our Trident submarines, which are a very expensive, long-term platform, reflects a failure of judgment by the coalition Government in not making that maingate decision much earlier, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said. This presents a threat to our capability, as we run the life of the submarines longer and longer, and has escalated the cost.
Secondly, I want to underline the importance of UK leadership in NATO and in the support of Ukraine. We really have led from the front on Ukraine. We have had a delicate relationship with the United States, to encourage them along, but in terms of European NATO we are certainly in the lead. That underlines the importance of the role the United Kingdom plays in the world. We are not just a small country—a little north-Atlantic power—but an opinion-forming country of great influence, which is why we must step up to our responsibilities in defence.
The third point I wish to make is about not so much defence policies but the integrated procurement model, which I very much welcome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, that is putting us on to a war footing in terms of procurement. It mimics what we have learned from the successful urgent operational requirements programme and will, I hope, lead to a cultural shift to which my right hon. Friend also addressed himself—a shift in attitude and behaviour, which is what we mean by a change of culture.
To achieve that shift in attitude, and to get a sense of urgency, we need to identify the attitudes and behaviours in the Ministry of Defence and in the procurement world that militate against the integrated procurement model, we have to root them out, and we have to identify the right attitudes and the right behaviours, which means changing hearts and minds in the MOD. How do we do that? Cultural change is very difficult in a large organisation, and previous defence reforms have disappeared into the sand like water in a desert, because there has not been a sufficient emphasis on a cultural shift.
Now, there are three kinds of people in any organisation such as the Ministry of Defence. When confronted with a demand for cultural change, there are the few enthusiasts who say, “At last! The leadership get it and are going to do something and change things”; most will have seen change programmes come and go and will want to comply, but may be rather cynical about it; and there will be a few resistors, who feel that it is an attack on their integrity, their way of doing things or their own personality. I am afraid the resistors have to be rooted out. They have to be taken out of the equation.
It has to be shown that people who resist cultural change will not prosper. That means that everyone at all levels must be taught and trained in the new procurement system, so that there is no misunderstanding about what it means. Previously I have recommended privately to the Secretary of State, and to the Minister for Defence Procurement, that there should be a defence course at Shrivenham called the integrated procurement model course. It should be like the higher command and staff course. Everybody should go on it and anybody involved in defence procurement should sign up to the new philosophy.
Finally, such a change programme requires leadership. It requires the leadership in the Ministry of Defence—the Ministers, the officials and the armed forces leadership—all to be absolutely united behind pursuing the change in attitude and behaviour across the whole MOD, and they must lead by example. The way they prove that is by making sure that nobody gets rewarded or promoted who does not demonstrate that they have adopted the new attitudes and behaviours. Otherwise, the minute the wrong person with the wrong attitudes and the wrong behaviours is promoted, everybody will say, “There you are: it does not matter. You get promoted anyway.” This is a very urgent part of the transformation of defence in this troubling period, and I hope very much that the Government will take up my suggestions.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
We are obviously living in a much more dangerous world and preparing for a potential war in Europe, which might involve our personnel at some point, not least, of course, in the support of Ukraine in her continual fight against Russia and Putin. All this adds up to a very serious situation.
I want to spend a couple of minutes on the point that we need to argue more forcefully for why the defence of our democratic, liberal way of life is so important, whatever shortcomings there might be in democracies. We need to reinforce the central tenets of free speech, liberty and the rule of law, as opposed to the alternative of dictatorship, gangsterism, brutal violence and the suppression of opposition that we have seen in other parts of the world. That is what we have to defend and fight for. We need to get our whole population prepared to play a part in ensuring our security and defending democracy and the basic principles that our great country stands for. There needs to be a change in mindset.
I think the Government and Parliament need to do a lot more to say why we need to spend more on defence and why we need to be prepared to deal with some very challenging situations, and possibly war. That is where we have failed to some extent, so we need to be much more up front with the British people. We know the threats and potential threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and the destabilising activities going on in the middle east and parts of Africa at the moment by some of those countries, and they are causing serious concerns. This is why we need to set out to the British public why defence needs to be properly funded and our armed forces supported in a much more systematic way. We did know Russia’s intentions, and its intentions in invading Crimea in 2014 clearly told us that times had changed. We thought that had all disappeared with the cold war, but it had not. However, we did not prepare for this, having cut spending, and we must be prepared to provide the resources needed for our armed forces, because if we want to maintain peace, we have to do so from a position of strength.
The first duty of Government is to defend the security of our country, and I want to look at this Government’s record. The path pursued over the past 14 years has led to a weakening of the capability of our armed forces to warfight over a sustained period, and of course of their resilience. We have heard from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), about the “hollowing out” of our armed forces, and we could not even put a warfighting division in the field at present. The Government’s failure to properly fund and the decision to cut the size of our armed forces, as well as the failure to stem the outflow from the armed forces and a defence procurement system that is broken, are putting the security of this country at risk and not preparing us for the threats, some of which I have outlined. If peace remains our goal, and it must be, we must be prepared to buy those resources.
Figures have been provided to me by the House of Commons Library. We have heard about cuts in defence expenditure during the coalition Government, but if we look at the whole period from 2010-11 to 2023-24, in both cash and real terms, the House of Commons Library figures show that spending has fallen by 1.2% at 2023-24 prices. So over the period of this Government, the record is that defence funding has actually fallen, no matter what they are doing now. It is just by coincidence that there is a general election coming up, and they have suddenly committed to a 2.5% increase.
Aside from the £3 billion that the Government have committed to military support for Ukraine, it is not clear exactly what the additional £5.4 billion of funding represents, because it has not yet been approved by Parliament or listed in any detail. On defence equipment, the increase in planned spending has been outstripped by a £65.7 billion—27%—rise in forecasted costs, which totalled £305.5 billion as of March 2023. This equates to a £19.6 billion funding shortfall based on central estimates, although the MOD estimates that the true shortfall could range from £7.6 billion to £29.8 billion if all the risks materialise. The National Audit Office scrutinises the equipment plan and publishes its own report alongside the MOD’s, and in recent years the NAO has assessed successive plans—I stress, successive plans—to be unaffordable.
I want to go into the size of the armed forces and the cuts that are taking place. Between January 2010 and January 2024, the size of the full-time UK armed forces decreased by around 50,000 personnel. The Army is now at its smallest, as some have said, since the Napoleonic wars. Both the RAF and the Royal Navy/Royal Marines are below target, by around 3,000 personnel and 1,500 personnel respectively.
The House of Commons Library has sent me a note on UK defence personnel, and it sets out that, in 2023, there was a 1% reduction in the number of personnel leaving the UK regular forces compared with the previous year, but there was also an 8% reduction in the number of people joining the armed forces. Overall, there was a negative flow of personnel, with 5,460 more personnel leaving the forces than joining. This compares with a net increase of 4,660 personnel in 2022. Voluntary outflow accounted for 60% of trained outflow from UK regular forces in 2023. The voluntary outflow rate is the number of trained personnel voluntarily leaving as a proportion of the average trained strength in the period. In 2023, the voluntary outflow rate was 6.4%, up from 6% in 2022. In its commentary published alongside the personnel statistics, the MOD says:
“There is no single reason why personnel leave on Voluntary Outflow, but the personnel who completed the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey indicated reasons for leaving the Armed Forces included the impact of Service life on family and personal life and opportunities outside the Armed Forces.”
Again, the Government have no real plan to address this really challenging problem.
I want to refer briefly to the state of the reserve forces, which is a really serious concern at the moment, particularly where we get specialist grades coming into the reserve forces from civilian life. We have a real problem with recruiting and retaining those reserve forces. In January 2024 the total trained and untrained strength of UK reserve forces was 32,650—a decrease of 665 personnel, or minus 4.9%, compared with the year before. Outflow was higher than inflow for Army, maritime and RAF reserve forces in 2023. The number of reserve personnel continued to decline from a peak of around 37,400 in April 2021.
I know that the Minister has previously been questioned about this issue by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but we cannot get the information about pinch point grades that used to be available. Those are the specialist grades that are so important to maintaining the sustainability, competency and fighting power of the armed forces, and we are still trying to get more information about them. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body said in a 2023 report that
“there could be insufficient personnel with the right skills to deliver the outputs envisaged by the Integrated Review. We would welcome more data from MOD relating to these pinch point areas and what interventions MOD is planning to employ to address the issues.”
We in this House would welcome that data as well.
Our armed forces are running hot and being asked to do ever more without the resources they need. Resilience is a growing concern, not just for personnel, but for the ability to maintain and replenish losses in a Navy and Air Force that are much smaller in terms of ships and aircraft. The Defence Committee’s “Ready for War?” report said:
“It is a matter of national pride that whenever the Armed Forces are asked to carry out a task, they will find a way. It is to the credit of the Armed Forces that they have sustained this effort for so long. But overtasking has both a personal cost for service personnel and an opportunity cost for the UK. The increase in global instability has coincided with a period of decreasing recruitment and reduced industrial capacity, which requires sustained, long-term investment. The Government risks being unable to build true warfighting and strategic readiness because of the sheer pace of operations, which could threaten the security of the UK.”
We cannot continue like this. As I have said, we live in a dangerous and increasingly unstable world, and we need to move quickly to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence. The Government have still not set out how they intend to get there: they have not given the details, and the figures they have quoted so far have been rubbished by independent analysis, as we have already seen. The fact remains that over the past 15 years this Government have put our security at risk through their underfunding of the armed forces and their cutting of personnel. That is another reason why the current Prime Minister and this Government need to go.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Earlier this afternoon I counted over 50 right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party alone packing the Opposition Benches for the urgent question on the middle east. Sadly, though predictably, by the time we got to this important debate we were down to the usual suspects—the usual stalwarts, about half a dozen to a dozen Members on each side of the House. That difference in the numbers is relevant: the reason for it is that an actual war is going on in the middle east, so people are very focused on it, now that it is too late to prevent it. Our purpose in holding debates such as this one should be not to get to that situation.
I have some reservations about the constant references to us being in a pre-war world. I know what the Secretary of State and others mean when they refer to that, but it can be taken as meaning that we are in a situation where war is inevitable, and it is not. We have to behave as if we were going to have to defend ourselves in a real war, because if we make those preparations adequately, we will, through a policy of deterrence, prevent the war from happening in the first place.
This close to a general election, it is perhaps inevitable that we will hear people on both sides of the House, but on the Front Benches in particular, quibbling over percentage points of GDP being allocated to defence expenditure. But I have to say that 2.5%, 3% or even 4% would not be anything like adequate if a war actually broke out—44% is probably more like what we would have to spend. This is not just about a loss of treasure; even worse, it is about the human suffering and loss of life that would happen if we fail to invest adequately in peacetime to prevent that from ever coming to pass.
The economist Roger Bootle recently explained:
“During the Second World War, we spent roughly 50% of GDP on the military and slightly more than this in 1916 and 1917, during the First World War.”
So for goodness sake, let us be serious about this. No Government can be exonerated for the Kool-Aid that they drank after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
During the 2015-17 Parliament, the Defence Committee spent a bit of time trying to establish what had happened to defence expenditure in the post-war era. What we found was this: in 1963 we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on both welfare and defence; and by 2017, after the study was carried out, we were spending six times as much on welfare as we were spending on defence. Similarly, it was found that in the mid-1980s we had been spending similar sums—about 5% of GDP then—on education, health and defence. By 2017 we were spending 2.5 times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we were spending on defence.
At the height of the cold war confrontation, and every year from 1981 to 1987, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence. From 1988—when the cold war began to evaporate—until 2014, defence spending almost halved as a proportion of GDP. Of course, there was a reason for that: it appeared that the threat from Russia had gone away. Well, now it is back. The question is this: are we prepared to revert to the sort of investment in defence in “peacetime” that we made so successfully during the 50 years of the cold war, which prevented an outbreak—a terrible further global conflict—between the then superpowers, both of which were armed with nuclear weapons?
I revert to what I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State when he was opening the debate: everything depends on what happens in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Let us be honest that when the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine arose in early 2022, not many people—hardly any in this Chamber, I suspect, myself included—predicted that Ukraine would be as successful as it has proved to be in resisting the might of the Russian invasion. I suspect that what had made that possible was that the shock that they had experienced in previous years over the loss of Crimea, which, if I remember correctly, was taken over by the Russians quite easily, focused their minds, their efforts and their investment upon the dire possibility that Russia might come back for more. That is why Ukraine was so much better prepared, with the covert assistance of other countries, not least this one, to resist the second Russian invasion when it happened.
I cannot stress too strongly that Ukraine’s battle is our battle. If Putin is seen to be unsuccessful in Ukraine, then the threat to us and to the rest of NATO will recede for a generation. However, if he is able to claim some sort of success, by ending up with significantly more territory at the end of the process than he had under his control in February 2022, then it will only be a matter of time before he comes back for more.
I want to say a few words about the middle east, but they are not actually my words; they are words from a remarkably perceptive article written by a Member of the upper House, the noble Lord Hague—William Hague, to us. He outlined his reaction to the atrocities of 7 October in an astonishingly perceptive way in The Times within 48 hours of that attack. I want to set some of what he said on the record, because he raised the question of why on earth Hamas should have undertaken such an action when they must have known it would provoke a horrifying response. He asked the question:
“Why, as well as murdering hundreds of defenceless young people at a rave, parade dead bodies as evidence of the atrocities? The answer is that their objective is uncontrolled rage. It is to make Israel lash out in a way that starts a conflagration. To start a war so intense that it spreads, igniting an explosion of violence in the West Bank and bringing in Hezbollah from Lebanon in the north, with Israel fighting on multiple fronts. To see so many Palestinians killed that the Israelis lose the moral high ground of defending themselves against mass murder. To use the fate of hostages, with maximum cruelty, to intensify a frenzy of hatred whenever that seems to be abating.”
That is still going on now. We heard reference to the Israeli soldiers recently killed in a Hamas artillery strike close to the one entrance where aid was coming into Palestine. Guess what happened? The Israelis immediately closed that entrance, thus intensifying the crisis. The Hamas strategists clearly know what they are doing. It is horrible—devilish— but there is a cruel logic to it.
The heading that Lord Hague—or his sub-editor at The Times—used for that article was:
“Hamas has set a trap that Israel must avoid: Iranian-backed attacks are desperate attempts to halt growing collaboration with Saudi Arabia and the UAE”.
The only element that was missing in the article was that that strategy, promoted by Iran, was also extremely beneficial to Russia, because now we spend rather more time considering what is happening in Israel and Gaza than we spend considering what is happening between Russia and Ukraine, despite the fact that what is happening between Russia and Ukraine cannot be emphasised too often because it is of crucial significance to the future peace, or lack of peace, of NATO countries vis-à-vis the Russian threat.
I will close with some remarks about the nuclear deterrent, which has been touched on a few times. One of the votes took place under Labour, as we have heard, on 14 March 2007, when there was a substantial majority for the deterrent. Parliament voted by 409 votes to 161 in favour of proceeding with the initial gate for the renewal of the Trident submarine fleet; but even that huge majority of 248 was eclipsed on 18 July 2016, when under the Conservative Government—free from the coalition—the majority rose to 355 when MPs voted for the decisive main gate stage to proceed. That vote was won by 472 votes to 117.
That shows near unanimity in the House for the maintenance of our strategic nuclear deterrent—and all that happened before the various crises that we have been concentrating on today. Let us hope that unity prevails. I, for one, welcome the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who said that his party is now committed to four submarines and to the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent, which presumably means with the use of Trident missiles. I say “use” because they are used every day of the week. Their use is as a deterrent. If ever—heaven forbid—they had to be fired, they would fail in their purpose.
We have come a long way and we have made a lot of progress. It is just as well that we are united, given the way in which the international scene has darkened, but both Front Benches have a long way to go if they are to reach a stage where we are making the sort of investment, the sort of insurance and the sort of effort that has to be made to deter an aggressive Russia and to ensure that Ukraine prevails.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I will have to put a 10-minute time limit on speeches after the next speaker to get everybody in. That is not an invitation, Mr Jones, to speak for more than 12 minutes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I begin by putting on the record the whole House’s thanks to the members of our armed forces for the service they give selflessly to protect us all? It is often said that the first responsibility of a Government is to protect the nation, keep it safe and protect its citizens. I think we need to look at what has happened over the past 14 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said in his contribution that the armed forces are being “hollowed out”—not his words or mine, but those of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). Have we got to that situation by accident? No, we have not. That has been a deliberate policy over the last 14 years, including the 18% cut in the defence budget up to 2015-16. Today, the defence budget is 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. As my hon. Friend said, we saw our armed forces personnel cut by nearly 50,000—they were not only cut; there were compulsory redundancies. If a Labour Government had done that, every national newspaper would have had a lot to say about it. One in five ships in the Royal Navy has been taken out of service. We have 200 fewer aircraft in the RAF now, and satisfaction ratings for service life are at an all-time low of 50%.
Is it a time for serious policy and serious money on defence? Yes, it is, but we have not got that from the Government or from the Prime Minister’s announcement, which is the usual smoke and mirrors. It is about soundbites that can be sold at the next general election. The Defence Secretary could sell snow to the Eskimos in his confident sort of way. I am not sure they would come back and buy more snow from him once they discovered what they had actually been sold.
If we look at what has been announced, an extra £75 billion is the headline. That will be repeated by every Conservative candidate in the general election, but we know they only get that figure if the defence budget would have been frozen for the next six years—something the Defence Secretary fails to admit. Also, where is the money? If my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench had announced this, straightaway people would be saying, “Where’s the money coming from? Where’s the detail?” There is no detail; it is just an aspiration—that is all it is. There is no separation between how much will be spent on resource and capital departmental expenditure limits. What we have from the salesman that is the Secretary of State is a whole shopping list of everything that will be put right by the supposed huge expenditure he has announced. It is pretty hollow.
Let us deal with facts. The Secretary of State does not like dealing with facts. It is like when he came before the Defence Committee. If we take the money to Ukraine out of the budget, the defence budget for next year—this was confirmed by the strategic finance director of the MOD—falls. The question that people need to ask at the next general election is: where is the money coming from? Why are our armed forces in such a dire state? We know the answer to that. It is because of the past 14 years.
We need to concentrate on three things: the defence of our homeland and the contribution to NATO, which has been mentioned; the capability of our equipment and how it can be delivered; and putting weight behind British industry and skills. The Secretary of State said earlier that the announcement meant a huge boost to UK defence expenditure, but the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) demonstrated what we have seen over the last 14 years: contract after contract given to the United States, without any commitment to UK skills. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned the case of the fleet solid support ship given to a Spanish shipyard. That would never happen in any other European nation. We must ensure not just that we have the right equipment and procurement procedures, but that decisions are taken to boost our armed forces and to help UK plc.
Bob Seely
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a balance? Clearly, one would like everything for the military to be produced in this country to support our industrial base, but at the same time we complain about procurement scandals when the kit turns out to be so much more expensive than elsewhere. We need a balance. When we can realistically produce stuff in this country, we should be doing so—obviously, I will make the case for radar on the Isle of Wight—but if we try to do everything in this country, we will need to increase the defence budget just to pay for poorer quality procurement. He does not seem to be addressing that point.
Mr Jones
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be talking down the UK defence industry. He talks about radars in the Isle of Wight, which are some of the best radars in the world, but what are we doing? We are not giving long-term commitments to those capabilities. We are buying off the shelf from the United States and other nations. We are not just talking about buying British; it is about co-operation with our allies as well. The problem is that if we take a short-termist view, which is what has happened over the past 14 years, we do not get the commitments and the flow through of orders, nor the R&D, investment and certainty, that people on the Isle of Wight need.
The Secretary of State said that the UK is now on a war footing following this announcement. Why, then, did it take the Government nearly two years to procure the order for 155 mm munitions? That is not a war footing; that is a slow snail’s pace of procurement. We need to ensure that we get not only the finance and the increase in the defence budget, but that rapid throughput of work. That cannot be done just by placing one order this week and then leaving it for several years, thinking that somehow the defence contractors will still be there with their skills.
We need a thorough defence policy. One thing that has been missing in the last 14 years is a coherent defence industrial strategy. Even when the Government do come up with a strategy, such as the shipbuilding strategy, what do they do? The main argument for that strategy was that we needed to have a throughput of work at UK yards, so what did the Government do? They made an order where most of the work will be done in Spain. No other European nation would do that.
As has been said, this is a very worrying time, and I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Halton that we need to make the case for defence. I have been doing that for 23 years in this House, as have others across the House. We need to make that case to show that the democracy that we take for granted is delicate and needs to be protected. We can protect it only if we invest in the capability to do so, because there are those, even beyond the immediate threat we see from Russia, who would happily see the precious democracy that we cherish snubbed out, not through argument and debate, but through violence and war.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
When you took the Chair some time ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, you observed that the House was stuffed full of defence expertise, and that has been demonstrated amply in the debate that has followed your taking the Chair. Once or twice, I felt that I had inadvertently stumbled into a private meeting of the Defence Committee, since most Members who have spoken so far—though not all—are either present or previous members of that Committee. I pay tribute to their huge expertise, particularly on defence procurement. They know what they are talking about in immense detail and I fear that I simply do not, so I will not try to compete with them on that.
However, it has been a very important debate for this reason: this is the first occasion, I think, on which the Government have given us a debate in Government time on the subject of defence. I have banged on for many years, trying to persuade the Government to do that, but this is the first such debate, and I hope it is the first of many. We used to have five every year, so I hope very much that we will have a significant number of debates over the years to come.
The important point about these debates is that, as a number of people have commented, we live in exceptionally dangerous times, in an exceptionally dangerous world, and we simply do not know what is going to happen next. There could be all kinds of warfare and trouble to come. It is therefore very important that the House as a whole—not just the Defence Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the House as a whole—should have a serious understanding of defence and foreign affairs. It is terribly important that debates such as this are used towards the better education of all our colleagues across the House.
In that context, I am particularly proud of the work I have done for quite a long time to seek to educate better Members of Parliament across the House. I have used two mechanisms. Many Members here will be familiar with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which this year has seconded 64 MPs and peers in uniform to the three armed services. As of this year, thanks to an initiative by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) , we have introduced a fourth course, namely the strategic command course, which has been widely enjoyed. There are 64 people altogether, four of whom go to the Royal College of Defence Studies—the ultimate in thinking in the armed services.
That seems to me an extremely important contribution that we have made over the last few years. I am glad to say that this is the 10th anniversary of the revived version of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I have chaired, and I pay tribute to the people who run it for me. Lieutenant Colonel Johnny Longbottom, in particular, has done great work over those years. The scheme has made a huge contribution to the better understanding of defence by people in this place.
Alongside that, I also chair the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, which holds two or three events a month, very often downstairs. Again, that is widely enjoyed by a large spectrum of people from across the Chamber. It enables the Ministry of Defence to get its messages over to ordinary Members of Parliament in a way it would not otherwise be able to do. We have laid on various welcome home events when people come back from overseas deployments and laid on individual meet-and-greets in Speaker’s House and the occasional breakfast.
I remember in particular the Fighting With Pride breakfast, which moved us all a great deal through the things it brought to light. I did not know before that about the appalling things we had done to LGBT soldiers, sailors and airmen until 2001. Certainly for me and a number of other Members, that breakfast gave us a determination to do something about it. I am glad to say that at the end of a year’s campaigning, we did achieve something of that kind. The APPG does an extraordinarily useful job, and I am proud that I chair it. I pay tribute to Amy Swash and Sophie Lane in my office who run it for me. It is a great organisation.
The reason I am proud of all that is that sometimes when people talk about defence in this Chamber they talk about the role that Parliament might have in the event of our going to war. They come to an entirely false conclusion that we should therefore have a debate and a vote in this House on the deployment of troops overseas. This important matter has been troubling me for many years now. Of all the 175 wars we have fought since 1700, only two have had a substantive vote in this House before deployment. The first was in 2003, when Tony Blair sought top cover by insisting on votes on the invasion of Iraq. The second was in 2013 when David Cameron again sought top cover in seeking to retaliate against Syria for using chemical weapons. On the first occasion, we voted in favour of it—what a mistake that was, and I am glad to say that I abstained—and on the second occasion we voted against it, and we did not go to war with Syria. Most people would now say that much of what has happened in the middle east since then would have been different had we done so.
On both occasions where the House of Commons has voted on a matter of deployment, we have got it wrong and done the wrong thing. On all the other occasions where we have gone to war, it has been done by the Prime Minister and the Executive under the royal prerogative and we have tended to get it right. Our role then becomes scrutiny of what it is that the Prime Minister and Executive have done. We can stand here, ask questions, call debates and do all sorts of things to scrutinise how the Prime Minister has done what he has done. That is an important role for Parliament to play. If we are being asked to vote for something, as Labour Members were forced to vote on a three-line Whip in 2003 in favour of the Iraq war, we cannot then turn around and criticise it. Our job here in Parliament is to scrutinise and criticise what the Government have done, not to give them top cover for it.
It is therefore important that, whatever may be about to befall us in this world—who knows what that might be—we do not once again fall into the easy truism that on such vital matters we in the House of Commons must be given a vote. No, we must not. That is to emasculate us as Members of Parliament and to prevent us from holding the Government to account. It presumes that we have the secret intelligence, legal advice and all the other things one needs to take that kind of decision. We must not do that. We are ordinary Members of Parliament; we should be better informed about defence, which is why I welcome debates such as this, and we should know what we are talking about, as well as we can in this place, but the notion that that should lead us to conclude that somehow or other we have Executive power over what the armed services do is, I fear, entirely fallacious.
I very much hope that we will use these debates, the armed forces parliamentary scheme—or the new scheme that will be launched shortly—and the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces for the better education not of the specialists who we see around us in this debate this evening to whose great expertise I pay tribute, but of the generality of Members of Parliament and the generality of people who look into these things, feel concerned, but may not have the detailed expertise that we have seen demonstrated in the Chamber this evening. I want to see Parliament a better informed place about defence and foreign affairs, and I hope that those two organisations will play some part in doing that.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), and I pay tribute to him as the chair and lead of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. He hosts lots of highly experienced, very senior strategic thinkers from the armed forces as part of that APPG.
I welcome this opportunity to debate UK defence policy at greater length. I have been struck that so far many of the speeches have been about defence capability and equipment, but I was particularly impressed by the comments about the strategic environment. The most senior military personnel in our kingdom talk about strategy in terms of ends, ways and means. It would be a mistake to spend all our time talking about means when they expect the Government and Parliament also to think about ways and particularly ends—the end state that the UK is seeking to bring about. I will focus my remarks more on the strategic environment and the wider security context, and towards the end I will talk a bit about cuts to the regular Army. I will also comment on the suggestions that have been knocking around recently about a citizens army.
I was impressed by the remarks of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the strategic environment. I am glad that in the west we seek to take the peace dividend when we think it is available to us. One thing that stands out about democracies is that when the security environment allows, we try to invest in health and education. It is absolutely appropriate to champion that, but we should also be realistic enough to recognise when times do not allow for that.
We have talked today about continuous at-sea deterrents and the role of the coalition Government in having a Trident alternatives review, which is not to be regretted. In the security context of the time, when Obama was talking about a reset button and we signed a strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia—New START—it was appropriate to be thinking along the same lines as in the 1990s, when the west and the Soviet Union were mutually trying to reduce the threats from our nuclear weapons. As it happens, the events from 2014 onwards plainly proved that we absolutely need to be as strong as possible.
The Prime Minister’s remarks a fortnight ago were interesting. He talked about a new defence partnership between the UK and Germany. I welcomed the fact that he made the announcement in Berlin and the idea that we should have greater interoperability with our allies, but he then fell into this business of talking about putting the defence industry on to a “war footing”. Indeed, that chimed with the Defence Secretary’s statement that we are entering a “pre-war era”. When we throw such remarks around, we need to qualify what we mean, because we know that our adversaries listen carefully to what we say. We do not need belligerent tones and a mismatch between our rhetoric and our capability; instead, we should speak quietly while making ourselves as strong as possible. That is of course what the armed forces are for. “Bello te praepares” was the motto of the Army training regiment when I was there as a platoon commander. We were very much about preparing for war, but we were doing it quietly. It would be sensible for the Defence Secretary to make those preparations as ardently as possible but not in a showy fashion.
If the Defence Secretary’s motivation is genuinely to send a message to Ukraine that we are in this for the long haul and that there is certainty, he will not want to make this a party political issue or suggest that Opposition parties are somehow less supportive of Ukraine. He asked earlier whether we would match the £500 million uplift per year for Ukraine. Yes—we recognise the characterisation of Russia’s westward expansion as a threat to all Europe, so Ukraine can be assured that, regardless of a change of Government later this year, it will continue to receive £3 billion in support from the UK.
The Foreign Secretary said last week, when he was in Ukraine, that Ukraine is free to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles over the border into Russia. I am surprised that that has not come up in our discussion today. That may be because such things should not be done on the Floor of the House, and I very much welcomed the approach of the former Defence Secretary, who would share with Opposition parties, well in advance of the debate, the urgent question or the statement, what he intended to say through his special adviser. That was a way to have such conversations not on the Floor of the House or in such a public fashion. As it is, the strategic communications people in NATO will now have to work all the harder to counter the false narratives and lies that Russia pumps out about Ukraine somehow being a threat to the Russian people, or even Russia being threatened by NATO itself.
From an operational standpoint, that use of missiles makes good sense. Clearly, main supply routes, arms dumps and fuel depots will now be brought within range, but we should remember that the centre of gravity here is the Russian people and their willingness to fight. We know that the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan after 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed. To encourage Russians not to sign up, we need to persuade them that the state of Russia is not threatened by Ukraine or, indeed, by NATO.
On the cuts to the regular Army, I was interested by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) about recruitment and consent. I would point to the issue of consent when we talk about parliamentary approval of military action. I do not believe that Governments were merely seeking top cover when they had a debate in Parliament on the intervention in Iraq in 2003 or on the intervention in Syria in 2013. Rather, they were genuinely seeking to engage with us as representatives of the people to try to get support.
Finally, I come to a proposal that was leaked to a journalist, David Parsley, at the i a couple of weeks ago about a 20,000-strong volunteer force that could potentially train a 200,000-strong volunteer Army. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that or any other leak, but if that is the response from the Government to the pressure they have been under on cuts to the Army, it would not be a sensible approach. The plan talks about an annual spend of some £500 per recruit in training allowances per year for the initial 20,000 ex-forces personnel during peacetime. That amount would not go very far. Service personnel would suppose that the MOD was once again budgeting to withhold blank rounds in favour of commanders asking trainee soldiers to shout “Bang!” We cannot have an Army on paper that does not exist in reality. We need a regular Army of 82,000. We need to reverse the cuts that we have seen in recent years, and we need to build credible armed forces so that we are strong not only in our rhetoric, but in our capability.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My constituency lies at the heart of one of the largest clusters of defence and aerospace manufacturing in Europe, namely the south-west region. I am also very proud that Abbey Wood, the home of the MOD’s procurement agency, is based in my constituency. Companies such as Rolls-Royce are playing a key role in developing the Tempest fighter jet as part of the global combat air programme, or GCAP, a next-generation programme that will provide the Royal Air Force and our allies with capability fit for the future. Last month, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to open the FutureWorks at Rolls-Royce in Patchway. The lift fan for the F-35 is built in the same plant. The engines that power the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers have also been built by Rolls-Royce at the same plant in Patchway.
This Friday, I will join Boeing at the opening of their new offices—the third time I have opened an office for Boeing in my constituency.
A few weeks ago I was pleased to join Rheinmetall, who as we all know will be building the new Boxer and the Boxer RCH self-propelled artillery for our military, at the opening of its new offices in my constituency. MBDA in Filton is developing future technologies and expertise, which even today help the Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles that are making such a difference to Ukrainian efforts to defeat the Russians and kick them out of their country.
Airbus builds the wings for the RAF A400M transport aircraft, and the Wing of Tomorrow facility in Filton represents a significant investment in our future aerospace and defence expertise. Just over the road is the new GKN technology centre. I have recently visited Elbit Systems—a company with a growing footprint in my constituency, which demonstrated some of the capability it is developing to help our armed forces. I regularly meet senior members of civilian and military staff at DE&S Abbey Wood, who have been masterminding the UK’s effort and rallying support for our international partners to support Ukraine, as well as running the MOD’s procurement for our armed forces.
The defence and aviation sector in my constituency employs more than 30,000 people, with a significant supply chain across the south-west. Indeed, a significant number of jobs in the south-west are connected to the defence sector—an additional 17,600 according to latest industry data, although I am minded to think it is probably a lot more. Apprenticeships are key to a wider effort to enable us to train the scientists and engineers of the future, to ensure that we continue to enhance our sovereign defence manufacturing capability, as well as being a vehicle to promote social mobility and opportunity. The MOD is committed to invest at least £6.6 billion in its funding for research and development over the next four years, which will help the apprenticeship programmes.
The most recent statistics relating to the defence sector, published just last week by the United Kingdom Defence Solutions Centre, show that over 406,000 full-time jobs are directly supported by that sector. When I was co-chair of the all-party group on apprenticeships, I produced a report, after chairing an inquiry into MOD apprenticeships, which underlined the fact that the MOD is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the country. Apprenticeships provide fantastic opportunities for our young people, and they keep training and increasing the expertise for our industrial base.
The announcement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made last month to raise the level of our defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP is a welcome demonstration from this Government to underpin our commitment to our NATO allies, and our friends and allies around the world. The message is clear: the United Kingdom is leading the way as the largest defence spender in Europe, in addition to demonstrating that we are a reliable partner and ally.
Moreover, the MOD is transforming itself to be ready for whatever lies ahead. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about this being a “pre-war era” in his Lancaster House speech earlier this year. I was glad that he was able to see some of the work done at Abbey Wood when he visited just a couple of weeks ago. The announcement that at least 5% of spending will be ringfenced for research and development from 2025-26 onwards, with an increased focus on dual-use technologies, received a positive reception in my constituency. There was also the announcement of the overall defence spending increase of £75 billion over the next six years.
I have visited Ukraine six times in the last 12 months, and will soon be going again to attend the International Defence Industries Forum and the Yalta European Strategy Conferences. Moreover, I have promoted the work of many British defence manufacturers, as well as making the case for them to do more in terms of operations and manufacturing in Ukraine. I have met senior members of the Ukrainian Government, and been told of their frustration at the delays that seem to be occurring in setting up meaningful collaboration between British and Ukrainian defence manufacturers. That is against a backdrop where Russia has increased its military spending by 68% to 7.5% of its GDP. Putin claimed recently that more than 520,000 new jobs have been created in the Russian arms industry, which now employs an estimated 3.5 million people.
On those visits I have met senior Ministers in Ukraine, such as Oleksandr Kamyshin, the Minister of Strategic Industries, as well as the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, the Chairman of the National Security, Defence and Intelligence Committee, and many others. I have been to the front lines in Zaporizhzhia to see British-made artillery in action—the AS-90s, most of which seem to have come from one of my son’s Army regiments, 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. Michael is currently deployed in Estonia on exercise, deterring the Russian threat.
In addition, I work constantly to bring together defence manufacturers from across the United Kingdom, and I have arranged meetings with the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I have had meetings here in London and elsewhere. The benefits of increased trade in all sectors, but especially in defence matériel, are evident and in the national interests of Ukraine and the United Kingdom, as well as some of the surrounding countries, particularly Poland and Romania. For us in the United Kingdom, we defend our own sovereignty and critical national infrastructure. Russia has already proven that it can conduct cyber-warfare against the west effectively, and has been only emboldened in this by its ever closer relationship with China. For Ukraine, it is armed with the best of British kit and equipment. Coupled with Ukraine’s world-leading expertise in drone technology and standards, this could quickly produce high-quality military equipment, for Ukraine has a keen interest in establishing partnerships with defence companies based here in the UK and across Europe, in order to rebuild its own defence industrial base and help to win the war, as well as to invest in deterrence post victory as Ukraine moves towards NATO membership.
Over the course of a recent visit to Ukraine, I produced a report, at the Prime Minister’s request, about the challenges in setting up manufacturing bases in Ukraine and how to unblock the bureaucracy that is proving an impediment to doing so. It is reassuring that the Prime Minister has joined me and others throughout the Chamber in calling for the UK’s defence industry to be put on a war footing. This will enable our defence manufacturers and the wider supply chains to plan with confidence and to invest in the capabilities that we will need to fight the wars of the future and provide an important deterrent to our enemies.
First, though, we have to unblock the bureaucracy and try to make it as easy as possible for companies to collaborate together, particularly those from the United Kingdom and Ukraine, given our special relationship and the support we have given them, over and above most nations. As our Ukrainian friends say, we must build the arsenal of the free world together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), and others who have spoken exceptionally well.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) has now left the Chamber, but many of us have had the opportunity to be involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which he now chairs. I know the people who previously ran the scheme, which I did for four different terms, and I must say that I learned a lot from it in each and every case.
I put on the record my thanks to all those who serve in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. In my constituency of Strangford, the tradition of service is one that I am always amazed by—many people have joined up and served, and their families have served, over many a year—so I am really pleased to contribute to the debate.
I want to focus on Northern Ireland in particular, on defence procurement and on how we can do better. In the 2023-24 financial year, the UK spent some £54.2 billion on defence. That is expected to rise to £57.1 billion in 2024-25, which is a 4.5% real terms increase. As a member of NATO, we are committed to meeting our defence expenditure targets, so it is great to discuss the importance of these matters and to underline them.
Our defence industry is so important in the United Kingdom, as has been shown time and again in the assistance offered to support Israel and Ukraine over the past few years. In addition, it is fantastic that Northern Ireland can play its role in the UK’s defence industry. There are so many businesses that go above and beyond to provide support. For example, I know that everyone is well aware of Thales and the NLAW shoulder-launched anti-tank devices that have been used with great success against the Russians in Ukraine. Thales is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who tells me that the largest number of the workforce comes from my Strangford constituency. Whether in respect of service in uniform or service in the defence sector, I am honoured, pleased and privileged to be the MP for Strangford and to know that my constituents can do such a great job.
Strangford has another section of Thales, the missile section, down in Crossgar. It is producing fantastic military products to combat Russian tanks and aeroplanes both in captured parts of Ukraine and across Russia. With a 30-year heritage of world-class engineering in Strangford, Thales employs some 500 people and contributes £77 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP.
There is also an ecosystem of suppliers. Ninety-one per cent of our local procurement in Northern Ireland comes from small and medium-sized enterprises. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry into procurement in the defence sector, and we hope that Northern Ireland can become a bigger player, but we do not have a regional hub, which should be one of our recommendations. Many companies have come to make representations to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently announced that defence budgets will increase in 2024-25, and I am incredibly encouraged and pleased that the Secretary of State spoke about ensuring a focus on allocating those funds towards defence budgets in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister for Defence People and Families will repeat that in his summing up, as I know every Minister does, but Northern Ireland does not have the proportion of defence contracts that it should have relative to other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the north-east or south of England.
Companies such as Spirit AeroSystems, Harland & Wolff and Thales need to be offered contracts to help Northern Ireland to contribute towards further supporting the UK. We want to play our part. We have companies with the skilled workforce, the opportunity and the eagerness. Nitronica, an electronic manufacturer in Ballynahinch, is one of the companies that we are very keen to be involved in defence procurement contracts. One way of making that happen would be to have a regional hub, and the quicker we have it, the better.
There is certainly a reason for us to have a conversation about cyber-security and how the defence budget can support online protection. The Secretary of State made a statement earlier on the defence data hack. We have a commitment to cyber-security, and my understanding is that the skills we have in Northern Ireland, whether in Belfast or Londonderry, are equal to those down south or in England.
The defence industry is economically important to many areas of the United Kingdom, and our defence policy must be consistent with an industrial strategy that promotes jobs and skills throughout all the regions and nations of the UK. I am proud to be British, and I am proud to be a member of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we need to see it working physically. In his summing up, will the Minister give us some encouragement by telling us how we can do better? We want to do better, because we believe in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In ensuring that the data breach is not repeated, and with national security being at the forefront of our priorities, it is clear that more steps need to be taken to preclude any future incident. In the years since the Good Friday agreement was signed, Northern Ireland has become a hotspot for cyber-security innovation. The cities of Belfast and Londonderry are to the fore in exhibiting high technology specialists and consistently attracting domestic and overseas investment. We are proud of that hub, and we feel that it should be leading the way. Although it is important that our aerospace, communications and arms sectors are offered further defence contracts, our cyber-security sector is just as important and must also be given recognition.
It is always encouraging to hear about the Secretary of State’s intention to boost defence spending. Whenever I ask him questions in the Chamber, he always replies by mentioning Thales, Spirit AeroSystems and Harland & Wolff as examples of where we are doing better, but we need a regional hub—that is my request in this debate —to ensure that we have the means to help ourselves.
We in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a fabulous defence industry, an incredibly skilled workforce, and opportunities to grow and maintain our defence procurement across the whole nation. We must ensure that the boost in spending is offered through contracts to local businesses that go above and beyond to support us. Our commitment to apprenticeships, through those three big firms, shows how we can do better.
National security has no price, so it is great to hear the Minister’s commitments, but perhaps he might clarify how he intends to ensure that the devolved nations can continue to play their role in supporting the wider United Kingdom defence industry, to make this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland even greater. If it is even greater, I would be very proud to be part of it.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I am not a Minister—to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray)—but I am a former serviceman, and I hope to bring some value, as a practitioner, to what we are discussing.
We know that the first duty of any Government is the defence of their people—that is quite clear—so the need to keep people safe is non-discretionary. Right now we have war raging across Europe, not too far away, and multiple threats are proliferating right across the globe. Given that the international landscape now is probably more dangerous, unstable and incendiary than it has been at any time since world war two, defence spending is absolutely essential. Voters care about their security, and many are nervous about what is happening across the world. Most importantly, it is our duty as politicians to keep them safe.
That is why the Government’s commitment to a defence budget equal to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 is so important, both strategically and politically. As a member of the UN Security Council, the UK’s continued role as a bastion of global rights and democracy can be underpinned only by hard power. It is a reality of history that we may yet be called upon to protect our own security and that of our allies. We know that the Defence Secretary has recently increased military aid to Ukraine, securing an extra £700 million and thereby taking Britain’s total contribution beyond £3 billion—that is a lot of money—so we are doing our bit.
On the 2.5% target, it is extra money, but the issue is what we do with it and how we spend it—that is important—so I advocate for a capability audit right now. The reason I say that is that the extra injection of funds means that we need to work out what we can now do. When I was working at Northwood permanent joint headquarters many years ago, we had this thing called the JOECR—the joint operational estimate of capability and readiness. In my view, with the extra money that we have now, we should be turning all those capabilities that are flashing red to green—in other words, we should plug the capability gaps—and not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space and cyber. Yes, state-of-the-art platforms are fine, and yes, we must procure weapons that we know can beat our adversaries, but it is also about spending wisely and smartly where necessary.
My second point on the 2.5% is that we need to better operate what we already have so that every part of our lexicon works. We must not rely on the exquisite exclusivity that we have spoken so much about; we must ensure that all our platforms work and can be sustained across the battlespace.
In terms of equipment generally, as one part of capability we need to procure what we need and nothing more. It is about strategic lift as well as exquisite exclusivity. If we do not have the ships—the roll-on roll-off ferries—or the strategic lift, including C-17s and A400Ms, to get equipment and people right across the globe, there is no point having the kit in the first place. It is therefore about enabling expeditionary reach. We cannot put boots on the ground if we cannot get the boots there. Plus, Minister, it is about logistic tail, spares, the supply chain, sustainment, defence contractors, delivery and munitions. We must be careful to ensure that if we buy it, we will be able to use it and then fight it through, and it must be sustainable and enduring.
“Platform” is an interesting word. It means the platform on which a capability sits, but what is put on that platform also matters. I therefore favour a modular approach for future equipment programmes, whereby we can apply different degrees of mobility, firepower and protection, but it is the kit that is bolted on and bolted off that really matters, and that is the battle-winning equipment for me. For me, this is about a commonality of platforms, about spares, about logistics, about interoperability and about cannibalisation. If we run out of something, can we get it? With complex platforms and complex supply chains, we cannot, so let us please go for modular and for commonality.
Richard Foord
Is the hon. Member aware of the Supacat range of vehicles, which operate in much the way that he has described?
James Sunderland
I am very aware of Supacat. I have visited the company, which is in the hon. Member’s neck of the woods. It is a very impressive British company. Yes, we need to do more to ensure that it produces and builds what we need. Let us work with it a bit more on that. As the hon. Member suggests, this is about fewer variants, an easier supply chain, and not having equipment that is too complex to use or to maintain. That is very important: we should keep it cheap, simple and easy.
Let me say a little about NATO. As we know, it is the only show in town. It is the umbrella for European security in the north Atlantic. It now consists of 32 countries, and that is to be welcomed. It has responded magnificently to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. It has galvanised the alliance since the invasion, in a way that Putin could not possibly have conceived. In many ways, it is much stronger because of what has happened. Article 5 is the prize for NATO membership. It has defined Putin’s actions in Ukraine, in that so far he has not attacked a NATO country. Why? He is worried about article 5, and that strategic uncertainty underpins our security in Europe.
However, there are issues with NATO. First, only 18 of its 32 member countries are currently committed to 2% of GDP, and that is not enough. In addition, the five non-EU members—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey and Norway—contribute 80% of the operating budget, which is outrageous, with 96% of the EU effectively reliant on NATO for its security. That is a stark contrast. Europe must therefore become much more responsible for its own security, and that is non-discretionary.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns that some of us have about Trump’s comments? He has said that if he is the next president of the United States—he may not be—and if NATO members do not up their commitment to 3%, the United States will withdraw and reduce its own commitment. Is Trump a danger?
James Sunderland
It is not for me to endorse Trump in this Chamber, but what I will say is that to a certain extent he is right. It is absolutely right that Europe must take on more responsibility for its own security, to allow the United States to worry about parts of the world that NATO will not necessarily worry about. It is important to ensure that the United States is not overly committed in Europe for the same reason. We know that NATO in Europe massively overmatches Russia, but we need to reach a point, strategically, at which Europe itself overmatches Russia, leaving the United States to focus on the parts of the world on which it needs to focus.
Another important point that I would like the Minister to note is that the UK has a global footprint that extends beyond NATO. We have discussed NATO a great deal this evening, but it is not just about NATO. East of Suez, where we have not had a presence for quite some time, we now have bases in Bahrain, Diego Garcia—we have always had one there—and of course Oman. If the UK is to be a bastion of global democracy, it is important for us to have that reach across the far side of the globe. We also have operating bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falklands, Ascension and Diego Garcia. I mention that because it is really important for us to look after those bases. Were we to withdraw from Diego Garcia, for example, that will be a part of the world that we can no longer cover with our strategic reach. We therefore need to be very careful what we wish for politically.
It is imperative that the UK is able to fulfil its global commitments: in the middle east with carrier strike, as well as in the Falklands, west Africa, the Red sea, the Caribbean, the Baltic and the north Atlantic—the list goes on. We are not just focused on NATO, so it is really important that our defence capabilities extend beyond the north Atlantic and fulfil our global responsibilities. We need only look at where UK forces are deployed right now to realise how important that global footprint is. Dean Acheson, the former US Secretary of State, famously said that
“Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”
Well, we clearly do have that role. We have seen that this evening in this debate, and it is very important that we are resourced and funded to be able to fulfil that role in perpetuity.
Lastly, what numbers should the armed forces consist of? There is a lot of debate about the Army being cut and whether 72,000 is enough, the size of the Navy and the state of the RAF, but the answer is that the forces must be big enough to do the job with which they are tasked. The answer therefore lies in defence tasks. The idea of having an Army or Navy of a certain size is pie in the sky. We know that we have to be able to resource them, but the important thing is that our forces have to be able to meet defence tasks. We know that we do not have enough ships—we need more frigates and more destroyers. Quantity has a quality all of its own. We have state-of-the-art equipment in the RAF, including the C-17, A400M, P-3, F-35B, Typhoon, and Tempest to come, but do we have enough of those platforms?
As for the Army, I keep being told by constituents, “Well, Mr Sunderland, the Army cannot fight Russia.” Of course the British Army is unlikely to be fighting Russia on its own—it is called NATO. We know that NATO has approximately 3 million troops to call upon, and we also know that NATO overmatches Russia in Europe. We need to play our part in NATO, not necessarily being perplexed about what we used to be able to do. The UK needs to be able to retain autonomous and unilateral forces to support NATO and its other tasks, as we have mentioned, so we cannot afford to be harder on numbers.
In conclusion, 2.5% is the right thing to do, but that number must keep rising to meet the threat. Do we need more ships? Yes, we do. A bigger Army? Perhaps. Is NATO fundamental to our future? It absolutely is. Trident? Unequivocally yes—we need to invest in it and reinforce it. It gives us a seat on the UN Security Council, which is really important. Do we need to focus on autonomous and remote platforms? Absolutely, yes. With cyber and space, we now have five domains, not three; we need to invest much more in those, as we saw today. We need to invest in precision capabilities. We need to have better training, better activity, more training, more exciting activity, and opportunities that keep people and attract them to stay. Richard Branson famously said, “We need to train people so well that they can leave, but treat them so well that they do not want to.” With the Minister in his place, I urge him to think about wokery—not too much of it in the armed forces, please; we still have a job to do. Dumbing down of standards? Absolutely not; we have to set the bar and maintain it, because discipline depends upon it. The divisive new accommodation model? No, thank you.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I want to develop some points that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made. I will make a few points about deterrence, and about the type of warfare we are facing. I will say a little about procurement, about Ukraine, and whether we are in a pre-war era and how useful that idea is.
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made about deterrence was profound: the fundamental problem of the past century is that we failed to deter. We fought two world wars and just about won them both, so to us they are glorious things. Actually, both were catastrophes, in terms of power and in terms of lives lost. Half of my grandparents died: my German grandmother was killed by the Soviets, and my British grandfather, a colonel, was slaughtered while leading his regiment in north Africa. Winning wars is appallingly expensive; losing them is a catastrophe, clearly. But even fighting them when we can deter instead is a huge strategic error. Fighting two world wars effectively destroyed the British empire, which I think was in many ways a force for good—but let us not go there at the moment.
My right hon. Friend made the point that even spending 10% on deterrence is potentially much cheaper than spending 50% of our GDP to fight an existential war for our future, which is what Russians are being dishonestly told that they face. Around the Solent—of course he knows this—are Palmerston’s follies, the forts to protect the fleet at Portsmouth, on the Isle of Wight and on the south side of Hampshire. They are seen as a colossal waste of money because they were never used, but I think Palmerston’s follies were wonderful because they were never used. It was about deterrence. We do not know whether they deterred anybody, but the fact remains that they were there and that fleet was not attacked, and we lived through decades of peace from the end of the Napoleonic wars through to world war one. I will come on to this in a second, but we are potentially entering a new period of great instability.
The Secretary of State talked about types of warfare, which is critical. If this £75 billion extra is simply going to buy another half dozen frigates that will survive an extra three minutes in the middle east, in the Red sea, before they are destroyed by swarm drones, there is little point having the additional kit. If there is any lesson of not only the Ukrainian war, but the Azerbaijani-Armenian war—the first war where cheap drones destroyed expensive Russian kit from above—it is that cheap mass kit is very good at destroying much more expensive kit.
As a power that seeks to use conventional force and that does not tend to think like revolutionaries, as the Russians or the Iranians do or as terrorist organisations do, I am concerned about the type of war we are planning to fight. If we are just going to buy more expensive kit that does not survive the battle, there is no point having it. We need to invest in the stuff that will not only protect destroyers and aircraft carriers, but enable us to turn the tide—to do as the Ukrainians are doing and to think like a nimble adversary facing a greater power, perhaps using mass drones ourselves to destroy larger forces in future, be they Chinese, Russian or others. It is a question of the type of warfare we are fighting.
To those of us who have read Russian doctrine, the first characteristic of modern conflict is the integration of military and non-military tools—information, spying, cyber or economic. This is the world of the 21st century, and the Secretary of State was right to point out that each century or each generation redefines war. This is a redefinition of conflict for our own era, and we are seeing it from China. The Russians are very conflict-minded, but so far the Chinese place less emphasis on physical, conventional force and more emphasis on the tools of economy, using Huawei, cyber-attacks and so on.
Even with China, however, if we are entering a pre-war phase, we see a build-up towards a potential attack on Taiwan in the next few years. How are we thinking about the type of warfare that the Taiwanese will need to fight to defend themselves? They will need not only cyber, to survive the first minutes of mass cyber-attacks, but mass drones to shoot down and destroy Chinese ships and aircraft if they attack.
That brings me to procurement. I am sure the Secretary of State was going to answer this, but did not because the Deputy Speaker cut him off when I was asking about radar on the Isle of Wight. Our procurement has to be smart. We have an absurd debate in this country: one minute we say, “Why, oh why, isn’t everything made in the UK?”, and the next minute we say, “Why, oh why, does everything cost so much more?” We have to get the balance right. We have to invest and sell stuff into export markets where we have that lead—in submarines, potentially in radar and in other really good things where we still have the cutting edge—and we have to be much smarter about what we do and how we do it.
Most airmen and most people in the armed forces would tell us that the A400 is a pretty disastrous piece of kit. Maybe they have ironed out those problems in the past few years, but most people in the armed forces would much rather have kept the Hercules and run it with, I think, the C-14 or the Galaxy—[Interruption.] The C-17, sorry. It is a beautiful plane—gorgeous. They would rather have the Herc and the C-17. We had a better build deal with the Herc in this country, but for political reasons we bought the A400, which is deeply unpopular and cannot do much of the work, especially in the more rarefied ends of the military, that the Hercules could do. It is about smart procurement—not necessarily committing to buy everything British, but committing to do as much as possible British, as long as it is also delivering value for the taxpayer. That is an important distinction.
Moving on to Ukraine, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell is right that it is shameful that the US is doing so much of the heavy lifting; it is appalling. He is also right about how little Europe is doing. Russia is gaining ground and gaining in confidence, which is a significant problem we face. An old friend, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, is doing great work highlighting some new tactics on the eastern front, probably the most important of which are the use of glide bombs and CS gas. As a chemical weapon, CS gas is low level, cheap and less offensive to humanity than sarin. By using it on the frontline, the Russians are forcing Ukrainian troops out of their bunkers and their positions, so they become more vulnerable to wave attacks by Russian troops and to mortar and artillery fire.
We know that the artillery ratios at the moment are something like 10:1, so for every shell the Ukrainians fire, the Russians are firing 10 back. That will soon even out to 5:1 or maybe 3:1, but the use of CS gas is still proving to be a highly significant threat. A question I would like to put to the Secretary of State is, although I know we are being generous and doing lots of great things with kit, can we supply gas masks to the Ukrainians? Can we enable British companies that produce gas masks to sell them more quickly to the Ukrainians? They need that kit. From what my friends in the Ukrainian armed forces tell me, the Soviet-era gas masks are not fit for purpose and are costing lives.
On UK supply and support to Ukraine in relation to artillery shells, I do not want to keep banging on about this point, but the more there is transparency of supply, the more the Russians will see that we are in this for the long term. The Gucci kit—the high-end kit—is important, but the stuff that is going to enable Ukraine to hold its positions and not allow a Russian breakthrough of the kind we saw in Kharkiv is going to be the supply of 155 mm artillery shells, preferably with fewer types of western kit. The Ukrainians are running 17 different types of artillery kit that use a variety of shells, which is causing massive logistical issues. It is a remarkable achievement that the Ukrainians are even doing that.
I am delighted the AS-90s have gone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, that raises the question of where that kit is, but it has been put to good use. However, those barrels do not last. There are only two or three retooling plants in Europe, so why have we not opened one? The war has been going on for two years. Why do we not have a production line for artillery shells? Why are we not re-barrelling or offering to re-machine kit? If we are, can we say so? That kit is so important; it is the bread and butter of this war.
I was going to make another point, but I will not; I will wind up there because I am running out of time. Finally, on messaging, people think it is a waste of time trying to message the Russians, but I wonder if we should be trying to do that more. If we look at the number of people who are actively supporting this war in Russia, as opposed to people who simply accept Putin’s power, there are lots of people in Russia who seem to be sitting on their hands. If we can try to manipulate Russian public opinion, it would be to our benefit.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
May I begin by welcoming the debate? As the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, we used to have more of these debates, but it is very good we have had one in Government time. While the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said we are down to the usual suspects, it still has been a high-quality debate. There were excellent speeches from the Labour Benches by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones); from the Government Benches by the right hon. Members for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for New Forest East, and the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex, for North Wiltshire, for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely); and from other Opposition parties by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). It has been an excellent debate.
The first duty of any Government is to keep the nation safe and protect our citizens. From deployments abroad and the response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home during the covid-19 pandemic, our armed forces are essential to our national defence, our national resilience and meeting our NATO obligations. Labour is deeply proud of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families, and of the contribution that they make to our country. Theirs is the ultimate public service, and their professionalism and bravery are rightly respected across the world. We thank them.
Labour is committed to strengthening our national defences and supporting our armed forces. Strong national defence is a secure foundation upon which Labour’s mission-driven Government will be built if we are fortunate enough to win the general election when it comes.
Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. We are the party of NATO and Labour’s values of democracy, freedom and peace are embedded in its founding treaty. Article 5 is the cornerstone of Labour’s commitment to Britain’s security. Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is total. We will upgrade the UK’s deterrent and build the new submarines needed at Barrow. We believe that defence procurement can strengthen UK sovereignty, security and economic growth.
There has been much talk about the commitment to 2.5% of GDP, so I wish to make it clear that Labour is totally committed to 2.5%. In fact, the last time defence spending was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government in 2010. The current Conservative Government have cut defence spending. It has never been 2.5% in any of the past 14 years of Tory Government and we have seen the Army cut to its smallest size since Napoleon. My right hon. Friends the Members for Warley and for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton made those points very well in their contributions.
Labour will always do what is needed to defend Britain and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face. That is why we are committed to getting back to 2.5% as soon as we can in a responsible way. We will set out a credible plan to do so if we win the general election. It is why we will hold a strategic defence and security review if we do get into government to look properly at the threats that we face and at what we are already spending. It is simply not credible to claim, as the Government do, that it can be done by firing 72,000 civil servants, as the Secretary of State set out. The last time that this Government promised to make their defence plans add up by firing MOD civil servants in 2015, the number of civil servants in the MOD increased, so it is hardly credible now to claim that that will do the job.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary said that people will judge the Government on what they do, not on what they say, and that is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that the Government’s promises were all smoke and mirrors and soundbites for the next general election, and it is hard to see them as anything else when they have been left so late in this Parliament to be announced.
The Institute for Government has said that the Government’s plan does not add up and is not credible. It says that cutting 70,000 civil service jobs will get nowhere near close to delivering the savings needed and that, even when using our research and development budgets as well, it will leave questions about how the rest will be paid for. The House welcomed the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford saying that the Defence Committee—the Chair of which is also in his place—will be scrutinising the £75 billion figure. I look forward to hearing what it has to say when it has done so.
The truth is that the Conservatives have failed on defence over the past 14 years. They have cut spending and they are still doing so. They have hollowed out our armed forces. Since 2010, the Conservatives have reduced our armed forces by more than 43,000 personnel, one in five ships has been removed from the Royal Navy, and more than 200 aircraft have been taken out of service in the past five years alone. They have cut the British Army to its smallest size since Napoleon, while the threats are increasing and NATO is boosting its high-readiness forces from 40,000 to 300,000. Ministers now plan to cut the Army further. Those are the facts.
Recruitment targets have been missed every year, so the Government have not even been able to recruit the numbers they want, and retention rates are dropping. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton referred in his remarks to the “outflow” and the state of reserve forces in respect of some research that he has been doing into the numbers. Therefore, the past 14 years have corroded the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we must do better. The Government have left personnel living in damp and mouldy housing and, perhaps not surprisingly, morale has fallen, as has retention. Is it any wonder, when we leave people living in the conditions that we have seen in some of our forces accommodation? Nearly half of all serving personnel live in the lowest grade single-living accommodation and more than 4,000 personnel live in accommodation so poor that the MOD is forced to reduce or scrap collecting rent altogether. Contractors hired by Ministers missed 21,000 maintenance appointments between April 2022 and February 2024.
The report of the independent Kerslake commission on armed forces housing entitled “Homes unfit for heroes” has called the state of forces housing
“a tax on the goodwill of service personnel and their families.”
During the cost of living crisis, the numbers of personnel and veterans on universal credit are rising, and some troops are even using food banks to get by.
In government, Labour will renew the country’s commitment to those who serve, set new standards for service accommodation and legislate for an armed forces commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our forces and their families to improve service life. We will fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, fulfilling the moral contract that our society makes with those who serve. I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who speaks for the SNP, said that he wanted a representative body but was willing to support some of Labour’s proposed policies.
On procurement, the Conservatives have wasted over £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through mismanagement of defence procurement programmes, with over £5 billion wasted since 2019 alone. Forty-six of 52 major projects are not on time or not on budget. Ajax was supposed to be in service in 2017, and £4 billion has been spent so far, but there are no deployed vehicles and it will not be in service until the next decade. It is no wonder the Secretary of State is not listening and is too busy chatting—he does not want to hear about the failures of defence procurement on his watch, or the Government’s cost-saving cuts to E-7 Wedgetail, which are cutting the number of planes from five to three, with taxpayers footing 90% of the original cost to get only 60% of the planned capability.
Mr Francois
I am very critical of Wedgetail, but, just as a fact, on Ajax, the initial operating capability for the first vehicles is at the back end of 2025. That is next year, not in the next decade.
Maria Eagle
I accept that fact. If I said the next decade, that was not what I meant to say.
The Public Accounts Committee has described the defence procurement system as
“broken and repeatedly wasting…taxpayers’ money.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley was right that we need an industrial base and that short-term cost cutting will not do. He said that we need to speed up procurement, especially of administration, when it comes to making these decisions.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said that we need a change of culture as well as reform in procurement, as did the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who set out his ideas about how best to change culture in organisations that can be quite resistant to change. I accept that that will be a difficult job, but I think there is acceptance across the House that it needs to be done.
At the moment, it is fair to say that the Government have been wasting taxpayers’ money hand over fist, and that is not just waste in procurement. Parliamentary answers show that the Department has lost £927 million to fraud since 2010, with £619 million of that since 2019—that would be enough to pay for 170 Challenger 3 tanks—yet the average length of time for Fraud Defence to conduct an investigation has increased from 519 days in 2019 to 742 days in 2023. Why? The Government seem to have stopped focusing on good administration.
A Labour Government will do better. Under a future Labour Government, we will drive deep defence procurement reform inside the MOD to reduce waste and ensure that our armed forces have the kit they need to defend Britain.
Labour is committed to strengthening our national defence and supporting our armed forces and their families. We will always do what is necessary to defend the country, and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face. Britain will be better defended under Labour.
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
First, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This has been a typically excellent debate. Across the House I think there is an understanding that, after two or three decades of relative tranquillity, we are living with the threat of proximate warfare. The price of freedom is of course eternal vigilance, and that is generally agreed across this House, as evidenced by the contributions made, such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think my right hon. Friend was arguing, slightly cheekily, for defence spending of 44% of GDP, although that was probably in the event of total war, which of course we all want to avoid. His proposition was that we should never have taken a peace dividend post the cold war, but I think that is a little harsh on our predecessors. However, plainly the situation has changed, and we must change with it. I hope very much that Europe will follow our 2.5% commitment, meaning £140 billion more for our collective defence against the primary aggressor. I would have been very disappointed had my right hon. Friend not rehearsed the arguments for a continuous at-sea deterrent, which of course is 16,000 tonnes of eternal vigilance.
The right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who speak for the Opposition, I think gave us the commitment we were seeking, which is to match the Government’s cash spend. However, the right hon. Gentleman was a bit flaky, if I may say so, on the 2.5%, or at least on when it would be achieved and how they would pay for it. That became clear from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for which I am grateful.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne is indeed an honourable man and I like him very much, but I am bound to point out that his assurances that Labour is the party of defence run contrary to its management until very recently by a right hon. Member who had very different ideas indeed. The right hon. Gentleman was very keen to recommend the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to the British public in 2019 as the Prime Minister of this great country and to serve under his leadership for nearly five years, but heaven loves a sinner brought to repentance. I am also bound to point out that defence is not short of reviews, and another review would mean obfuscation. I suggest that is the very last thing our armed forces need right now. At best, it would introduce a huge measure of uncertainty when we simply cannot afford it.
The Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), rightly reflected on what 2.5% across the NATO alliance would mean. Where Britain leads, our European allies must follow: we are not in this on our own. He gave a magisterial romp around the geopolitical, societal and economic contribution of the whole defence enterprise.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) got tied up with nomenclature. There are other ranks in the Army and the RAF and ordinary seamen in the Navy, and I think that was the essence of his confusion. Either way there is nothing ordinary about the men and women of our armed forces, and either way he was rightly concerned about the junior ranks. I recall a previous conversation we had in this place during which he confused a pay award this year for them, which is 9.7%, with the 5.5% for senior officers; I assume he is happy with that. He wanted more Europe in defence, which I think means more European Union. He may have missed, for example, the Lancaster House treaties, the attendant A400M programme and unmanned aerial vehicles, and he may also have missed the joint expeditionary force. We are indeed co-operating wherever we can with our European friends and neighbours.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) gave a very detailed and authoritative account of kit, majoring on air defence. He catalogued some of the procurement issues that have historically bedevilled the defence enterprise, but he resisted reference to his favourite defence contractor, for which we are very grateful. I know that he supports the integrated procurement model announced in February.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), to whom I always listen with a great deal of interest, rightly highlighted industrial skills. I have said it before but I will say it again: the Ministry of Defence is this country’s No. 1 employer of apprentices, and we are exceptionally proud of that. He rightly implied that the men and women of our armed forces—both civilians and people in uniform—have a choice. Of course they do, and they very often exercise it; our economy is the better for it. I make no apology for injecting trades and skills into our armed forces and our defence enterprise; it benefits us all. The trick is retaining those people and then perhaps pulling them back in at some future date. He will be familiar with that, because he has read the Haythornthwaite report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) rightly highlighted the perils of coalition, but to be fair we have got the Liberal Democrats to commit to CASD, and maybe even CASD with missiles—for that, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has done us a great service today. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex made about leadership were extremely well made.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about the recruitment and retention issues that the armed forces certainly have, in common with just about all our allies. Meanwhile, we deal with all our defence commitments. We are rightly proud of the men and women who serve.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fighting a bit of a rearguard action on defence spending, which the Opposition Front Benchers now say they support. If he wants to disregard the costs for Ukraine, he needs to have a word with his colleagues. Given that I need to face down Putin’s naked aggression, he might as well carve out other parts of the defence budget and say that they do not count either. I am sure he would not want to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire spoke about votes in Parliament and about warfighting, and I agree with his analysis. We forget—do we not?—what a grave mistake the Iraq war was. Having been heavily involved with the effort and the process, I entirely agree with his remarks about LGBT people and I salute the role that the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces played early on in that process.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about a variety of subjects. Interestingly, at the end of his remarks he committed his party to, I think, a regular Army of 82,000. I am not quite sure where that figure came from, but I assume we will hear about the attendant spending pledge in due course—or maybe not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about apprentices, defence-related jobs and R&D. That is not surprising given that Abbey Wood in Filton puts his constituency at the beating heart of the defence enterprise; he is a constant advocate for both.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong advocate for the defence enterprise in Northern Ireland, and his part in particular. He rightly highlighted the further opportunities in Northern Ireland, which I know about full well as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke of enablement and logistics—of interoperability, modularity and plug and play—from a position of real expertise as a former senior logistics officer. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) rightly highlighted the changing nature of warfare. Mass matters, but so does tech, as we can see with potential game changers such as DragonFire. I am not sure I agree with him about A400M, but we can perhaps have a debate later over a cuppa or some such.
In our more dangerous world, the Government believe that spending 2.5% of GDP on defence must become the minimum NATO benchmark as Putin ramps up his wartime economy as part of a network of authoritarian states that are attacking our allies and interests. NATO must respond, and I am proud that the UK is leading among European allies through our defence reforms and our 2.5% commitment, verifiable against NATO rules, our £75 billion cash boost for defence from a flat cash baseline, and our additional package of support for Ukraine.
As Putin lays waste to his military and recklessly exposes his strengths and weaknesses to general view, we watch, we learn and we act. Our defence reforms are making our industrial base stronger. Our investment in our conventional forces, stockpiles and innovation makes us more capable and more lethal. Our investment in our alliances is making us and our friends more secure. Our investment in our independent nuclear capability will always make adversaries back off.
I finish by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. They are the best of us, and as we enter a new age of high-tech warfare we need to remember that, day in, day out. It is our people and those who support them who put the great in Great Britain. On that at least I hope we can all agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered defence.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Blaydon and all those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her vital work in pursuing justice. My constituent Diane lost her brother Graham Fox aged just 26 as a result of contaminated blood. When I spoke to Diane about presenting this petition, her message was clear: do not forget. I present this petition with those words in mind.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Blaydon,
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.
[P002950]
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). In doing so, I pay tribute to the Burkert family, who lost their father, who was a single parent of five, in this terrible, avoidable tragedy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Halifax,
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.
[P002972]
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition that calls for the immediate implementation of the final recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. It is sent by my constituents in Caerphilly, and in particular Lee Stay and Kirk Ellis, two brave victims of contaminated blood.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Caerphilly,
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.
[P002973]
Tamar Crossings
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Before I start, I give an apology: so many Members asked to intervene in this debate that I have decided not to take any interventions in the interests of time. I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). [Laughter.]
I will start by setting out a brief history. In the 1950s, it became clear that a bridge was needed between Plymouth and south-east Cornwall, as the existing ferries could no longer cope. The councils went to the Government, but the Government of the day could not afford the bridge just after world war two. A decision was taken at council level to fund a bridge at Saltash and incorporate what they called the floating bridge at Torpoint. Those integral parts of the Tamar crossings were set out in an Act of Parliament and given the go-ahead. The crossings have become critical pieces of national infrastructure, with around 4,000 vehicle crossings a day in the early 1960s becoming around 4,000 vehicle crossings an hour today on the bridge alone.
Between 2001 and 2005, I was a member of the Tamar crossings joint committee while serving as a Cornwall county councillor. The minutes are no longer easily accessible, but I remember that a sum of money was set aside for replacing the three crossings at Torpoint, as the 50-year-old chain ferries needed replacing. It is important to note that, as far as I can remember, no loans were taken by the joint committee before that time. Around the same time, it was found that the Tamar bridge could not support the European requirement for goods vehicle weights or the quantity of traffic, and money was needed to strengthen and widen it with the installation of two cantilevers.
To carry out those essential works, it was decided to take out a loan to cover the cost of the replacement ferries from the then Cornwall County Council. I do not have the full figure, but I remember that the loan was around £10 million over 25 years. I launched the second chain ferry, Tamar II, at Ferguson boatyard on the Clyde. What could not be foreseen is that this set a trend, which many will say was unavoidable, where borrowing has been seen as the way to cover maintenance costs, and renewing, replacing or even building new infrastructure.
The language since I sat on the joint committee has also changed, with council officers now claiming the crossings are on a “user pays” basis, rather than using what is set out in the Acts of Parliament which clearly state that they should be “self-funding”. That would indicate that the only way to fund the maintenance costs and new infrastructure is from toll income, which is clearly not the case. That is backed up by the fact that income is already generated from other means, including advertising boards on the ferries and operating the studs in the Saltash tunnel on behalf of National Highways.
Today, should the Secretary of State agree the latest toll revision order, the tolls will have increased by 100% in four years. For many people who use the crossings to access the district general hospital at Derriford in Plymouth, travel to their place of work or visit our main city, they face what can only be described as an additional tax of £15 per week. I accept that a concession is available through the TamarTag, but it comes with an initial charge and a monthly service charge, which does not make it cost-effective for the non-regular users among my constituents, or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
The financial situation has now become quite serious. The two local authorities responsible for the crossings should, according to the Acts, fund any deficit, but they say they have no budget for that. Decisions have been taken over the years in a piecemeal way to increase borrowing, rising from around £10 million for the initial loan to around £41 million and increasing. If this was a business, it would be bankrupt.
Various decisions have been taken that have not paid attention to good financial practice. During the covid period, Government grants paid to both local authorities amounted to £1.6 million in total, which I believe represented about 85% of the reduction in income, yet despite the joint committee agreeing ways to mitigate the risk for toll collectors, two weeks later the Liberal Democrat portfolio holder and joint chair for Cornwall and the Labour portfolio holder and joint chair for Plymouth took the decision to stop charging tolls altogether. Had they not taken that decision, which was not put to the joint committee, the additional 15% shortfall in income could have been received. My constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, are clear: this cannot go on. Our constituents are being penalised for living and working on different sides of the Tamar, and it would seem that no one cares.
The Road Haulage Association faces similar excessive charges. Figures it has provided me with, which do not take account of the increase outlined in the latest application, show that an average member based in south-east Cornwall with seven trucks ranging from 18 tonnes to 44 tonnes paid tolls of £4,550 in 2020. That rose to £6,881 in 2022. The 2023 cost, to August 2023, amounted to £5,409. Another haulier with a fleet of 50 trucks in 2020 faced tolls of £32,083, which increased to £58,100 in 2022, and the cost to August 2023 with 75 trucks was £90,730. A final example is that of a national operator with a local distribution centre based in Plymouth, with between 150 and 200 trucks using the crossings, who faced toll costs of £50,000 between December 2020 and July 2021. Those costs rose to £86,000 between August 2022 and July 2023, and that will be reflected in the prices paid for goods by people in Cornwall and Plymouth.
My constituents cannot be expected to continue to fund vanity projects such as multimillion pound offices on top of the council tax that they already pay to the two authorities. I notice that other projects are planned such as the refurbishment of the toll collection booths at the Tamar bridge, which are not yet 20 years old, and when an automatic number plate recognition system is already being explored. There is a proposal to upgrade the offices and workshops at the Torpoint ferry. I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to cost savings or to generating income other than tolls, but we need to change that. Income could come from a shop or restaurant incorporated at the offices—an idea that was raised by my friend Councillor Lennox-Boyd. There is land held by the bridge that is not fully utilised. There are also further marketing opportunities at the crossings.
The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and I met with his predecessor, and I have met him about this situation. The Peninsula Transport Group has also submitted a request for some funding towards the annual maintenance costs of the Tamar bridge, which could be awarded from road investment strategy 3. The bridge is an integral part of the A38 trunk road, which was relocated to run through Saltash when the bridge was constructed. Prior to this, the trunk road ran through Torpoint and was joined by the ferry which was described as a “floating bridge”. I believe that the funding that the Peninsula Transport Group has requested should be conditional on no increase in tolls for the next five-year period and be accompanied by the setting up of the promised working group to look at the future funding of the crossings, outside of but including the two local authorities.
It should be noted that there are other ways to cross the Tamar, but they are not local to Plymouth, the largest city on the peninsula. The other main crossing is via the A30 at the Dunheved bridge which is over 20 miles away by road from Saltash. That bridge was built by the Government in around 1978 as part of the Launceston bypass. It is maintained by the Government—indeed, it had to be rebuilt just under 20 years ago due to concrete cancer—and there is no toll at this crossing.
There are also a number of very old bridges, such as the one in my constituency at Gunnislake New Bridge. That crossing is not fit for large, heavy lorries, and has on many occasions suffered damage and been out of action. Indeed, recently the Labour councillor for Gunnislake has highlighted the air quality of the village and suggested that another bridge be built. One could ask if the shadow Chancellor would agree to that.
I also note that in 2012 the Government deferred the debt on the Humber bridge by £150 million, conditional on the tolls being halved. All I am asking is that the Tamar crossings are treated in the same way. The crossings are vital for both Cornwall and Plymouth and complement each other. They are quite rightly linked by Act of Parliament and must never be separated. If an incident occurs on the bridge, the Torpoint ferry service is necessary, and I would ask that any financial contribution is also conditional on the current timetable for the Torpoint ferry being retained at least on current levels of service. Sadly, some local opposition councillors and MPs have made comments in the press about a reduced service for the ferry if no toll revision order is granted, which is unacceptable. It is time to stop this politically motivated scaremongering—
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady has made it plain that she is not giving way.
Mrs Murray
This important matter for residents of Cornwall and Plymouth should, in my opinion, surmount party politics. I refer the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) to a report on “Spotlight” this evening saying that a Member of Parliament for a constituency a long way from the bridge and the ferry has suggested that the ferry charge more.
I will now turn to the future of the crossings. The Minister should set up a working group, including representatives of all user groups, MPs, local councillors and local authorities, to consider putting the crossing on the same basis as the Dunheved bridge on the A30, which is one of some 10,000 bridges maintained by National Highways. In the meantime, I ask the Department for a contribution from National Highways towards the maintenance costs of the Tamar bridge.
Finally, I will expand on the modernisation of the toll collection system and updating to ANPR. Queues frequently build up because of tag failure and other matters related to the toll collection system, which results in many people from Plymouth and south-east Cornwall missing appointments and simply not getting to work on time. It also has a knock-on effect on the wider area, with road hauliers telling me that research has found that, for every minute a heavy goods vehicle sits in traffic, it accrues a cost of £1.30. On crossings such as the Tamar, each HGV sitting in traffic for 60 minutes at peak times or during heavy congestion will accrue a cost of £78. An ANPR system would help to alleviate this, and I ask the Minister to consider covering the costs of the tollbooth removal in the next five-year major road network programme.
Some 6,300 people signed the petition sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View and me. These people object to the toll increase following so closely the increase in January 2023, which would be a doubling in four years. It is now in the Secretary of State’s gift to refuse, and we ask him to do so. We know that we need to find alternative funding and, as I have outlined this evening, it could be annual funding from the RIS3 programme.
My final ask is for a public inquiry to be held before any decision is made to increase the toll. This has happened in the past for all but one toll revision order, and our constituents must be able to have their say. We received a copy of the letter that the joint Chairs of the Joint Committee sent to the Secretary of State last Friday, which has been copied to all MPs in Plymouth and Cornwall, stating:
“An intervention by your department supporting the crossings may enable the toll to be frozen.”
Our petition was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).
I hope the Minister will look favourably on this request to help freeze the Tamar toll tax for our constituents, and also to immediately pull together a working group, or at least to provide support for us to set one up locally, so that a fairer way of financing these crossings can be found. An intervention by his Department to support the crossings may enable the tolls to be frozen.
Much has been made about levelling up. Doing away with this extra tax on the people of our area would be the single greatest thing that could be done to achieve this. It would create a level playing field for business and stop a regressive tax on residents that is in no way related to how much people can pay. It would also help to allow Plymouth’s freeport status to flourish. I ask the Government to help now, and to look in the longer term at righting what the Government could not afford to do just after world war two.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is an honour and a privilege to respond to my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). She has once again made the case for her constituents with her usual assiduity, verve and passion, and I salute her for that. This is not the first time she has raised this matter in the House, and nor, I suspect, will it be the last; and it is not the first time I have received correspondence from her. Indeed, I receive it on a virtually bi-monthly basis, but I salute her for that as well. What she is doing is standing up for her constituents, and this is an issue that dates back quite some time.
I shall have to choose my words slightly carefully, for reasons that my hon. Friend will understand. An application for a toll revision, received on 2 May, will be considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, and that will constitute a quasi-judicial decision that I do not want to prejudice in any way. However, I want to give my hon. Friend as many answers as I can, in as much detail as I can. I am also aware that a petition dated 23 March has been presented by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my hon. Friend herself, my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It is to their credit that they have made the case, as indeed have thousands of residents of the local area, and it is to their credit that they have been able to come to the House and be heard in an appropriate way.
Guy Opperman
I am so sorry, but not going to give way at this stage.
I am of course conscious of a detailed file of correspondence dating back some considerable time. As the hon. Lady will know, there are a number of bridges and tunnels on local public roads up and down the country that are operated either by the local highway authority or by private companies. Tolls continue to help repay the costs of the construction and continued maintenance of those crossings. I do not want to go into the nuts and bolts of the Tamar Bridge Act 1957, because I think I would fail to speak with the same eloquence as my hon. Friend, who is clearly acquainted with the Act and the consequential secondary provisions, the schedules and all matters pertaining, and has probably read the Committee notes in great detail as well.
The Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry are tied together under the 1957 Act, which ensures that proceeds from the crossings are ringfenced and expenditure is limited to the operation, maintenance and improvements of the crossings. Crucially, it also limits any unjustified accumulation of reserves. The bridge and the ferry are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall Council and Plymouth City Council, but, as my hon. Friend said, they constitute a vital piece of infrastructure, carrying some 18 million vehicles a year. She rightly made the point on behalf of her constituents, but the freight industry benefits massively—today I met representatives of the RHA, who were passionate about making that point.
The money that is needed to operate, maintain and improve the two crossings currently comes from toll charges, with no specific funding from the Government or the owners of the two crossings. However, some money is contributed indirectly. National Highways makes an operational contribution each year, which enables the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to monitor the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system. As was announced recently, there is funding for the A38 Manadon interchange transport scheme, promoted by the city council, amounting to about £132 million, with an outline business case stage of £156 million. Communications on that will be issued shortly. Welcome announcements have also been made about the A374, A386 and A3064 Plymouth improvements schemes, amounting to £42 million, with a total estimate of £49 million at the OBC stage.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Government have, on the back of the increased settlement at the last Budget in 2023, and by reason of the decisions on the second leg of High Speed 2, provided enhanced funding arising from the £8.3 billion that is shared out around the local authorities, but with a £36 million total for 2024-25 for Cornwall, and an increased total in relation to Plymouth, as I understand it.
In relation to the specifics, on 8 February, in response to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, and in subsequent correspondence, I have set out the position in relation to river and estuarial crossings. They will usually be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the substantial benefits for users. The Prime Minister then also answered my hon. Friend at Prime Minister’s questions on 20 March, when he was pleased to indicate that the Transport Minister would address the matter shortly, and I was of course delighted to receive that instruction. I will not go into Hansard in detail, but he explained that any application for a toll revision, whereby the responsible authorities can seek a change, would need to be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my boss.
I can confirm that, since that exchange, a toll revision application in respect of the Tamar crossings was received on 2 May. The next step in the process is that an application for a toll increase will be advertised in the local press with details of the proposal to users of the crossings. There is then a 42-day objection period. If any objections to the proposed revisions—whether from individuals or collective bodies—are not subsequently withdrawn, a public inquiry is held. Where such an inquiry is held, the Secretary of State must have regard to its findings when deciding whether to revise the toll. I cannot address the findings of the Secretary of State, but clearly all representations made on these issues are considered, and clearly my hon. Friend will make many representations—I think that is a given.
Guy Opperman
I will not give way; I will echo the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.
It is the responsibility of the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to work to find efficiencies in the operating costs so that the crossings are run as cost- effectively as possible. I would also like to raise an important initiative that is being taken forward locally: the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee has agreed its new “Tamar 50” approach. I cast no aspersions on whether it is a good or bad approach—it would not be appropriate for me to do so—but it is important that I put on the record that the Government are aware of the approach.
Clearly, the nine-point plan that the committee has set out provides users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future. Ideally, there is a degree of confidence on the way ahead, and people can see visible improvements to the structure. Critical safety works and the operational necessities that apply need to be seen. As I understand it, the plan includes work to look at the feasibility of free-flow tolling. That could be considered when a suitable funding source becomes available. My hon. Friend has addressed that, and I take her points with due seriousness.
As the Prime Minister outlined on 20 March, this is a real opportunity for key stakeholders to make their views about the crossings heard, and I encourage all colleagues and constituents—not just the thousands with strongly held views who have submitted the petition, and not just my hon. Friend with her many letters—to come forward with their views.
Guy Opperman
I do not think it appropriate in these particular circumstances, bearing in mind the individual restrictions that I have in addressing these points.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has put her points strongly on the record. We take due notice of that. There is a quasi-judicial process that follows, and we hope that will be expedited and take place very soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Morecambe and Morgan Offshore Wind Farms project
Proposed Mallard solar plant
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
Illegal Immigration: Costs
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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrea Jenkyns, I have a note on the clocks. Most of them are either telling the wrong time or not working, so there will be no timing of the length of speeches. I do not think that there will be any pressure on time, because we do not have that many speakers. I am using the annunciator clock.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the costs associated with illegal immigration.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank Members across the House for their support, including the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman); the former Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick); and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who co-sponsored the debate.
For too long, this House has avoided addressing the issue that, according to YouGov’s latest polling, ranks among the electorate as the second most important issue facing our country, surpassed only by the economy. We are facing an immigration and asylum crisis in the UK, and we as parliamentarians need to find a solution, get a grip of the problem, and win back public trust in our ability to represent the interests of the British people and to legislate and govern on their behalf. Too many of my colleagues across the House have been reluctant to discuss the real consequences of illegal immigration for our society, culture and security, for fear of being denounced as racist by a loud liberal minority in influential positions in the mainstream media, academia and powerful non-governmental organisations, whose progressive agenda dominates public discourse, or even by fellow Members of Parliament. Only this week, the civil service unions mounted a legal challenge to try to stop the Government’s Rwanda policy.
All those people and organisations need to wake up to reality: the British public have had enough, and they demand action from our politicians. Illegal immigration represents an existential threat to our society, culture and security, and cracking down on the issue must be a top priority. This matter should transcend political divides. It is a matter of national importance, and as legislators we have a duty to the British people to address it. It affects every corner of our country. Throughout this debate, I will highlight the astronomical costs of illegal immigration for the economy and wider society, and suggest action that we should take to reduce the total number of illegal immigrants arriving on our shores.
The House of Commons Library report for this debate takes issue with the use of the term “illegal immigrant” to refer to those crossing the channel in small boats. It notes:
“A person might enter the country without permission, but they have the legal right to be here while their claim for asylum or admissibility to the asylum system is being considered.”
The report therefore opts to use the phrase “unauthorised migrants” and, when referencing the cost of illegal immigration, includes only those who are subsequently refused asylum and remain in the UK without permission. If we had a fully functioning asylum system and the public had confidence that the decisions being taken were accurate, that distinction would of course be right and proper, but right now this methodology is deeply flawed. Irregular border crossings have skyrocketed in the past decade, with smugglers now preferring to conduct an amphibious assault on our borders rather than shoving people into the backs of lorries to go via the channel tunnel, which was previously the more common route. Those clandestine groups have caught on to the fact that Britain’s asylum system is on its knees. They know that anyone who arrives in Britain and claims asylum is afforded protections and benefits at the taxpayer’s expense.
There are numerous cases of people with pending asylum applications who have lived in Britain for years, many of whom choose to use loopholes in our human rights laws to bolster their applications. That is something that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), understands all too well. Let us not forget how, as a human rights barrister, he acted for Islamic cleric Abu Qatada in his bid to avoid deportation. He also helped an Iraqi terrorist suspect sue the Government over breaches of the suspect’s human rights.
We have seen people use loopholes such as a sudden desire to convert to Christianity, knowing full well that their applications will be approved, because their conversion shows they would be persecuted back in their claimed countries of origin. Speaking of countries of origin, we simply have no idea where the vast majority of those who arrive without permission and claim asylum are actually from, making it impossible to determine their application.
A Home Office response to a freedom of information request by Migration Watch UK in 2022 revealed that, of the 16,510 small boat migrants to land in Britain from 2018 up to the second quarter of 2021, just 317 arrived with a passport; that is just 1.92%. The total number of arrivals has since risen to nearly 120,000 people since 2018, with no indication that these people have started to make a concerted effort to provide immigration officials with the necessary documentation to confirm their identity. That is the equivalent of a town the size of Watford, comprising a vast majority of adult males, arriving without documentation, who are not forthcoming with their age or country of origin—leaving immigration officials playing a guessing game on who to believe. Home Office figures show that 94% apply for asylum. Yet, according to the Library research briefing on asylum statistics published on 1 March, our annual refusal rate for asylum applications at initial decision has plummeted from 88% down to an astonishing 24% in 2022; three quarters of those refused at initial decision between 2004 and 2021 lodged an appeal, and a third of those appeals were successful.
Some may qualify such a rapid decrease in asylum refusal rates by claiming that there is more conflict in the world today than there was 20 years ago, but that just does not stand up. There were endless conflicts at the time when we were refusing nearly 90% of all asylum applications, from civil wars in Somalia, Sri Lanka, Chad, Yemen and Niger—to name but a few—to the Iraq war and Russia’s invasion of Georgia. The evidence can only lead us to one conclusion: our asylum system is being gamed by people with the help of ever stronger smuggling gangs. They know what to say, and they know what to do to tick the right boxes and be granted permission to stay in Britain. We are faced with a record asylum backlog.
Home Office figures show that 74,172 initial decisions on asylum applications were made last year alone. That is four times the number made in 2022. The Government will argue that this is due to the increase in decision makers; their own figures show an increase in those reviewing applications from 865 in 2022 to 1,281 in March 2023, which is an increase of 48%. But 62,336 of those 74,000 initial decisions were successful—a record annual figure. That raises huge questions over the handling of those applications and how those decisions have been made.
There is absolutely no doubt that some individuals who arrive in Britain through irregular means and claim asylum are genuine people, fleeing war or persecution. We have a moral responsibility to help those individuals and it is right that we support such people—as we did, for example, when the war broke out in Ukraine—but it is also quite evident that our asylum system has broken down to the point where it is unfit for purpose and exploited on an unprecedented scale. It is therefore simply impossible to discount those granted asylum when conducting a review of the true costs of illegal immigration.
To understand the cost of illegal immigration on our society and our finances, we must first understand the scale of the issue in hand—a task that, by its very nature, is problematic. To again cite the House of Commons Library report prepared for this debate,
“The most recent robust estimates of the size of the unauthorised resident population in the UK put it at around 400,000-600,000 in the early 2000s…More recent but less robust estimates have put the population at between 800,000 and 1.2 million in 2017…It is likely none of these estimates accurately captures the situation in 2024.”
I would be pleased to hear from the Minister on that point. That is equivalent to a city with a population 20% larger than Birmingham, or three times the size of Manchester, living in the UK illegally, utilising the many public-funded services that are available to them, regardless of a person’s immigration status—and it could be far more.
Public services available to illegal migrants include state education, NHS services, including A&E treatment and primary care such as GPs and dentistry appointments, compulsory psychiatric treatment, legal aid, and various local authority support. I receive hundreds of emails a month from constituents telling me that they cannot get a GP appointment, are struggling to find a dentist, and cannot get their first choice school place or a decent roof over their heads. Is there any wonder?
The Government’s impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 estimated that the total cost of providing public services to a UK national is around £12,000 per person. Even the most basic calculations put the economic burden on the British taxpayer of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. That is just shy of 10% of NHS England’s budget for this year. Imagine that cash injection on frontline services or to help people who are struggling with the cost of living.
There is not just an economic cost; indirect consequences of illegal migration are inevitable, including wage suppression. Those without permission to work legally in Britain must find a way to support themselves and they end up working in the gig economy for unscrupulous business owners, who offer lower wages that are accepted, because illegal workers will take what they can get—for which we cannot blame them.
In addition, the Home Office expects to spend £482 million on immigration enforcements this year alone, and the costs related to the Rwanda scheme continue to pile up to an eyewatering amount. It is important to note that none of the costs mentioned so far takes into account those associated with our broken asylum system, such as the nearly £8 million a day currently used to house asylum applicants. Home Office figures cited by the Financial Times in August last year showed that the annual asylum cost reached £3.96 billion in the year up to 2023—double that of the previous year and six times higher than 2018. Yet, despite that astronomical cost, we continue to increase handouts to France to stop the boats. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks of our agreement with France; to those on the outside it looks like it is not working, and taxpayers’ money is being wasted.
A House of Commons Library report showed that the UK Government gave a combined £232 million to the French authorities for border control in their own country, between 2014 to the end of the 2022-23 financial year. Under the joint leaders’ declaration agreed in March that year, we have committed to give more than double that—£476 million over the next two financial years. I think we should demand a refund from France. The economic costs are endless. It is simply impossible to quantify the true impact of this issue on the public purse. It is clear to me, and a vast majority of the British public, that this is a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
It is not just about the economic cost; there is also a human cost. Seven-year-old Emily Jones from Bolton was stabbed to death by an Albanian national, Eltiona Skana, while riding her scooter in March 2020. I am a parent of a seven-year-old—imagine what that family must be going through. Her killer was a paranoid schizophrenic who arrived in Britain in the back of a lorry in 2014, and was granted asylum, despite twice admitting to lying in her application about being a victim of sexual exploitation.
Lorraine Cox, aged 32, was murdered in Exeter in September 2020 by Azam Mangori, an Iraqi Kurd who was denied asylum in December 2018 but remained living in the country undetected. David Wails, Joe Ritchie-Bennett and James Furlong were murdered in Reading town centre in June 2020 by Libyan national, Khairi Saadallah, just two weeks after he had been released from prison; he executed the men in an act of jihad. He had been granted refugee status, despite participating in the Libyan civil war in 2012. Terence Carney, who was 70, was stabbed to death in the middle of the street by a Moroccan asylum seeker Ahmed Ali Alid in “revenge” for Gaza. I could go on and on. These names should not be forgotten; they must serve as a reminder of the human cost paid for decades of failure by successive Governments and by us as legislators.
I want to talk briefly about the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which became law just a few weeks ago. I completely understand the motive and need for such legislation. However, I was one of the 11 Conservative MPs to rebel, including the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham, and the former Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who simply could not support it. Like me, they had great reservations that the Bill would not be legally watertight and would be derailed by political opponents, activist lawyers, trade unionists and civil servants, as we saw last week when they mounted a legal challenge.
In principle, though, I am in favour of an offshore processing scheme such as the Rwanda scheme. We need a genuine, robust deterrent to undermine the organised gangs and the abhorrent people smugglers, who sell the dream to migrants that once they have crossed the channel, they will be in a relative utopia with free welfare, healthcare and housing for the rest of their lives. We need to send a clear message that that is not the case.
Those hoping that the current scheme will act as a deterrent will be disappointed to learn that, just last week, 711 migrants landed in Kent in a single day, which is a record daily number for the year so far. So much for that deterrent.
How do we make a scheme like Rwanda work? I am clear that we must leave the European convention on human rights. I have been spearheading the campaign to do just that via the Conservative Post, and I am pleased to say that nearly 50,000 people have now signed the petition. We need, instead, a British Bill of Rights. We also need to stop those leftie lawyers and unionised civil servants from preventing a democratically elected Government from delivering on their manifesto.
I truly believe that having a viable deterrent is a humane, civilised and responsible thing to do and will actually save lives. We must keep at the forefront of our minds that 72 people are believed to have drowned in the English channel since 2018. Each life lost is a tragedy.
Let us remember that Australia faced exactly the same crisis that we have on our hands, and through an effective deterrent reduced the number of illegal migrants on their shores from tens of thousands to zero. It is time we rolled up our sleeves and did the same.
We must also get tougher on the illegal migrants who have already arrived and live here. As the Home Office’s impact assessment makes clear, of the 5,700 illegal immigrants who have been identified for removal, the Home Office is in contact with just 2,000—just 38%. I would like to know from the Minister why that is the case. It is not just not good enough; it is a dereliction of the Government’s primary duty to keep citizens safe. Such a potential security breach and locating those individuals must be an absolute priority for the Home Office, as should be implementing measures to ensure that it can never happen again. We need to think radically about how to keep oversight of these people while they wait for a decision.
For too long, the UK has been seen as a free lunch: study, work, marry and smuggle your way in and soon you are guaranteed a lifelong, all-you-can-eat buffet for you and your extended family, with free healthcare, free education, free housing, free social care, legal protections and access to one of the largest charitable sectors in the world. It is unfair to continue to ask the British taxpayer to pick up this bill. We must take a no-nonsense approach to demonstrate that the British state is no longer a soft touch. Other measures could also be adopted, with legislation and procedures similar to those used by European countries, where approval rates are far lower than in Britain. We approve far too many asylum requests when we compare our acceptance rate to the 25% to 30% common across most of Europe. Our legal system and the Home Office guidance on asylum applications make it far too easy for those seeking to try their luck.
The damage that the issue of illegal migration is doing on our country is untold. It is impossible to quantify. The British public know. They see it and they feel it. It is substantial, and they want it resolved. The ordinary Brit, certainly in my part of the world, is decent and fair-minded. They believe in the value of work and the desire to get on in life. On the whole, they are tolerant of others and show respect for different cultures. However, they are also instilled with the great British principle of fair play, and illegal immigration on this scale is simply at conflict with that principle.
In conclusion, I suggest a five-point plan that we must immediately action to start getting this crisis under control. First, we need to profoundly strengthen our border security. We need to invest in technology, personnel and infrastructure to enhance surveillance and patrol efforts along our coastline, and we must have the political will to use this technology to enforce a stricter border policy.
Secondly, we need to get tough on our so-called international partners to address the underlying drivers of illegal migration and deter the crossings in the first place, as it puts people’s lives at risk when they try these dangerous crossings. We should be clear: no more money to France unless they play ball and work more effectively in stopping departures from their own shores.
Thirdly, we need to streamline and improve our immigration processes. We need to process asylum claims far more efficiently and effectively, and ensure that applicants do not go AWOL while waiting for a decision. We can use a tagging system for that. We also need to introduce measures to dissuade people from attempting illegal crossings. That means imposing stricter penalties for smugglers, which I am sure people across the House would agree with, and implementing public awareness campaigns to educate potential migrants about the risks, dangers and consequences of irregular migration. It may also mean thinking creatively about how to charge migrants for the public services that they use while they are here—we have to stop everything being from the taxpayer’s purse. Finally, we must also strengthen the Rwanda deterrent by leaving the European convention on human rights, which is the only way to ensure it will work in the way that the British public expect. Alternatively, let us as the Conservative party commit to holding a referendum on leaving the ECHR—let the public decide.
The Government need to move quickly. We have just six months to get tough. The Labour party said only last week that if they got into power, they would consider giving automatic asylum to 50,000 of those people waiting for a decision. That is a way to remove them from the books and make the figures look good. They also want to ditch our Rwanda scheme. I would not expect to go to another country illegally, be put up in a hotel and get free healthcare and all the other benefits at no cost to myself. This needs to stop. We also need to stop that pull factor, as that is why people come here. We need to put an end to the soft-touch Britain and toughen up for the future of our great country. I look forward to hearing views from Members of all parties, which no doubt will differ from mine.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members who wish to be called in the debate that they should indicate in the normal way by standing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As is in order, and rightfully so, I thank the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns) for raising this issue today. I am very happy to be a co-sponsor of this debate, because we cannot ignore the issue of immigration. I will speak, as the hon. Lady has spoken, about the general issues, as well as giving a Northern Ireland perspective.
The issue of immigration is of great concern to many of our constituents, not least to those of us in Northern Ireland who, as we previously highlighted during both protocol and Windsor framework discussions, are at risk of becoming a haven for those who travel to Dublin and then lose themselves in Northern Ireland. If we are to believe the Irish and the Republic of Ireland Government hype, it is the opposite way round, and we are to blame for the immigration rates. No, we are not; Government officials and Ministers have been clear on that. The proclamation, “Come as many as you are and find refuge” rang from the Irish Government up until at least last week. They can make their own decisions on that issue, but they cannot then blame us, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for what goes wrong.
Everyone will know that I am not against immigration, per se. Indeed, I want to see a correct immigration system that invites, helps and encourages those who face persecution and human rights abuses. I believe that we have an obligation to do right by those who need help and assistance, but this cannot be unlimited and done by illegal means. I declare an interest, as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and the all-party parliamentary group for the Pakistani minorities. I speak on behalf of those with Christian faith, those with other faiths, and indeed those with no faith.
With persecution of Christians around the world, they need somewhere to go. In my constituency of Strangford, we have thrown the doors open in the past through the Syrian refugee scheme, as an example, to invite some of those Christian families who have been persecuted. Those who stayed have contributed greatly to our society, culture and relationships. Persecuted Christians across the world need somewhere to go, and the freedom of religion and expression to worship their God as they so wish, free from human rights abuses. We have a system in place for that, which the Government have made available. We thank them for that.
I am a faithful missions giver, and the projects that I support long term are those who seek to make improvements in the local communities to make a life. I understand that that cannot be done in war-torn nations and therefore there are some endeavours, such as the Ukraine scheme, that need a different approach. The Government were very positive and helpful, and I fully supported that scheme. Indeed, all of us in Westminster Hall today, and those in the main Chamber from all parties, recognised that we needed to take a different approach, and we did that. I thank the Minister and the Government for their help for the Ukrainians and their families.
In my constituency, we have helped numerous Ukrainians to gain job opportunities at Willowbrook Foods and in Mash Direct, where accommodation was available for them as well. The Minister and I discussed that a few weeks ago, and I gave him the contact names and phone numbers of some of the companies that are keen to address the issue. The Minister was keen for an opportunity to promote those two firms—Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct—and I was keen on that as well.
I believe that there should be immigration; I am quite clear on that. However, mass immigration is a completely different issue, and this is where Ireland has found herself in difficulty. I absolutely refute that it is a problem of our making, or that we are facilitating. The civil unrest is not due to an unwelcoming people. There are few people more welcoming than the Irish—north and south. The issue lies in not being able to cope with acceptable levels of immigration. I support the Government in their plans to halt illegal immigration while ensuring that we have a fit-for-purpose asylum system.
Those Ukrainians who came brought a work ethic, skill and an ethos, and they have integrated well into our society. I believe we must always make clear the difference between illegal immigration and the necessary immigration that brings knowledge and expertise to our fishing industry and our hospitals, and brings a warmth and culture that only enhances this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I have pursued the Minister a few times on the issue of fishing visas, and we discussed that at our meeting last week. It affects not just us in Strangford in Northern Ireland but those across the South Down constituency, particularly Ardglass and Kilkeel. We need a visa system. In answer to my question in the Chamber last week, the Minister kindly suggested that there was an onus on the fishing organisations to come up with ideas, so I have suggested that to them. I hope to come back with some ideas very soon and convey them to the Minister, so that we can find a workable system.
It is difficult to find a balance. I am aware that this is not a debate on the Rwanda scheme, although the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood mentioned it in her introduction, and we cannot ignore it because it does give opportunity and take some of the pressure off Government. However, this is a debate about how we can fulfil our moral obligations while ensuring that we do not sink further and further into debt. The fact is that the Republic of Ireland and the Irish people are a testament to the frustration that is felt when Government is not getting the right message across, and when people feel that the health and education of their children is at stake and that is at odds with Government objectives. That is why we have seen that discontent in the Republic of Ireland, and why there has been such uproar about what has happened. Whether or not the figures that the Republic of Ireland has suggested are correct is a question to be addressed.
I recently attended a family event in Newtownards with the Indian diaspora. They come from Odisha state in India. There were over 100 people there, and the wonderful thing was that every one of them has a visa—they are here to work, and they have brought their families with them—and every one of those people is involved in the health sector, so we need them because they contribute to our society. They work in the Ulster Hospital, Belfast City Hospital and the Royal Victoria, and every one of them—man and woman—is working in the health sector. We welcome what they do.
It was a wonderful night. Whether they were from a Hindu, Muslim or Christian background, the vast majority were integral workers within the NHS care system. I had a great night of fellowship with them. It was wonderful and fun. It was good to meet them, engage with them, welcome them personally and enjoy some of their food. I am a diabetic but I could still eat and enjoy the food that they presented, apart from the fact that my mouth was on fire afterwards, but that is by the way. I had fellowship with those men, women and children, and they are clearly part of the fabric of Newtownards and Strangford.
The messaging must be made clear. We need to get a handle on illegal immigration and welcome those who enhance, protect and build our nation through their jobs and opportunities. I am keen to work with the Minister and the Government and put forward ideas about the fishing sector in particular. I am also keen to see how we can build on the food sector; clearly, there is a need to ensure that Willowbrook Foods, Mash Direct and other firms in my constituency have the opportunity to gain expertise from other places and find people through the legal immigration system.
We must ensure that the young men who are coming illegally in droves across the channel from France are treated differently from young families seeking asylum and refuge. We must ensure that the message sent is clear: we will help where we can, as much as we can and in the best way we can. We have done that already, but we want to see that building.
Whether on our soil or foreign soil, we must strike a balance between compassion and obligation. We have an obligation to help persecuted families and those who have suffered severe human rights abuses. We are a welcoming country: we have been in the past, and we can be so in the future. I am pleased to participate in this debate, and I will also be very pleased to hear the responses of the Minister and of the two Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I apologise for my hoarse voice. I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns) by intervening on her, but I want to make the point that, the way that the laws are currently interpreted, virtually the entire populations of many countries would be given asylum if they could only make it to Britain. That is not lost on those making these daily boat crossings.
I think I am the only Member of Parliament to try to get smuggled into this country from Calais, which I did when I made a TV programme some years ago. I lived in the old Sangatte camp. My observation is very much the same as that of my hon. Friend: these were overwhelmingly fit young men seeking a better life. Some of the asylum seekers are fleeing torture, albeit not claiming asylum in the first countries they come to. Many others are economic migrants doing what many of us might try to do if we were in their shoes. This debate is about costs, but I add a point about the costs facing asylum seekers and their families: it is generally the more wealthy people who can pay smugglers for help to get to the United Kingdom. Others face taking out huge loans and becoming bonded. It is not cheap and illegal economic migrants are rarely the poorest or the most needy of the people coming from a given country.
Many costs have been shared in this debate, but some are hidden and I would like to highlight some that indirectly affect people in Gravesham. I mention these costs not begrudgingly—it goes without saying that anyone who comes here should be treated with compassion and dignity—but the debate has been called in the spirit of openness and transparency, and it is very important. So often the harshest critics of the Government’s immigration policy are those who are well insulated from the pressures and costs that immigration places on public services. For example, in Kent, unaccompanied children claiming asylum are looked after by social workers and staff until they can be found homes across the country. Staff are recruited from the same pool of potential recruits.
I understand that children from Albania disappear from local council protection most frequently, and the concern is that this is a result of traffickers and gangs taking them onward to whatever fate awaits them. Obviously, this has reduced, perhaps as a result of the deal the Government struck with the Albanian Government in December 2022—one of the success stories of the Government’s immigration policy. That is obviously good news. However, I am reliably informed that Vietnamese children still go missing, requiring additional protection, searching and police intervention whenever they are missing from their home or transition centre. That undoubtedly brings cost to people relying on the police and social care for support.
We also have to think about housing and healthcare. Immigration has obviously increased our local population, and there is a huge hidden cost felt by people in Gravesham who are searching for a home or medical treatment. The purchasing power of the Home Office is keenly felt by local councils and people. We are also facing a great deal of pressure because of people moving out of London because of higher rents; they move to Kent, where it is a bit cheaper, but that effectively inflates rents and makes it harder for local people. We have both the direct and indirect financial costs, but there is also the cost of the emotional drain on local people as they try to be welcoming while facing the impact on their own lives.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I remember that the last time we had a debate similar to this, it was chaired by the great Sir David Amess, whom we all miss in this House. In that particular debate, I was the voice of reason against many Conservative Back Benchers as they gave a description of the immigration system that, frankly, I do not recognise. While I congratulate the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns) on securing this debate, I am afraid I do not recognise much of what she said at all.
I do not recognise the notion that Immigration Ministers, past and present, are some sort of lily-livered liberals—that has just not been my experience. I certainly did not like the references to Home Office staff being soft touches and the criticisms of them, I am afraid. I am going to defend Home Office staff for the work they do; I have always found them firm and fair. They have a regular weekly telephone call with the constituency office of Glasgow South West, as they do with other Members of Parliament, to discuss cases. Ministers have put in place a system for Members of the House to raise these sorts of cases and to ask which cases should go where, and to raise any concerns we have—I will be mentioning one such case today—directly with Ministers.
I take the view that no human being is illegal, so the discourse of the debate on immigration concerns me on occasion. Last week, I had the great privilege of chairing the annual general meeting of the Showing Racism the Red Card all-party parliamentary group, where a number of children from London, Nottingham and other places described the importance of having antiracism education in our education systems across these islands. I think that Members of this House could learn from some of that education. Perhaps we should have Show Racism the Red Card come into these debates to explain in simple terms the difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an economic migrant, because there are occasions in which those who are seeking sanctuary on these islands are referred to as “illegal” or “migrants”, which is a charge that I think is completely and utterly unfair. I do not like the phrase “illegal immigration”. If we close off all the legal and safe routes to arrive in the United Kingdom, we cannot then complain that someone who is genuinely seeking sanctuary has to find another route.
What I find most troubling of all is the fact that the whole discourse of the debate is always focused on the exploited, and not the exploiter. There has to be more of a discussion about how we tackle the gangmasters and the criminal gangs. We spent months discussing the Rwanda policy and the Rwanda Act, but there was nothing in that legislation about tackling gangmasters and criminal gangs. That, I think, is the source of the problem. Indeed, I know that it is the source of the problem, because I have a constituent in Glasgow who was told that he was going to be sent to Canada and thought he was going to arrive there—but he ended up in Glasgow. There are huge, great links between the two great nations of Scotland and Canada, but that case tells us that there are people—gangmasters and criminal gangs—that are at it here. We need to focus on them a lot more in this debate, not on those who are seeking sanctuary to be with their families. Many of those arriving on our shores already have family across these islands.
As the small boats continue, we must question the entire asylum system on both value for money and effectiveness. I want to raise some issues in the debate, some of which I have raised before with the Minister. He could have predicted some of them. One is asylum accommodation.
I have great difficulty with the nonsensical position in which hotels, barges and military sites are used for asylum accommodation. As the Minister knows, I had a meeting with him a couple of weeks ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), in which we said that we need to think about these issues a lot more. We also said that we need to think about what happens when the backlog is cleared and thousands of people are given refugee status at the same time, as well as about what that means for local authorities.
We need to encourage local authorities to take more of the people who seek sanctuary in these islands, but the Home Office needs to do more to negotiate with local authorities. The Home Office cannot just tell a local authority to take more on when that authority will reply, “Well, that’s fine. Tell us what money we are getting, because we will need to think through what that means for our health and social care system, our education system, and all of that”.
I am afraid that there is still a legacy backlog; I know that there is. We were told that every person who had submitted a claim before 28 June 2022 had received a decision. I know for a fact that that is not the case and I will raise that point later.
I have another question for the Minister. I do not expect him to have this figure in front of him right now, but perhaps he could send it to us. We know that on occasion taxi companies are transporting asylum seekers all over these islands. Last week, for example, a family based in a Glasgow airport hotel were transported from Glasgow to Bradford. When they arrived for their interview, they were simply told, “You’re being moved to Bradford.” That leads to a taxi cost; they were put in a Glasgow taxi and taken to Bradford. That has to have an effect on the taxpayer, as the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood said.
I would like to know how much the Home Office is paying taxi companies to transport asylum seekers across these islands—from Glasgow to Bradford, from Glasgow to Manchester, or from wherever to wherever—because it is nonsensical. If asylum seekers based in Glasgow are being transported all over the UK, sometimes at a moment’s notice? I would like an answer to that question and I hope that the Minister will commit to writing to all of us who have contributed to this debate today to tell us what that cost actually is.
I want to raise the issue, raised by the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, of the gimmick that is the Rwanda policy. I have to say that if I were a member of a political party that had contested the local elections last week, I would have objected to the PR stunt that we saw last week of that Home Office video of people being transported into detention just days before the polls opened in some parts of the UK. I hope that Labour colleagues and others are checking the purdah rules regarding that publicity stunt.
I have asked the Minister’s Department why a constituent of mine in Glasgow South West was detained last week, because the Home Office’s own guidance says that those who submitted a claim before 28 June 2022 will be dealt with as a legacy claim. That individual should have had a decision on 31 December 2023 under the Government’s own policy. He did not; he has not had a decision at all, negative or positive. He arrived for his standard interview last Tuesday to be met by eight police officers, who bundled him into a police van. He was then bundled into an immigration van—a Home Office van—and taken to Colnbrook, and he was told that he is being detained. He has family here.
I would like to know from the Minister why those with a legacy claim who have been waiting years on a decision are now being told they are being transported to Rwanda, because that is not the guidance that MPs are getting from the Home Office. When I raised this with one of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, they sent me the guidance, which said that that should not be the case. I have serious questions about the application of the policy. People are waiting years on decisions— I at least agree with the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood on that front—and it is taking too long. I would like to see more staff employed at the Home Office, if that is what it takes.
I object to the hon. Lady’s description of the civil service, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. The trade unions are absolutely correct and have a duty to their members if they think that a piece of legislation breaks human rights or international law.
Incidentally, I do not share the view that the whole legal profession is somehow left-wing and Marxist; if only that were true, perhaps the legal profession would be in a better place. I completely reject that view on behalf of the legal professional. There are very good lawyers out there and tarring them with the brush that they are somehow Marxist is extraordinary—listening to the debate, anyone would think that when the judge rises, the first two verses of “Bandiera Rossa” are sung in court. I leave that vision with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is perhaps thinking about it.
In all seriousness, trade unions have the right to take an issue to court on behalf of their members. And when the Home Office tells them that it will send civil servants to Rwanda to work, they also have the right to have discussions about the consequences of that for lives and jobs.
We need a sensible immigration policy built on dignity that allows genuine cases to come here to share with their families and gives them the right to work after six months. The Government are, in fairness to them, going some way on that, with their shortage occupation list, and I would want to see that built on. We need fairness and sensible policies on immigration.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for the great Yorkshire seat of Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns) on securing the debate. She mentioned the Leader of the Opposition in her remarks, so I want to gently point out to her that he oversaw the first prosecution of al-Qaeda terrorists as well as the jailing of the airline liquid bomb plotters and of the racist murderers of Stephen Lawrence. Of course, as a lawyer, he has on occasion had to represent people whose views he does not agree with, but I am sure that any fair-minded person would understand that.
I want to briefly acknowledge the contributions made by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), as well as by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who soldiered on despite what sounded like quite a sore throat—I would expect nothing else from him. It is good to see the Minister in his place. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) would normally speak for the Opposition on these matters, but on this occasion I have been dragged off the subs’ bench.
Today’s debate comes after the costs of the asylum system have skyrocketed, from £500 million a year under the last Labour Government to an eye-watering £5.4 billion a year under this Conservative Government—an almost tenfold increase over the past 14 years. That is before the £576 million being spent on sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda—almost £2 million per deportee—is factored in. What is the taxpayer getting in return for those mind-boggling sums of money? The boats are certainly not being stopped: we are seeing record numbers this year, with 8,100 having crossed since 1 January—up 33% on the same period last year. On 1 May alone, we saw a staggering 711 small boat arrivals, as the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood mentioned. That is the highest single-day number this year to date.
The asylum backlog is certainly not being tackled. When Labour left office in 2010, the backlog stood at just 19,000 cases, but today the number stands at over 100,000. The backlog had already doubled before the small boats started coming, in no small part because back in 2013, Ministers decided to downgrade the pay and seniority of asylum decision makers, supposedly to cut costs. The predictable result? Slow decision-making, poor decisions being overturned on appeal, and a higher rate of staff turnover, all of which led to 56,000 people being stuck in hotels and other forms of contingency accommodation as we entered this year. That cost the taxpayer a mind-boggling £8 million a day.
The dangerous channel crossings run by the criminal smuggler gangs must end; I am sure we all agree on that. To stop that pernicious trade, we need to smash those gangs at source. To do that, we on these Benches have proposed a new cross-border police unit and a new security partnership with Europol based on intelligence sharing. That is part of a practical plan paid for by redirecting funds and focus away from the failing Rwanda scheme.
We also need a detailed plan to clear the backlog by surging caseworker recruitment—a plan that will end asylum hotel use and save the taxpayer up to £4 billion each year. That includes a new 1,000 officer-strong returns and enforcement unit to remove those who have no right to be in the UK. Returns of failed asylum seekers have collapsed by 44% under the Conservatives since 2010, and returns of foreign criminals have collapsed by 27% over the same period. Our plan will make sure that applications are processed quickly so that those with no right to be here are quickly returned.
In contrast, the Government strategy has only exacerbated the chaos and increased the cost. Just recently, the Home Office permanent secretary confirmed at a Public Accounts Committee hearing that the Government have defined 40,000 small boat asylum seekers as “inadmissible” to the asylum system, 99% of whom we know will never be sent to Rwanda. In doing so, the Government have created a perma-backlog of people whom they have prevented from being processed and who are therefore stuck in indefinite limbo. The Government claim that they can send those people to Rwanda, but we know that Rwanda can take only a few hundred asylum seekers—around 1% of that 40,000-person perma-backlog. What happens to everybody else? A 99% chance of staying in Britain is pretty good odds for someone prepared to pay thousands of pounds to a smuggler to risk their life at sea or for a human trafficker determined to bring people into the country for modern-day slavery.
The public have a right to know what underpins the extortionately expensive gimmick that is the Government’s asylum plan. Can the Minister share the annual cost to the taxpayer of keeping 40,000 asylum seekers in indefinite limbo in a permanent backlog? The Home Office Minister in the other place confirmed that the British taxpayer will be paying full board and lodgings for five years for those removed voluntarily to Rwanda. How much is that forecast to cost?
The Prime Minister promised to detain everyone who crossed the channel on a small boat—over 30,000 last year. Given that we have only 2,200 detention spaces, what will happen to the remaining 28,000? Staying on the issue of detention spaces, Home Office sources have told The Times that there are only 400 to 700 detention spaces reserved for migrants due for deportation to Rwanda. Can the Minister confirm that that equates to less than 1% of the current asylum backlog in the UK?
If the Minister plans to bail asylum seekers who are to be sent to Rwanda, can he publish his risk assessment on the possibility of asylum seekers absconding en masse to avoid being put on a flight—if one has been commissioned in the first place? That is particularly timely given that a FOI investigation by the Daily Mail found that the Home Office has been unable to locate or contact at least 21,107 asylum seekers in the five years running up to September 2023.
The asylum system is in chaos and costing the taxpayer many more times what it did under the Labour Government of 2010. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his pledge to stop the boats and the numbers are going up, not down. The public’s patience is wearing thin, and they see right through the Government’s rhetoric. It is time that the Government faced up to their failing policies and started to show some transparency. The Minister can start that transition today by answering the questions I have put to him.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns) on securing a debate on this important issue, which matters enormously to her constituents and mine, as well as to people around the country. She is a passionate campaigner on the issue. I would argue that she is strident in her beliefs and in the way she communicates them, always leaving no doubt about where she stands. I am also grateful to colleagues from across the House for their contributions, some elements of which I agree with and many elements of which I do not. I will have an opportunity to respond to those various points during my closing remarks.
There has been much focus on costs, and I will address those specific questions. First, it is important to set the issue in context. A number of factors and forces have coalesced in recent years to create a situation in which vast numbers of people across the globe are displaced and willing—and often able—to migrate in pursuit of improved prospects. I would argue that those challenges are only likely to become more acute in the years ahead. That is why it is right that the Home Secretary is leading the international conversation about what more we can do to tackle migratory flows in a co-ordinated and joined-up way, as he did in his recent speech in New York.
Candidly, the instinct to want to secure a better life is one that we can all understand and appreciate. But while we are a compassionate and sympathetic country, it is incumbent on Governments to be pragmatic about those challenges. Our resources and capacity are not unlimited. Our generosity, as we have seen reflected many times in recent years in response to various international crises, is enormous. The British people have opened their homes. Contrary to the impression that some have given during this debate, we have seen over 500,000 people granted sanctuary in recent years, which is an effort I am enormously proud of. All of us as constituency MPs are enormously proud of the efforts that our respective constituents have played as part of that national effort.
We cannot, however, accommodate everyone who wishes to come here. Saying that is not harsh or inhumane; it is just a matter of objective fact. Illegal immigration is unfair, unsafe and unsustainable. It is not fair to those people who play by the rules and seek to come here through established safe and legal routes—people who, through the various routes that the Government have available, pay the application fee, meet the requirements and come here. It is not right when people try to circumvent those rules to come to the United Kingdom.
Undoubtedly, it is challenging to the bandwidth of Government to deal with all those competing pressures. We want to provide sanctuary through our resettlement schemes, and we are very proud of that work. We want to continue to have a fair and balanced migration system where people who play by the rules and meet the requirements can come to the UK. However, that is made harder by people coming to this country illegally. Often that makes it harder to be able to help some of the most vulnerable people from around the world.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns
I understand that the Home Office has brought in a lot of new technology to help to identify the illegal migrants who come over. Would the Minister allude to some of that great work? I understand that we are spearheading and quite outward-looking in its use.
Tom Pursglove
I will gladly talk about that.
Several speakers today have set out how expensive this is. Not only is illegal migration unfair, not only is it very dangerous, and not only is it criminal exploitation led by evil criminal gangs, but it is incredibly expensive. It is important to remember that the costs are not purely financial. There is also an intangible, but no less significant, impact on our ability to build a strong and cohesive society. As I have explained, there is also the human cost—lives are tragically lost when people make dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I would argue that the Government have a duty to put the evil criminal gangs responsible for this vile trade in people out of business.
Let us not forget the appalling consequences of the incident in the channel just within the last fortnight, in which a young girl lost her life. That is a tragedy of epic proportions and it is impossible for all of us not to be incredibly troubled by what we saw. The fault for that lies squarely with the evil criminal gangs responsible for putting people in small boats, taking their money, having no regard whatsoever for whether they get to the other side safely, and simply treating human beings as cargo. To take a permissive approach on this issue would be an abdication of our moral obligations; it would also be at odds with the wishes of the constituents whose interests we are sent here to advance. It is upon those constituents that the real-world consequences of illegal migration fall, whether through housing and the associated waiting lists, GP appointments, strained public services, and at times challenges with community cohesion.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. He has spent a bit of time in his contribution rightly criticising the human traffickers and criminal gangs, but when are the Government going to produce some legislation to tackle those evil people responsible for human trafficking?
Tom Pursglove
I have enormous respect and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, and he always makes his case passionately. However, at every juncture when we as a Government have brought forward measures to deal with the criminal gangs responsible—the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and its tougher sentences; the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which made the business model more difficult; and the Rwanda legislation, which again tries to make it more difficult for those criminal gangs to operate, with the ultimate aim of putting them out of business—the hon. Gentleman and his party have opposed our efforts and voted against the legislation. We now have at our disposal tougher sentences for those responsible for those heinous crimes, and I am proud that this Government have legislated to do that. It is incumbent upon the courts to make appropriate decisions in individual cases, but we have put in place a suite of measures through that legislation to better bring those individuals to justice and ensure that they feel the full consequences of the law.
Jim Shannon
I know that the Minister and the Government have tried to work well with the French authorities to ensure that there is more activity to prevent people from crossing the channel. The Government have made a substantial amount of money available to the French authorities to ensure that they do their bit, but according to the papers and some of the correspondence that I have read, it seems that the French authorities do not have enough personnel on the ground to be effective. Has there been any opportunity to discuss with the French authorities better ways of preventing people from crossing the channel? As the Minister says, what has happened and the lives lost to trafficking are completely outrageous and can never be condoned.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman often speaks with real authority and takes a close interest in the issues. I will come to the French co-operation, but to answer his question directly, this issue is consistently discussed at official and ministerial level. As he knows, we have consistently deepened our co-operation with the French over time to try to tackle the challenges and make it much more difficult for the evil criminal gangs to operate, with all the catastrophic consequences that flow from that.
As colleagues will be aware, we are taking a multidimensional approach to tackling the issue, and I am pleased to say that we are making strong progress, albeit that there is more still to do. First, we are on track to close 150 hotels, and we aim to go further with that programme. The current situation is unsustainable: we spend £8 million a day accommodating people in the asylum system, and that cannot carry on. To respond to the point that was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), I would argue that we also need to consider the cost of standing back, doing nothing and saying that the issue is too difficult. That is why I maintain that the cost of the Rwanda policy is the right investment to make, because as the policy is operationalised, it will allow us to dramatically bring down that £8 million a day spend in our asylum system.
Alongside that, we also need to ensure that the domestic accommodation picture is in a more sustainable place. We are bringing on stream cheaper, more affordable, sustainable accommodation through large sites and dispersal accommodation, and we have dramatically reduced the accommodated population. We do need accommodation that is fit for purpose and decent, but it must also be appropriate to the circumstances, and that is precisely what we are delivering through the large sites programme and the dispersal programme. Ultimately, the most important thing is to bring down the flow, which will reduce the requirement for bed spaces in the first place.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful again to the Minister, who is being typically generous. He knows, because we have met to discuss it, that there is also the issue of what happens to those who receive refugee status. What discussions is his Department having with local authorities such as Glasgow, which find that when a backlog is cleared they have thousands of people who have received that status and are looking to be housed in the community?
Tom Pursglove
Again, the point about flow speaks for itself. The current volume of people coming to the United Kingdom, particularly via small boats, is unsustainable. The very best way of tackling the challenge that the hon. Member highlights is to dramatically reduce the numbers of people coming here through those illegal routes. That will help to alleviate the challenges. In the interim, we also need to continue to work constructively with local authorities to try to mitigate the pressures.
One of the things on which I would appreciate some support—the hon. Member and I have had this conversation—is what more other Scottish local authorities can do to play their part to a greater extent in the national effort to provide dispersed accommodation. I pay tribute to Glasgow for the work that it does in this space; it has very much stepped up to the plate and is supportive around the challenges. We also talked about some of the initiatives that we are introducing around, for example, Home Office liaison officer support, which was successful in supporting people with the move-on process in relation to the Afghan response. Having been piloted in other parts of the country, that is now being rolled out in Glasgow as well, and the early indications are encouraging. I want to work with the hon. Gentleman, colleagues across the House and the local authority to understand what works and how they can help as part of the local response when it comes to moving people on from Home Office accommodation, particularly when people are granted asylum, to ensure that they get the proper support and have the best possible chance to have successful lives, with housing, work and school places for any children.
A lot is said about the co-operation with the French, but it is a fact that roughly 50% of embarkations are stopped—prevented—through those partnership efforts. That is not insignificant. If we consider the counterfactual, we would have many more arrivals on UK shores were it not for that co-operation. It clearly plays an important role in helping to tackle this challenge.
More generally, we all recognise that illegal migration is a global challenge demanding global solutions, and the British people expect us to pull every possible lever in dealing with illegal migration. That is why we have taken steps to significantly ramp up our co-operation internationally. In March 2023, the Prime Minister and President Macron announced a three-year funding deal of £475 million to increase the deployment of personnel in northern France, to procure and deploy new technology and to enhance UK-French co-operation through the improved co-ordination and command of a personnel centre in northern France, and improved information sharing between our services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood asked about that point. She will recognise that I am somewhat limited in what I am able to say, for obvious reasons. We do not want to do anything that helps those criminal gangs to circumvent that work. However, the deal is being implemented at pace. More French personnel than ever before are now deployed in northern France, supported by cutting-edge equipment such as new drones that can be flown over an increased range. In addition, a new French zonal co-ordination centre is being established to co-ordinate French deployments, with UK officers permanently embedded in the new centre.
Our close co-operation, including that new deal, has been crucial in preventing dangerous crossings from being attempted. Last year, the number of crossings fell by 36% compared with 2022. We know that we must go further this year to continue that trend, but tackling the global migration crisis and smashing the evil gangs who drive it are challenges that must be met with a shared response further upstream, as well as at our closest borders.
As such, we recently pledged up to £1 million to tackle illegal migration in Libya, amid record arrivals into Europe from north Africa. This money will support survivors of trafficking and migrants in vulnerable situations, while also helping to prevent journeys to Europe by tackling the root causes of irregular migration, facilitating the voluntary return of migrants to their home countries and providing reintegration assistance for migrants who choose to return to their countries of origin. The funding and support we are providing will mean Libya is better equipped to stop people risking their lives to reach Europe. It also demonstrates our commitment to crack down on people smugglers operating not just in the English channel, but across the whole world.
In addition, the UK is participating in the Rome process, working with the Italian Government on upstream projects on the migration route to address the root causes of migration. In support of that process, the UK is co-funding a project to promote and assist the voluntary return of migrants from Tunisia to their countries of origin. It has also been agreed to deepen UK-Italy co-operation on security and economic development across north Africa.
Again, it is right that we keep a close eye on the costs of our international partnerships and agreements, but I would strongly dispute any suggestion that this work is in any way unproductive or superfluous. On the contrary, it is essential that the United Kingdom plays an active role in the global response to this issue. The more effectively we can intervene at our near borders and, as importantly, upstream in countries such as Libya, the better protected the United Kingdom will be against illegal migration and the gangs that fuel it. I hope that gives a bit of flavour on the work that is going on now.
We have also increased dramatically the number of returns of individuals who have no right to be here, to 26,000 in 2023 compared with 14,623 in 2022. We will sustain that progress.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns
I have no doubt that the Minister is a passionate advocate and we are on the same page on a lot of this. Has he discussed with his Department coming out of the ECHR?
Tom Pursglove
That is not a policy conversation that I have had. What I will say is that when it comes to the Rwanda policy, to which I think the question is relevant and pertinent, the Prime Minister has been consistently clear that we will not allow a foreign court to prevent us from operationalising it. I believe that through the legislation we have put in place and the determination of the Government to see it through, we will fulfil the commitments that we have made under the legislation to operationalise the policy, relocate people to Rwanda and put an end to journeys over the channel and the business model underpinning them.
I also make the point that Albanian arrivals are down by 90% in 2023 compared with 2022. Again, that is evidence proving that deterrents work. That partnership focuses on the point of deterrence, and it is yet more evidence that the general approach we are taking, which is developed further through the Rwanda policy, will deliver, with deterrence at its core to help put these criminal gangs out of business and disrupt their work.
Specifically on asylum grant rates, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 changes that she and I voted for are making a difference. I anticipate that colleagues will see grant rates coming down. We are also making decisions much more quickly. Asylum caseworking productivity and the learning that has taken place over the course of the last 12 to 18 months are making a real difference in reaching decisions on individual cases much sooner.
I know that my hon. Friend is also a strong supporter of the changes we have introduced around legal migration. I was pleased that we were able to have the first statistical release on that front last week, which demonstrates the changes and the way in which they are beginning to make a difference. We saw numbers down 24% across key visa routes. We obviously saw a considerable fall in student dependant numbers, having stopped individuals being able to bring student dependants on the route, and we will sustain that progress as well. The objective is to bring inflows down by 300,000 relative to the year prior. Again, that is a credible plan that delivers on the commitment we have made to bring those numbers down to more sustainable levels, and I am grateful for the support shown by my hon. Friend in that regard.
In today’s debate we have touched a little on the Rwanda policy, which is front and centre in allowing us to kick on and make further progress. The changes we have introduced and the progress we have made are not insignificant, but undoubtedly we need to go further in order to achieve our ultimate aim of putting the criminal gangs out of business. I have said that a few times in the course of this debate, but it is what the British people expect and it is the critical challenge that we face. It is not tenable for any party not to have a credible plan about how it would do that. I will not go into the operational specifics of the policy today.
We have consistently seen efforts to thwart the progress of the Rwanda legislation, and I have no doubt that we will see further efforts from certain quarters to make the delivery of the policy as difficult as possible. We have seen incidents in the last week or so of people trying to disrupt perfectly lawful Home Office business to facilitate relocation in the asylum accommodation estate. We cannot have a mob trying to prevent through criminality that lawful Home Office business from taking place. There is always a right to peaceful protest, but it is not acceptable to behave in such a way that is counter to the law and prevents perfectly lawful business from moving forward and taking place in the way that the British people as a whole would reasonably expect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood raised a point about judicial capacity and being able to get on, process claims and ensure that appeals are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The Government are working particularly hard to ensure that the justice system can meet increases in demand under the Illegal Migration Act. We have reviewed anticipated workloads introduced by the Act and will increase court staff and secure hearing rooms and judicial capacity to meet those projections. To make effective use of the Act’s provision for first-tier tribunal judges to sit in the upper tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber when requested to do so by the Senior President of Tribunals, the judiciary has identified and trained about 150 experienced first-tier tribunal judges to sit in the upper tribunal to hear Illegal Migration Act appeals. The additional judges, if deployed, could provide more than 5,000 additional sitting days.
The Lord Chancellor also asked the Judicial Appointments Commission to recruit more judges for the first-tier and upper tribunals of the immigration and asylum chamber. The recruitment is now concluding and new judges will be appointed and trained and will start sitting from this summer. This should increase capacity in both the first-tier and upper tribunals to hear routine cases and, in due course, Illegal Migration Act cases. Again, we are taking a root-and-branch approach, increasing resource and capacity and ensuring that we have the infrastructure to deliver not only on the partnership with Rwanda, but on getting through cases more quickly. That will facilitate greater volumes of removals not just of foreign national offenders, but of individuals who are failed asylum seekers and have no right to be here.
Chris Stephens
In my contribution, I raised the concern of asylum seekers effectively being taxied around the UK. Could the Minister say something on that, or could he commit to writing to me and others about the costs?
Tom Pursglove
I will gladly pick up that specific point. The hon. Gentleman raised an individual case that would not be appropriate for me to comment on, in the sense that I would never think it appropriate to casework individual cases on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to share details with me, I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration is aware of it.
On the point about accommodation moves, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West will appreciate that we are in the process of scaling back hotels. We are closing hotels around the country. We are on track to fulfil the commitments we have made on that 150 figure, and to go further, but we need to do that in a managed way, which sometimes requires people to be relocated to other parts of the country for the purposes of accommodation. Again, we are trying to move towards a place where, if areas played their part through dispersed accommodation, there would not be a need for hotels. I come back to the point about flow. We need to fundamentally and significantly reduce the flow of people coming into this country, which goes to the very heart of the challenge the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If we had a smaller population of individuals who had come here illegally, we would have a reduced need for accommodation, but in the circumstances, it is very helpful where local authorities work with us to identify dispersed accommodation within communities, which dramatically reduces the reliance on hotels.
Let us just contrast all of that to the policy of the Opposition, who have talked again about increased funding for the National Crime Agency. Well, we have already doubled that. They have talked about an additional team of civil servants. Well, we already have around 5,000 civil servants working on this part of the migration and borders system. The Opposition have no credible plan whatsoever on the issue of flow. They have nothing that disrupts meaningfully the criminal gangs. There is a lot of talk about simply getting on and processing claims more quickly. I would love it if the shadow Minister intervened on me to suggest a third country return route, because without that we would simply be accepting unlimited numbers of people of certain nationalities coming across the channel without a rote of return to the country of origin. That cannot be right. That is not a sustainable position.
That is why the partnership with Rwanda is so important in addressing this challenge. It allows us to relocate individuals to Rwanda with the aim of breaking the business model that is seeing people being brought across and exploited by criminal gangs in the first place. It is just not good enough for the Opposition to say that they are going to do those two very minor things that the Government are already doing, and that suddenly the picture will be dramatically improved overnight. I do not think anybody fair-minded thinks that is a credible answer to this challenge. It is incumbent on any Government or party that aspires to Government to have a multi-faceted approach to this challenge. We do, and it is working; and we will see it through. That stands in very stark contrast to the Opposition party’s approach reflected in the debate today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood set out, the financial stakes are high, but there are also very genuine issues about security and fairness. Most importantly, this is about saving lives. It is about stopping people risking their lives in the channel and all the catastrophic consequences that we have seen play out on far too many occasions, so it is right, not only financially but morally, to get a better grip of illegal migration.
As I said, we have a plan. It is delivering results. We still have some distance to go. I believe that the steps that we propose to take will deliver the results that we intend them to have, and that matters, because people in communities such as Morley and Outwood want to see change. I think they recognise that we have a plan to get there. Their local MP will no doubt hold us to account for delivery against the promises that we have made. There is nothing humane or decent about standing back, doing very little to stop what we are seeing currently or the risk to life that it presents, and just accepting that it is all too difficult and that things cannot change. That is not the position that this Government have taken. It is not the position that this Government will take, moving forward. We are determined to see this through.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns
I thank you, Mr Stringer, my hon. Friend the Minister, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and the few MPs who took part. It is a shame for this important debate that more did not turn up.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. He gave an important insight into how illegal immigration is affecting his constituents in Northern Ireland and the impact on the fishing and food sector. He highlighted the unhappiness felt by the Northern Irish people and how we must strike a balance between compassion and obligation. I thank him for that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for participating despite losing his voice—I have been there. He described his own experience for the TV programme that he was in, the dangers of traffickers and gangs, and the plight of the Vietnamese children going missing, which is a very important point. He also described the impact of the current situation on rent inflation, which has a knock-on effect on the British public.
I thank the SNP and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Despite our having completely different views, I agree with him on a couple of issues, namely, the need to tackle gangmasters and for a better relationship between local government and central Government.
The shadow Minister is well respected across the House, and I thank him for his contribution. However, I did not hear a fully detailed plan on what Labour would do. It has said that it will look at issues. Nor did he touch on my points about Labour giving asylum to 50,000 people. That is really concerning.
I thank the Minister for being here today and contributing to this debate. Knowing him as a friend, I am confident that he is strident in his role and he understands the impact of the current situation on the British people. I again thank you, Mr Stringer, and fellow MPs for their input into today’s debate, but I urge the Minister that it is time to get a grip. The British taxpayers have had enough. Let us show them how serious we are in tackling this. Let us come out of the ECHR and finally get control of our borders, because we know that in six months’ time, if Labour does get into power, this issue will never be addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the costs associated with illegal immigration.
Water Safety Education
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I understand that there is agreement by John Cryer and the Minister for another hon. Member to participate in the debate. However, as is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of water safety education in schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank Mr Speaker for choosing this debate, which I am delighted to have secured. It is on a subject that is of great importance to me as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on swimming, and I am sure that it is a matter of interest and concern for Members on both sides of the House. I also want briefly to thank both Philip Brownlie, head of public affairs at Swim England—it used to be the Amateur Swimming Association, in my day—for all his help in securing the debate and with my speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the chair of the all-party group.
Swimming has been a genuine passion of mine for many years. I started to swim at the age of five or six and I have swum with various swimming clubs, such as Leyton ASC, Hornchurch ASC and East Grinstead Tri Club. I want every child to have the kind of opportunity that I and many others had when we were growing up. If we can develop children’s physical literacy through good-quality, positive experiences at school, we can set them up for a lifelong love of being active.
Swimming is obviously a sport, but it is probably the only sport that might save someone’s life at some point. Figures shared with me by the Royal Life Saving Society show that the number of child drownings is increasing at an alarming rate. In my view, that is not unconnected to the net loss of swimming pools in this country of about 400 over the past decade. In 2022, there was a 46% increase in the number of child drownings against the five-year average, and although the 2023 data has not been officially published, early indications suggest that child drownings may have increased significantly again last year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on what, for me, is a critical issue. In my constituency, many young people and children in particular have died while swimming. In the figures that he referred to, 35 accidental child fatalities were reported. That is a classroom full of children. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of the issue. Does he agree that consideration should be given to a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland awareness campaign, alongside the education systems in the devolved nations, to ensure that children have an understanding of basic water safety, and how to be safe and keep safe?
John Cryer
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will not comment on the devolved nations, but he speaks very eloquently.
When the figures are adjusted for socioeconomic status and ethnicity, there are worrying elements in the child mortality data. The National Child Mortality Database reported that the risk of drowning was twice as high among children from poorer backgrounds as among those from better-off backgrounds, and that the risk of drowning was three and a half times higher for children from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. For me, that is a particular worry, because I represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country.
The debate is very timely, particularly when we consider that we are fast approaching the summer and that 2024 marks the 30th anniversary of swimming’s inclusion in the national curriculum. For all these reasons, it is important that we have this debate today and that the importance of swimming and water safety is highlighted in this place.
Figures from the latest Sport England Active Lives survey of children show that 71% of children in year 7 are able to swim 25 metres, which represents a fall of 6.3% compared with five years ago. Worryingly, pupils are also being offered fewer swimming lessons at school. That is raised with me just about every time I visit a school in my constituency. Swim England has also seen concerning examples of parents being asked to pay for their children’s school swimming lessons, which risks exacerbating existing inequalities. I represent some of the poorest wards in London, so that is very relevant to my daily work.
I pay tribute to the many hard-working teachers in Leyton and Wanstead and across the country. I recognise that teaching swimming and water safety presents a number of serious challenges, particularly under current circumstances. On top of that, school staff are often underqualified, underprepared and inexperienced when it comes to delivering comprehensive physical education. That is not a criticism of the teachers, but a criticism of the lack of resources. More qualified and prepared school staff would enable smaller ratios and higher-quality teaching to make the most of limited learning time for pupils.
Organisations such as Swim England produce free resources, including the school swimming and water safety charter, to support teachers, as well as running courses such as the national curriculum training programme for primary school teachers, but the Department for Education and Ofsted have been a bit too reluctant to adequately monitor and enforce the curriculum requirements. Although schools are required to publish their swimming and water safety attainment levels in order to receive PE premium funding, evidence suggests that many are not doing so. Could the Minister share the number of schools that the Department has taken action against for not meeting that requirement since its introduction? PE premium funding itself is only guaranteed until the end of the 2024-25 academic year. Could the Minister confirm that the requirement to provide that data directly to the Department will remain, regardless of what might happen to PE premium funding?
PE premium funding has helped schools offer top-up swimming lessons, but I cannot help feeling that providing schools with enough core funding to deliver appropriate school swimming lessons would be a better way to proceed. The Minister may or may not be aware that in Estonia, for example, pupils receive 40 hours of school swimming lessons paid for by the Government.
A 2023 Ofsted report on PE described swimming and water safety attainment as “mixed” and stated that
“evaluation of the swimming and water safety element of the curriculum is limited”.
It recommended that primary school schools should ensure that
“their curriculum matches the breadth and ambition of the national curriculum for all pupils. It should include carefully sequenced and taught swimming and water safety lessons”.
I would like the Department to be much more active in monitoring and enforcing curriculum requirements, a point that members of the Swim Alliance have raised with me. The alliance, which is chaired by Debbie Kaye of the Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association, is a grouping of organisations from across the sector, including pool operators and groups such as the Black Swimming Association, Unity Swimming and Swim England.
Organisations such as the Youth Sport Trust, the Association for Physical Education and Swim England have proposed that PE should be made a core subject. I wonder whether the Minister might consider that in order to help PE obtain the profile and support in schools that it merits.
The growth in the number of pop-up pools is broadly welcome, but their small size and shallow depth means that it is impossible for them to meet curriculum requirements, and local authorities have raised concerns about the impact that increased use of pop-up pools could have on existing community facilities.
I want to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green to speak and for the Minister to respond, but we cannot discuss water safety without discussing access to pools for pupils to learn in. Part of my constituency—three wards—is in the London Borough of Redbridge, which, according to Swim England, is the third most deprived local authority in the country with regard to available water space. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that just 20% of children across all ages in Redbridge can swim 25 metres, compared with 75% in Wandsworth. If we are to improve water safety, we must ensure that we have the pools we need for the future.
To summarise my views very briefly, schools need to be adequately resourced and able to provide swimming and water safety opportunities. School leadership groups need to prioritise swimming and water safety in schools. School swimming and water safety need more hands-on monitoring and enforcement from the DFE and Ofsted. As a country, we desperately need to invest in the community pools we need for the future, with both capital funding and revenue funding, so that swimming is an affordable activity. If we do all that, we can start to make the sort of progress that I am sure everyone across the House wants to see.
Finally, I mentioned that my three of my wards are in Redbridge; the other six are in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where we have seen enormous core funding cuts. As I said at the beginning of my speech, just about every school I visit, in both Waltham Forest and Redbridge, has raised the difficulty of getting access to pool time for swimming. With that, I had better stop speaking and give others a chance to contribute.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for allowing me a little time to address some of the concerns that we have been raising since 2015, when the all-party group began. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is a fantastic swimmer—unlike the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who pootles up and down the Hampstead Heath ponds on warm days.
The important thing is access and equality of provision for children, because, as the Minister is aware, schools should be the great equaliser. It is important that every child learns to swim, regardless of their parents’ ability to swim. Unfortunately, we are not seeing much consistency. Almost every child goes to school, and it is a national curriculum requirement for them to be able to swim 25 metres, perform a range of strokes and perform safe self-rescue by the end of year 6. Of course, different schools have different priorities, but surely, now that this is an Ofsted priority, there should be much more uniformity. It is particularly worrying, as my hon. Friend said, that we are going backwards. Since the pandemic, a number of swimming pools have closed and the number of children who are confident swimmers has declined.
Why are we seeing such inequality in attainment? Sport England’s Active Lives survey of children and young people shows that while 90% of children from the most affluent families can swim 25 metres by years 7 to 8, that figure falls to just 53% of children with low family affluence, and it is a very similar story when it comes to the ability to self-rescue. Similarly, looking at ethnicity, the figures reveal shocking disparities, with 80% of white children in years 7 to 8 able to swim 25 metres, compared with just 50% of black children and 56% of Asian children.
It should not have to be this way. If we look at the figures for children who want to swim more, or who either like or love swimming, we see that children from poorer backgrounds and those from ethnically diverse communities are just as keen to swim as their friends, so it is not a lack of desire that accounts for the difference. Some good work has been done, including through the Inclusion 2024 programme—my hon. Friend also mentioned the Black Swimming Association—but I am keen to hear from the Minister about the recipe for success, and what assessment his Department has made of the reasons for the stubborn inequalities and what practical steps are planned to address them.
One contributing factor could be access to water facilities, as my hon. Friend said. We have lost hundreds of pools up and down the country since 2010, particularly due to the high cost of running them, given the energy bills. Does the Minister agree that, in such a situation, it is unsurprising that attainment levels across London are below the national average? My constituency is covered by the London Borough of Haringey, which is one of the local authorities with the biggest shortages of publicly available water space; there is quite a lot in the private school sector, but not enough that is publicly available. Just 35% of children of all ages across the borough can swim 25 metres. Even within London, though, the discrepancies are huge. In Hammersmith and Fulham, an area just 10 miles to the west of Haringey with no shortage of water, 88% of children are able to swim 25 metres.
In recent years, there has been some welcome national funding through the national leisure recovery fund and the swimming pool support fund, for which I give the Government credit, but that needs to be seen in the context of falling swimming ability rates. The national leisure recovery fund was much needed, but was only ever a short-term sticking plaster, and the swimming pool support fund was massively oversubscribed, showing the huge level of need in the leisure sector. There is no substitute for long-term, sustainable funding to deliver the network of community pools we need to provide school swimming opportunities for all children.
A recent survey from the Local Government Association shows that sport and leisure services remain under huge pressure, with more than half of local authorities needing to make cost savings in 2024-25. That follows the huge pressure that council budgets have been under over a number of years, as well as the increases in the costs of operating swimming pools as a result of factors such as massively increased energy prices and staffing costs, which have combined to create a real death knell for some of our swimming centres.
With schools already stating that accessing a pool is often one of the challenges in delivering their school swimming programmes, it is absolutely imperative that we make sure that all communities have access to pools. The Government previously committed to publishing a national vision for swimming facilities by the end of 2023. Could the Minister update us on where we are at, given that we are halfway through 2024 and have still not seen that national vision?
My second point—I will make it very briefly; I know Mr Stringer is getting very impatient in the Chair, but as a former council leader, he will be sympathetic on the point about council funding—is that for years it has been felt from the outside a bit like the Department had put school swimming and water safety on the “too hard to tackle” pile. Would the Minister please refresh the vision for swimming for every single child?
I hope the new online reporting tool being introduced by the Department will be a big step forward. Online tools are all very well, but what we need is more children in the pool doing their 25 metres unaided and learning to swim, so that we know that they will be safe in the coming summer, and we do not see any children drowning needlessly.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on securing this important debate. I commend him and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for their contributions and for their wider work in the all-party parliamentary group. I also welcome, as ever, the contribution from our mutual friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
All children should know how to swim and keep themselves safe in and around water. Schools can play a really important role in ensuring that they are taught vital skills and knowledge, such as the water safety code. Some 91% of primary schools surveyed in 2023 reported that they were providing swimming and/or water safety lessons to their pupils, but we recognise that there is more to do to increase from the current level the number of children who are able to swim.
Data from the last academic year, as has been mentioned, show that 70.5% of year 7 children—the first year of secondary school—reported that they can swim 25 metres unaided. The national curriculum for physical education states that by the time they leave primary school, children should be able to
“perform safe self-rescue in different water-based situations”.
That is in addition to swimming a minimum of 25 metres unaided and performing a range of strokes.
Water safety guidance for schools published by Swim England recommends that primary age pupils should be taught about the water safety code, beach flags and cold water shock. It also recommends pupils be taught about survival skills, such as floatation, treading water, energy conservation and how to signal for help.
Secondary schools are free to organise and deliver a diverse and challenging PE curriculum that suits the needs of all their pupils. While there is no statutory requirement on secondary schools to provide swimming and water safety lessons, the secondary PE curriculum provides clear guidance. It sets out that:
“Pupils should build on and embed the physical development and skills learned in key stages 1 and 2, become more competent, confident and expert in their techniques”.
Swimming and water safety lessons are one way of doing that, and resources are available for all key stages. Swim England recommends that children in key stages 3 and 4—secondary school—have the opportunity to extend their knowledge, including through the practical experience of different outdoor water environments, and annual campaign events such as World Drowning Prevention Day can be useful ways to refresh and build pupils’ knowledge across their time at school.
In July 2023, we published an update to the school sport and activity action plan. The plan encourages schools to teach pupils practical swimming and water safety techniques in a pool and to complement that with classroom lessons. In this area, as in others, schools welcome case studies from other schools and guidance on how to bring to life and embed swimming and water safety in their overall offer. In March, we published non-statutory guidance to support schools to enhance their PE provision and improve access to sport and physical activity. The guidance highlights the wide range of support available from Swim England, including, as has been mentioned, the free school swimming and water safety charter, which provides teachers with pupil awards, lesson plans, videos and water safety presentations. Swim England reports that more than 1,700 schools and lesson providers have registered with the charter.
We recognise the importance of getting water safety education right at an early age, so primary schools can use their PE and sport premium funding for teacher training and top-up swimming and water safety lessons. Those are additional lessons for pupils who may not have met the national curriculum expectations after their core PE lessons. As part of the PE and sport premium conditions of grant, schools must publish the percentage of year 6 pupils who meet the national curriculum expectations. The Department announced last year that we will be introducing a new digital PE and sport premium reporting tool, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green just mentioned. It will capture detail on how schools have used their funding. The form will also require schools to input their swimming and water safety attainment data. We are piloting the digital tool this summer, when schools will have the option of completing it prior to it becoming mandatory for schools to complete in academic year 2024-25.
Swimming and being near water can bring benefits for all children, which is why we are supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities to learn to swim and learn about water safety. The inclusion 2024 programme works with a network of lead inclusion schools across England, and has developed new resources that are available to all schools on the Swim England website’s inclusion hub. They include an awards programme, audit tools to facilitate discussions with pool operators, and advice on how to deliver inclusive swimming festivals.
Identifying risk and managing personal safety are central to personal, social, health and economic—PSHE—education, and schools can use PSHE to equip pupils with the knowledge necessary to make safe and informed decisions, which are a vital part of water safety. The PSHE Association is one of many providers to have developed resources in this area that schools can choose from. We will shortly be consulting on revised relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance, and those who are interested will have an opportunity to contribute their thoughts through that process.
A pool can be a valuable asset for a school and help to ensure access for all pupils regardless of background. The Department’s opening school facilities programme is spending up to £57 million to help schools to open their sport facilities outside the core school day, including on weekends and holidays. As of April 2024, the programme has supported more than 220 schools to open their pools to more users for longer. The programme is targeted towards the least active children and young people.
Catherine West
I thank the Minister very much for his words so far, but he has not quite addressed the point about inequality and topping up areas that are so far behind, where below 50% of children are able to swim 25 metres unaided.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about equality of access. We are very conscious of that when we talk about safety in particular; this is about not just sporting participation, but children’s safety. It is important that we seek to present that opportunity to everybody. It is our ambition to make swimming up to a certain standard available to everybody in primary school, and that is what we will continue to do.
On a related point, we welcome the efforts to find new ways to overcome barriers to providing high-quality swimming and water safety lessons, particularly for children who may have less access to swimming than others. It is important that pools are safe and appropriate for the activities they provide. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about the trend of pop-up pools. My Department would be interested in hearing more about the work of his all-party parliamentary group and their discussions, and indeed those with Swim England, in that regard.
I welcome the opportunity for the Department to work alongside members of the National Water Safety Forum, in particular the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England. The Department contributes to the education sub-group by supporting the forum to understand the needs of teachers and improve the dissemination of resources and messages to schools.
The education sub-group recognises the important role of water safety messaging that is age and stage-appropriate for children. The group has recently published a new framework to provide a set of consistent core messages, which will help practitioners and organisations working at local and national levels that wish to develop, deliver and evaluate water safety resources and campaigns. The water safety code is the headline message of the framework and includes key learning outcomes from early years through to key stage 4.
Raising awareness of water safety and key messages is an important part of people understanding the dangers of water. The Department for Education is pleased to have supported the Royal Life Saving Society UK’s Drowning Prevention Week in recent years. Last year, over half a million children took part in schools. In June, we will support this year’s activity, which will focus on the water safety code.
I know how important swimming and water safety are for all children. Swimming can be one of many activities that foster positive wellbeing and can be a habit children take into adult life. We remain committed to working in partnership with sector organisations to support schools to provide opportunities for all pupils to learn to swim and know how to be safe in and around water.
Question put and agreed to.
Free School Meals
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of free school meals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts.
A child pretending to eat out of an empty lunchbox because they do not qualify for free school meals and do not want their friends to know that there is no food at home; a child coming into school having not eaten anything since lunch the day before, so hungry that they are eating rubbers at school; and a child hiding in the playground because they do not think they can get a meal—all stories from schools in England today. This has to stop.
I want every child at school to be happy, healthy and ready to learn, and I doubt that anybody here would disagree on that point. That is why it was the Liberal Democrats in government who introduced free school meals for every infant schoolchild—something of which I am incredibly proud. Since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, it has been required by law that free lunches are provided to all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2. That universal offering for all infants has paid real dividends. A free school meal can be life changing; its benefits are enormous.
Extending free school meals offers a triple whammy of benefits. Free school meals save parents time and money, as parents save an average of £10 a week on food and 50 minutes a week preparing it. They improve educational outcomes; when free school meals for children aged five to seven were piloted in east London and Durham, pupils made around two months more progress in their SATs results compared with those in the rest of the country. They help children to eat more healthily: packed lunches are much more likely than school meals to provide more calories from fat, sodium and sugar. When free infant school meals were rolled out, two in five headteachers told the Education Policy Institute that healthy eating across the school had improved. Free school meals are incredible, and we should give one to every child living in poverty, whether in primary or secondary school, because hunger and poverty do not stop at the age of 11.
Not only does a free school meal make sense for the reasons I have already outlined; it also makes financial sense. An analysis by PwC found that every £1 spent on free school meals for the poorest children generates £1.38 in core benefits, including a boost to the lifetime earnings of those children by almost £3 billion. Free school meals are a simple, unintrusive way of ensuring that all children from low-income families have at least one well-balanced, healthy, nutritious meal a day. The Government know this, having already extended free school meals to children without recourse to public funds during the pandemic, before making that extension permanent. Even the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), told a Conservative party conference fringe event that he supported extending free school meals to all children in poverty. Doing nothing is economically, morally and politically unsustainable.
There has been some progress. My party and I welcomed the extension of free school meals to every primary school child in London by the Mayor of London in 2023. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that a proper analysis of that scheme and its outcomes will be critical, and I look forward to seeing the Education Endowment Foundation’s report in due course. I hope that that work will inform both this Government’s and any future Government’s policymaking on free school meals.
The Mayor’s commitment to free school meals is admirable, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that earlier in this Parliament the Labour party chose not to support extending free school meals to all children in poverty. When the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Schools Bill in the other place to that effect, Labour peers sadly chose to abstain. Although there was much in the Bill I disliked, I was disappointed that we were not able to press the same amendment to a vote in the Commons. I hope and expect that many hon. Members here would have felt able to support it had we secured that opportunity.
Regarding the Conservative record, I am sure that many hon. Members will recall that Marcus Rashford had to drag this Government kicking and screaming to provide free school meals in the school holidays during covid. They may also recall some of the comments that were expressed from the Government Benches in debates at the time, such as:
“Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children? I do not believe in nationalising children. Instead, we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1155.]
or,
“‘it’s a parent’s job to feed their children’”. —[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1160.]
Frankly, that is an insult to every parent who cannot afford to feed their child. Of course, we all agree that it is a parent’s job to feed their children; that is exactly what almost every parent is desperately trying to do.
Indeed, I met a mother at one of my constituency surgeries who had fled an abusive partner. She was skipping her mental health medication because she needed to use the money that she would have spent on prescriptions to ensure that her daughter could eat lunch at college. That is a mother taking her responsibility to feed her child seriously, and she is paying the price with her health and wellbeing. I am afraid that the Conservative Government are forcing parents to make impossible choices such as that. It is a scandal that a free school meal may be the only hot meal that a child eats in a day in this country. In a country such as England, families are struggling with this basic human need, and it is appalling. The Government should hang their head in shame.
Children are going hungry. In January 2024, the Food Foundation’s latest tracking found that 20% of households with children reported experiencing food insecurity. Given those statistics, it is not surprising that the use of food banks has skyrocketed. Three per cent of all individuals in the UK used a food bank in the financial year ending 2022, and there are over 2,500 food banks operating in the UK.
Giving children in poverty a free school meal gives them the energy to learn in the afternoon and it saves parents money. When children go hungry, they make less progress, and have poorer behaviour and worse health outcomes. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, more than 4 million children in the UK are living in poverty. That means that in an average classroom of 30, nine children will be living in poverty. It also calculates that 900,000 children—a third of school-age children living in poverty in England—miss out on free school meals. The £7,400 earnings threshold has not increased since it was introduced in 2018, but if it had risen in line with inflation it should be around £9,300.
Parents are trapped in poverty by a system that punishes them for working more hours. When universal credit was introduced in 2010, the Government promised that people would be better off for each hour they worked and for every pound they earned, but under the Conservatives that is no longer true. If someone is earning just under the £7,400 limit, taking on extra hours or getting a pay rise could make them worse off, as their children would lose free school meals, and if someone is earning just over the limit, they could be better off taking a pay cut. Surely that is nonsense.
Not only must we feed more children in poverty who are currently not eligible for free school meals; we must also make changes to ensure that every single child who is entitled to a free school meal takes one up. In 2013, the Department for Education estimated that around 14% of pupils entitled to free school meals were not claiming them. The DFE does not routinely collect information on the number of pupils who are entitled to free school meals but do not make a claim. It is therefore largely unknown how many children are not currently receiving the benefit, but it is estimated that around one in 10 pupils eligible for free school meals in England are not registered, so are missing out. The kicker is that as well as these children missing out on their meal, schools are unable to claim the pupil premium and other important disadvantage funding that goes with it. I commend the work of the FixOurFood programme, led by the University of York together with the Food Foundation, which has set out to test and evaluate the Sheffield model of opt-out automatic enrolment with at least 20 local authorities. Auto-enrolment is an important step on which I would welcome movement from the Government.
Free school meals cannot and should not be produced from cheap, substandard ingredients. We have all seen pictures of frankly disgusting-looking school meals in some of our national papers. Although Jamie Oliver has pushed the Government to improve the nutritional quality of our school meals, there is still more work to be done, but I am afraid that the root of these problems is money. I appreciate that there are some hon. Members in this place who think it is possible to provide a meal for an entire family for just 30p a day, but those of us living in the real world are aware that food inflation has been particularly pernicious. We all know that funding for free school meals has not kept up with inflation. The national funding formula value for free school meals in the 2023-24 financial year is £480 per pupil—up just £10 from the previous year—yet food prices have risen by 15%.
Funding increases for universal infant free school meals would have been laughable had the matter not been so serious. The increases have been pitiful. In 2020, the funding rate for universal infant free school meals was increased by just 7p per pupil, and that increase was only the second since the policy was first introduced in 2014. The first increase was just 4p; overall, that is an increase of just 11p in universal infant free school meals since 2014. The economy has taken a hammering and inflation has been sky high, but infant free school meals have got just 11p—not even enough for a lettuce. The resulting shortfalls and cuts to other parts of the school budget mean that children are losing out, or higher prices are being paid by parents of junior pupils who pay for their meals.
Finally, I pay tribute to the successful campaign led by my constituent Natalie Hay on changing free school meal guidance for disabled children, who have been let down. They have often been excluded from free school meal provision because they cannot physically attend school. They may be waiting for a placement at a specialist school or may not be able to eat the school meal provided due to dietary requirements or sensory processing difficulties. Instead of getting a supermarket voucher so that an alternative meal can be provided, these children are often forgotten. Thanks to Natalie’s tenacity in fighting the system, with the support of the charity Contact and CrowdJustice, the legal guidance in this area has gone from just three pages to 19, including food vouchers as an acceptable adjustment. I hope that other families will not face the same prejudice and discrimination that Natalie and her son did.
In conclusion, the Government’s adviser on the national food strategy, Henry Dimbleby, said:
“Hungry children cannot learn and cannot thrive. It is unconscionable in 2022 that this situation has not yet been addressed.”
We are now in 2024 and nothing has changed. Teachers are increasingly having to act as a fourth emergency service, consuming so much time, energy and resources dealing with these issues beyond the school gates, including hunger. Extending free school meals is one way that we can restore the support network around our young people by ensuring that they have at least one hot, cooked meal a day, giving them the energy to learn in the afternoon. No child should go hungry at school. The Liberal Democrats would extend free school meals, beginning with every child in poverty, to save parents money, encourage healthy eating and give children the energy to learn. It is a no-brainer.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
As quite a lot of Members wish to speak, the Front Benchers have kindly agreed to keep their contributions to eight minutes, which means that I can allow six minutes to Back-Bench Members. That is advisory, but please do not go over; if Members go over that limit, I will start to intervene to keep us to it.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Betts, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate.
I believe that access to sufficient, nutritious food is a basic right. It is essential to the development and growth of our children—our future generations—and the provision of free school meals is fundamentally important to that. Guaranteeing children at least one hot, healthy meal a day is a vital way of enabling young people to develop, and there is strong evidence that it improves their health and wellbeing, their academic performance and our economic prosperity as a country. The Government like to say that they have increased free school meal provision, but the low household income threshold of £7,400 means that close to 1 million children living in poverty in England are not eligible for the Government’s free school meals scheme. Furthermore, as the National Education Union highlights, the divisions inherent in a means-tested system mean that stigma remains a barrier to accessing free school meals, even for parents who are aware of their children’s entitlement. It has been estimated that as many as 215,000 eligible children missed out in 2020. As well as being in the interests of children and their families, expanding free school meal provision makes sense economically. Research conducted by PwC has found that expanding free school meal eligibility in line with universal credit has economic benefits.
I am proud to say that in Wales we are leading the way in many regards—alongside the other devolved nations, I hasten to add. I have been fortunate to be involved in a grassroots campaign that has led to free school meals being provided in all primary schools in Wales. That is part of the co-operation agreement between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru. As of last month, all primary school children in Wales, including in my constituency of Cynon Valley, are receiving free school meals.
It is time for England to catch up. I commend the campaign work that the Food Foundation has done through its Nourishing the Nation campaign. I also commend the NEU’s Free School Meals for All campaign. I thank them for their briefings ahead of the debate today. England can start to catch up with Wales by ensuring that at least the 900,000 children living in poverty who do not have access to free school meals can have that.
We can do a lot more, including in Wales, and I want to mention the excellent work that the Bevan Foundation has recently been doing on provision for those currently subject to no recourse to public funds. Eligibility assessments for children rely on receipt of benefits that parents subject to no recourse conditions cannot access, so Welsh Government guidance encourages local authorities to exercise their discretion where children are affected by no recourse. However, many children from low-income households are not entitled to free school meals, so the Bevan Foundation recommends that the Welsh Government introduce automatic eligibility for free school meals for those children, and England should be doing that as well.
To go further, I passionately believe that free school meals should be an entitlement for all children and young people. I started by saying that access to sufficient nutritious food is a basic right, so ensuring that every woman, man and child has a right to nutritious food should be enshrined in law.
I want to finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and thanking him for the sterling work that he is doing. My colleague and friend is working tirelessly in demanding that the right to food be enshrined in law, and I am pleased that I am able to support that. We can afford it. We are the fifth—the fifth—richest nation in the world and we could introduce a wealth tax and end tax evasion and avoidance by the rich.
There is another way, and we have to start getting our priorities right as a country. I am determined to continue to work in collaboration with colleagues in this House but also, crucially, with grassroots organisations and individuals to end the scourge of child poverty.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I, too, am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this very welcome debate.
In 2022-23, 30% of children were in poverty after housing costs. That is 4.3 million children, the highest number since 1998-99, reversing all the progress that had been made in the years following that time. The Government’s family resources survey found that one 10th of all households and 15% of households with children were food insecure; that is the Government’s own data. The Food Foundation has been mentioned by both previous speakers. Using a different methodology, taken from the USA’s food security survey model, it found that 17% of all households and 23.4% of households with children were either moderately or severely food insecure in June 2023. Those figures make it absolutely clear that child poverty in the UK is much too high. We are limiting our future potential by keeping it at this high level. The most immediate benefit of free school meals is tackling the scourge of child poverty.
As we have heard, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, a third of school-age children in poverty are missing out on free school meals at the moment. Free school meals are provided to children with parents in receipt of a number of benefits, most importantly universal credit, but only if their household income is less than £7,400 a year. That threshold has not been uprated in six years. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that, because it ought to be uprated annually, along with other benefits. The Government estimate that, once other social security income is considered, the threshold equates to a total household income for those families of around £18,000 to £24,000, but that is below what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that a single person needs for a minimum acceptable living standard, let alone a couple with children.
We have heard about the cost-benefit analysis produced by PwC on extending free school meals to all those who claim universal credit. The analysis took account of research from Sweden to the Department for Education, and from the Association for Young People’s Health to Ofsted, showing that free school meals reduce obesity and absenteeism, improve academic attainment and raise lifetime earnings. Those are all advantages that we need to capture.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to the 2009 pilot in the London Borough of Newham. I am pleased to be one of the Members of Parliament who represent that borough, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) in her place today. The assessment of the pilot showed that it led to improvements in classroom behaviour, concentration and attainment. Parents also reported that their children were more willing to eat healthily at home. I am pleased to say that Newham has continued to provide free school meals to all primary school pupils ever since, defying waves of Government austerity in the last 15 years. I want to pay tribute to the impressive commitment of my colleagues on Newham Council to maintaining that very important provision. I also pay tribute to Juniper, the council-owned company that provides the meals and is very well-known to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who works with it each year at a free school meals event.
Last year the Mayor of London provided funding to help all London boroughs follow suit, and I very much applaud that decision. It is a very popular policy and no doubt one of the reasons for his welcome re-election last week. Now that he has been re-elected, provision across London is thankfully secure for the next four years. Richard Parker and Kim McGuinness, the new Mayors in the West Midlands and the North East, have committed to moving in that direction too.
Free school meals help alleviate poverty and improve children’s health and educational attainment. Let us use this lever much more widely to tackle the scourge of child poverty.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for the work they do in this area.
Newham has been a pioneer in universal free school meals for over a decade now, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) has described. As has been mentioned, 900,000 children in England live in poverty but are not eligible for free school meals. Many of those children may well live in Newham, but thankfully at primary schools in our area they receive that important hot and healthy meal, even though the Government’s criteria seems to suggest that they do not deserve it. I continue to believe that our local universal free school meal offer is so important for child welfare because so many families in our communities are enduring hardship, thanks to incomes that simply do not pay the bills and a massive shortage of decent affordable homes.
We have the second highest child poverty rate in the country and the highest homelessness rate. More than 8,500 children in Newham are growing up in temporary accommodation, which is often damp, cold and mouldy—awful conditions. Last week, we learned that across the country that statistic has risen by 15%. Our families, whether they are technically in poverty or not, and whether they can pay their rent or are struggling to do so, have been massively impacted by the cost of living crisis over the past years. That has increased child hunger and stress caused by financial worries to simply appalling levels. The rise in child hardship and child homelessness makes that one free school meal a day all the more essential—sometimes it is that child’s only meal.
Teachers I speak to locally tell me ever-worse stories of how children are coming in hungry day after day and the strategies the children use to hide it. A hot decent lunch is a lifeline that helps children concentrate. It makes school the haven it should be, away from the stress and worry that often awaits them at home. But rising homelessness costs to the council create risk for Newham’s new universal free school meal programme. Without support, it could become less and less affordable, even as the need for it grows higher and higher. That is because just a fraction of free school meals in Newham are paid for by this Government, who have done so much to increase need by driving down council funding, eroding our stock of social homes and cutting family incomes from social security.
Our Newham programme has always been paid for by local people through our council budget and, in recent years, by our Mayor of London. Thankfully, that should continue following Sadiq Khan’s victory at the weekend, which ended the financial threat posed by the Conservative candidate. For Newham, widening national eligibility for free school meals would have a double impact on child poverty: it would free up resources to meet the wider needs, including those that have been caused by homelessness. The council and now the Mayor of London would save £6 million a year, which could be reinvested in other services if the free school meals programme was fully funded by the Government.
Healthy free school meals impact on many aspects of our children’s lives and on their opportunities. A University of Essex study, which included Newham, found that families receiving free school meals were saving £37 a month per child and that childhood obesity was reduced by 9.3% for children of reception age. That is obviously important for protecting children’s lifelong health and for reducing costs to the NHS for decades to come, particularly in Newham where almost 30% of year 6 children are affected by obesity.
Even small expansions in eligibility for free school meals are estimated to have economic, social and health benefits. A £1 investment has been found to recoup £1.38 in returns from higher educational achievement, savings to school budgets and reduced NHS costs from obesity. Ultimately, this is a debate about whether we have a Government that are willing to take a long-term view and make an investment in our children that would more than pay for itself in the coming years. Surely that is the kind of investment we need to build a fairer, healthier and more prosperous future for Newham and all our communities.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in the debate as a former recipient of free school meals. I know how important they are to support learning and attainment for children. I am extremely proud that in Scotland we have the most generous free school meal provision anywhere in the UK by some significant distance, with universal provision for all pupils in primary 1 to 5 and eligible pupils who are older. Last year, free school meal provision helped feed 231,967 children. With 29% of children in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran living in poverty, free school meals could not matter more.
Despite our progress, however, we in Scotland are not content. We are going to expand free school meals to all primary children, and that is actively in the works. The Scottish Government is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to prepare primary schools and their infrastructure for a full, universal roll-out of free school meals for all primary children, which should be completed in 2026. That is supported by £43 million in capital from the Scottish Government in 2024-25 and an additional £6 million in resource spending, with local authorities benefiting from £21.7 million allocated to support eligible children during the school holidays. This support saves families £400 per year and far outstrips the free school meal offers in any other part of the UK. That matters, because hungry children do not learn. Ensuring that children receive a nutritious free school meal is therefore a fundamental part of supporting attainment. How could it not be?
By contrast, the incoming Labour Government have ruled out universal free school meals despite previous commitments to that, just as so many of Labour’s commitments have been dropped the more certain it becomes of forming the next Government. You would not know this from the comments made today, but in a matter of months we can be pretty sure that there will be a Labour Government with a significant majority, and we know, because we have been told, that there will be no movement on free school meals.
The arguments that Labour Members have made today to the Minister would be better directed to their own leadership, which refuses to deliver on free school meals. Indeed, that reminds me of the debate we had after the UK Government’s Budget, when Labour MP after Labour MP condemned the Budget and then refused to vote against it. I think that may be what some people call gaslighting.
We cannot leave the matter there because, in a somewhat grotesque development, we have the incoming Labour Government committing to leaving bankers’ bonuses uncapped. That appears to be sacrosanct. So, we appear to be balancing children’s hunger against rich bankers’ bonuses, and that, for the new Labour Government, which we can be pretty sure will be arriving, seems to be the way things are going to be. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Meanwhile in Scotland, we have a Scottish child payment of £26.70 per week per child for the poorest children. The cumulative impact of that, alongside other policies such as free school meals, seems to have reduced child poverty by 10% from what it would otherwise be. In other words, 10% of those children have not fallen into relative poverty as a direct result of those policies. Indeed, the Child Poverty Action Group referred to the Scottish child payment as “a game changer” when it comes to tackling child poverty.
One of the basic tasks of the state is to ensure that every child has access to opportunity, regardless of their family circumstances. Tackling child poverty and child hunger is a fundamental of that. We know that Labour speak with forked tongue on this issue, and frequently so in Scotland. The reality is that when it comes to supporting redistributive policies designed to create a fairer, more equal Scotland, the Labour party in Scotland continues to ape and mimic the lines from Labour in Westminster and fulfil its role as a branch office.
Austerity hits children hardest. People do not like to talk about this, but we suffered austerity under the previous Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and that has only been continued under the Tory Government. We know that it will be embraced yet again by the incoming UK Labour Government. There is no respite from austerity when Westminster is a parcel that is passed between two parties devoid of any so-called vision beyond austerity.
Scotland’s children are faring better because the SNP Scottish Government choose to use their power to support them, and to govern is to choose. Sadly, neither of the Westminster parties today will choose universal free school meals for children. I am proud that in Scotland we are making a different choice for children in Scotland. I fear for the children in England.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I want to thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing today’s debate and for her excellent opening speech setting the scene. The topic of school food—and specifically free school meals—has been an incredibly important one for me throughout my parliamentary career. In fact, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food, which I set up in 2010, and I am pleased to say that a number of colleagues here today are also very important members.
As we have heard, in the UK our devolved nations each have their own individual free school meal offers. In Scotland, all primary school children, regardless of family income, are eligible for free school meals and all secondary school students are subject to a means-tested offer. In Wales, all children who attend mainstream primary schools are eligible for a free school meal. In Northern Ireland there is no universal offer; however, the eligibility criteria for the means-tested offer includes families with an annual taxable income of up to £16,190 or net earnings of under £14,000 a year, which is almost twice as high as the same offer in England, and means that around 30% of the entire school population are eligible. The levels of poverty across the north-east, and indeed in other parts of England, are the same as in Northern Ireland, and yet such different levels of means-testing are used. That is just unfair.
In England, all children in reception, year 1 and year 2 currently receive a hot, healthy meal each day. Universal infant free school meals is a policy I am very proud of, having worked with Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent on the school food plan that helped convince them to put universal primary free school meals as one of their recommendations, which, as we heard, the former Deputy Prime Minister then enacted when they were in the coalition Government, which I think we are all very happy still exists to this day—the free school meals, not the coalition Government! However, from year 3 onwards, provision of free school meals is means-tested. Only children in households in England who receive universal credit and earn less than £7,400—excluding benefit payments—are eligible for free school meals. On that note, in today’s short speech I will focus on how we must change the policy in England. For too long, England has been the poor relation. It is just not good enough. We have the least generous offers around school food, and the highest rates of children in poverty who are ineligible for free school meals.
We must also think about the quality of the food that we are providing to our students. The school food standards are a fantastic set of regulations that provide guidance on the nutritional quality and variety of food that children should have access to at school. When they are followed correctly, the school meal offers are some of the best in the world, and I work with parliamentarians around the world, so I speak with some authority on this. However, sadly some schools struggle to do so, and they need support. In England there is no consistent assessment, monitoring or reporting of whether schools are meeting the standards for school food. There is no ring-fencing of funding, either. This means that the quality is very variable, with some children benefiting from nutritious, delicious food while others receive lower-quality meals.
We must discuss the structural issues surrounding provision that make delivering school meals unsustainable. For example, as has been talked about already, the funding per meal for universal infant free school meals is far too low. It is just £2.53 across most of England, despite the average meal cost exceeding this. The funding must be raised to £3 per meal to adequately cover the cost of the ingredients and the labour costs for school food. We all eat in restaurants; we know the prices have gone up. Schools are being asked to do an impossible thing at the moment. The rising cost of these meals and the dwindling funding means that, inevitably, quality is going to slip.
We need to revolutionise eligibility. I truly believe that the best school meal offer is a universal free school meal offer, as we have seen with the triumph of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s universal free school meal offer for primary school children in London. It seems popular as well—I think he won, didn’t he? But I understand that the road to a universal offer is a journey. That is why I am calling on the Government to, without delay, expand eligibility to all children whose parents and carers receive universal credit, so that we can begin to tackle the horrifying reality that, as we have heard, 900,000 children living in poverty are currently ineligible, according to the Child Poverty Action Group.
The next step on this road is to implement automatic enrolment as soon as possible. Local authorities like Sheffield are leading the way on this already, and prove it works. Every eligible child should be eligible from day one. This is not an expensive change. The Government already know exactly who is eligible and who is not, so families should not need to apply. It needs to be automatic from when the child is enrolled in school, or when their circumstances change. That will help schools too because they will get extra pupil premium, and that can then unlock access to resources and support as well as a hot meal for these children.
Free school meals are foundational to a fair and equal school experience. When we provide them, they leave inequality at the school gate and liberate children from the injustice of the haves and the have-nots.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. Thank you to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. I echo her praise for the fantastic campaign victory of Natalie Hay and Contact, for disabled children, their parents and guardians.
I start by sharing the words of the children of Monksdown Primary School in West Derby, who wrote to the Prime Minister last year to ask him to offer free school meals for all pupils. One pupil wrote:
I am writing to you because I believe all children deserve free school meals. The inflation over the past few months means some people have been starving at school because of the cost of living…so some parents have not had enough to get school meals.”
Another pupil wrote:
“Parents might not have the money to pay for food for you. If your brain is hungry, you will feel unhappy and tired.”
Another pupil wrote:
“We don’t have a choice to go to school because it’s the law but we have to pay for lunch.”
Adam Gidwitz once wrote:
“There is a wisdom in children, a kind of knowing, a kind of believing, that we, as adults, do not have.”
It has been almost a year since the children wrote to the Prime Minister, who unfortunately does not have that wisdom. Imagine the difference that would have made for families with their children’s education, health and happiness if he had listened to the children at our primary and introduced free school meals like they asked.
Last year, over 4 million children experienced food insecurity, not having access to nutritious and balanced meals or having to skip meals. That includes many thousands in my constituency, where the relative child poverty rate is significantly higher than national averages and where, as a city, one in three people are in food poverty. This is devastating for children and families in West Derby and Liverpool, including the many who are hungry and do not fall beneath the Government’s restrictively-low household income threshold of £7,400 to be eligible for free school meals. They are among the 900,000 children nationally who are below the poverty line yet still do not qualify.
It is imperative that the Government and politicians understand that children are going to school hungry as a result of the political choices made in this place. The evidence is clear. We do need universal provision: a nutritious free school breakfast and lunch provided to all primary and secondary school children as a necessity, as an investment in the future of our children, who are the future of our country. That is what it is—an investment. It should not be seen as a cost.
The right political choices cannot wait a moment longer. Universal free school meals would improve attainment and reduce pressure on teachers, parents and the NHS, and evidence has shown they could help drive local economies. Findings from the Government’s own pilot noted improved academic attainment, with children making between four and eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English. The statistics are astounding. Crucially, universal provision removes all stigma from school food and ensures that all children, regardless of their economic circumstances, have an equal opportunity to thrive and be healthy. Surely that is what we all want in this place.
The Government’s own former adviser, Henry Dimbleby, wrote:
“When children sit down to eat with friends and teachers in a civilised environment, it cements relationships, helps them to develop social skills and reinforces positive behaviour throughout the day.”
Backing that up, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs heard powerful evidence, including from the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, about the benefits, and that such investment would more than pay for itself in the long run. This has been touched on, but it is important to reinforce that it would pay for itself.
PwC’s cost-benefit analysis of universal free school meals showed the undeniable societal and economic benefits. It calculated that if this Government or future Governments made the investment, the “core benefits” over 20 years of providing universal free school meals would be worth £41.3 billion, compared with a total cost of £24.1 billion. It is an absolute no-brainer, regardless of where anyone sits ideologically.
We need political leadership to guarantee and realise all our children’s right to healthy food. Well done to Sadiq Khan for showing us an example of that leadership in London—it is interesting what popularity it produced. We all knew that—we have been saying it for a long time—and it is great to see the new Mayors who have been elected taking it up. If we accept the universal and compulsory requirement that all children up to the age of 16 must be in school, why do we break the principle of universal care, nurturing and protection in relation to meals during the school day? We would think it absurd for children not to be provided with adequate shelter, heating, drinking water or sanitary provision while in school, so why do we take a different approach to the equally essential element of food?
I pay tribute to all the parents, educators and pupils in West Derby—and MPs—who have been fighting this good fight for a long time. Those good friends, and campaigners and trade unions right across the country, have been campaigning tirelessly for the expansion of free school meals, which is a fundamental part of our Right to Food campaign. Political choices define our time in this place, and I implore the Minister to listen and to make the right political choice by investing in universal free school meals for every child in this country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
We have heard how 900,000 children from low-income families are not in receipt of free school meals and about the adequacy of what many children are receiving, not least if they take a packed lunch—they are not being nutritiously fed throughout the day. In fact, only 1% of packed lunches reach nutritional standards. In York, that is very much the case. We have about 4,000 children who are entitled to be in receipt of free school meals, but only about 3,000—about 75%—actually receiving them, because we do not have auto-enrolment. I urge the Government to join up the data so that we see eligibility following through to receipt of free school meals. It can be done, it must be done, and it will ensure that those families are well served.
I want to talk in particular about York Hungry Minds. York has the lowest-funded upper-tier local authority in the country, yet, as a Right to Food city, it prioritised feeding hungry children when Labour came to power in the council last May. City of York Council put the first £100,000 into Two Ridings Community Foundation as a vehicle for sourcing and independently funding the programme. It then called for city partners, including in industry and business, as well as individuals from the community, to boost that fund.
The pilot that York is engaged in is based in two schools: Westfield, where there are already far better healthy lunch choices for the children at key stage 2; and Burton Green, which is investing in breakfast for children. The results are already incredible. Starting in January this year, the research piece by the University of York will follow the pilot through to the end of the year. Researchers are already seeing an improvement in attendance—an issue that the Government are wrestling with at the moment—and far better engagement in learning. These are the early seeds of what it means to have a full stomach and to be able to work in such an environment.
I really do congratulate those involved in the project, but we need to ensure that the funding continues and is available for roll-out across our city. That is certainly the ambition of the Labour council, but we need the support of Government. I am delighted that Labour is so committed to ensuring that children start the day with a full stomach. We know the difference that will make for them.
This is not just about what happens for a child in school; it is about resetting the life course inequality that we see across our society. We want to address that by ensuring that children are well fed. That inequality results in differentiations in exam results, in where children move on to, and ultimately in the career choices that they can make and in their incomes. If we are to break intergenerational inequality, that small measure of having high-value, highly nutritious meals at the start of the day—and, I trust, rolling into the middle of the day too—is so important. That can be the game changer that families need.
However, we need to evaluate as we go, and that is why I congratulate the University of York on its investment in not only the project that I described but in looking at child hunger. It is evaluating the difference that the project will make to the lives of those children by looking at how much healthy food is going to them as a result of the menu choices; by looking at the amount of food waste, which is another important factor; and by looking at any changes in readiness to learn, in absence due to ill health or in school attendance. Looking at the data, which I trust the Minister will do, will strengthen the opportunity to roll out these programmes.
It is also important that the programme looks at the stigma around the provision of free school meals. We must remember that no child wants to be differentiated because of the income level or socioeconomic disadvantage their family experiences.
Mrs Hodgson
One of the reasons that John Vincent and Henry Dimbleby, who authored the school food plan, said that they included recommendation 17 on universal free primary school meals is that, when they looked at the evidence, the children who improved the most when all the boats rose were those who were already entitled to free school meals. The only thing that had been removed was the stigma. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is very important?
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend knows so much about this subject and could not make a more powerful point. We need all young people who have hungry stomachs to be able to engage, and taking away the stigma not only gives those children confidence but ensures that the issue of hunger is addressed.
I would like to quickly reinforce some of the points that colleagues have made. It is important that we make sure that thresholds rise and are appropriate, and it is important that people can enrol in the holiday activities fund if their eligibility changes over the holiday period, rather than having to wait until the beginning of the new year. It is possible to do that, and I trust that the Minister will.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for bringing this important debate to the House.
I want to declare an interest from the very beginning: I was on free school meals for quite some time as a young lad. With my four brothers, that was five of us all on free school meals for quite some time. We had a very difficult experience. As most speakers have mentioned, there is a stigma attached to free school meals, and we suffered that stigma. However, we lived in a very socially deprived area where the vast majority of people were on free school meals.
It was a terrible situation, but it is not until we grow older and get wiser that we begin to understand what actually happened when we were in that sort of position. We did not argue about what was relative poverty, what was abject poverty and what was absolute poverty. We knew we were hungry, but we did not argue about how hungry we were, and we did not quote politicians and say, “Well, it’s not as bad as it was last year under this Government. It’s not as bad as what it could be, and it’s not absolute poverty.” We were hungry.
If parents who are working have to use a food bank to put food on the table, what does that say for a nation like the UK? The top 1% of people in this country own as much as the bottom 50%. That is the problem: where the wealth of this nation is. Food poverty, child poverty, pensioner poverty—whatever we want to call these issues— are political choices. There is no doubt about that—they are political choices. If we want to feed the kids, we can feed the kids. If it means something else has got to stop, let it stop, and let us feed the kids.
I went to a school in my constituency a while ago—I have mentioned it before. The headteacher was slightly late. He came in and said, “I’m sorry, Mr Lavery. I’ve just had to send a little boy home. I’ve had to exclude him.” This was a child at a first school. I said, “Oh, what’s the problem?” He said, “Well, he went missing. He said, ‘I’m away to the toilet’—he put his hand up, went to the toilet—and didn’t come back.” So they went looking for this little lad. They found him in the cloakroom. He had been in people’s satchels. He had a sandwich in his hand that he had stolen from somebody’s bag. This was a four-year-old kid, who was that hungry he had to steal sandwiches from somebody else. This is 2024, in one of the richest countries in the world—one of the richest countries on this planet—and we have situations like that occurring in schools not just in my constituency but up and down the country.
We have choices to make. Do we want to feed the kids? Are we going to keep debating across this Chamber how many people are in this type of poverty or that type of poverty, and what improvements have been made? If one kid in this country has not got the opportunity for a hot, nutritious meal every day, there is something sadly wrong with this country. It is a simple as that.
We can say what we want, but everyone in here, every MP in this House of Commons and every Member of the Lords—we can all afford as much food as we can eat. That does not mean that we should ignore what is happening out there. Universal free school meals would be very important to kids and very important to the nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, it is an investment in the nation rather than anything else.
I conclude simply by saying that if we, every Member of the House of Commons, cannot agree on that, then you know what? We should bolt the doors of this place, give out 650 redundancy notices and bulldoze this building into the Thames.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and always an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this very important debate.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, a record number of children in Coventry South and across the country are growing up in poverty, arriving at school hungry in the morning and going to bed hungry at night. In the west midlands, 11 children in every class of 30 are living in poverty. Due to the strict eligibility criteria for free school meals, by which families have to earn less than £7,400 a year to qualify, across the country nearly 1 million children in poverty are missing out.
We have all heard horror stories like the one we just heard—pupils turning up to school with just mouldy bread or a packet of crisps for lunch, or sometimes with nothing at all; kids bursting into tears because they are worried that there is no food at home, or stealing bagels from breakfast club or from their friends’ satchels just to get by. That is why, along with trade unions and other anti-poverty groups, I have long campaigned for universal free school meals for primary school children, so that every child in primary school throughout the country is given a warm, healthy lunch each day, and no-one is left learning on an empty stomach.
The benefits of this policy are clear. Research shows that free school meals boost children’s concentration, behaviour and attainment. They also have health benefits, improving nutrition and reducing obesity. It is also a great help to families, saving parents’ time and relieving financial pressure. As has been highlighted in this debate, it is important that free school meals are universal, giving all children the opportunity to eat, learn and grow together. Means-tested policies create stigma and they allow children to slip through the net. Too often, means-tested services are lower quality services, and services for the poor do indeed become poor services.
We see consensus growing on this issue, which is very welcome. In Wales and Scotland, all primary school children are set to receive a free, warm, healthy lunch each day. It is about time England did the same.
In last week’s elections, mayoral candidates up and down the country campaigned and were elected on a platform of supporting free school meals for all primary school kids. In London, Sadiq Khan has already made this a reality and now pledges to make it permanent with funding from his mayoral budget. Mayors including Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, newly elected Richard Parker in the West Midlands and Kim McGuinness in the North East are calling on the Government to give them the funding they need to deliver it too. They know that this policy makes common sense and they know it is popular too, with 75% of parents supporting universal free school meals for primary school kids. That is why they have won their elections. Is it not time that this Government took a leaf out of the book of Khan, Burnham, Parker and McGuinness, and instead of ignoring children in poverty and resorting to desperate attacks on minorities to distract from their own failings, they start to deliver the popular, unifying, anti-poverty policies our communities need, starting off with universal free school meals for primary school children?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing this debate forward. I think everybody here understands the importance of children being well fed in order to learn well. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), I was a teacher for over 20 years. We understood the difference it made to have children in front of us who actually had food in their stomachs.
Child Poverty Action Group figures show that child poverty is at a record high in the UK, with 30% of all children living in poverty. Significantly, 69% of these children are from working families. The issue around universal credit and eligibility has been brought up by a number of Members, notably the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Families on universal credit are eligible only if their after-tax income is less than £7,400 a year. I wonder if any of us could get by on such a small amount. The problem with a borderline like that is that those who are just on the wrong side of it tend to be impacted the most harshly. The harsh means-testing in England, which the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to, means that many children are struggling to learn and to get by, even though their parents are in work.
The problem of stigma was brought up by the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). Stigma is always associated with means-testing for free school meals. In Scotland, it was important to us to have a universal policy for all children in primary school. At the moment it has been rolled out from P1 to P5, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran pointed out, it will be rolled out further over the next two years.
Scotland has the most generous free school meals offer of any UK nation. It saves parents and families around £400 per child per year, but it is not just about the money. It is about the value and importance that we place on children. In Scotland, children are seen as an asset, not an inconvenience. That starts from the very moment that parents are expecting a child. They get a baby box with books and various lovely things to give them a great start. Then we have the Scottish child payment of £26.70 for every eligible child in Scotland, which has been described by the Trussell Trust as game-changing and has seen food bank use reduced dramatically. That is how we make a difference to child poverty.
Of course, those policies can go only a small way towards tackling the cost of living crisis, but they are part of the big picture. I was moved by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talking about his personal experience. He also talked about political choices, and this is indeed about political choices. I found myself nodding along and agreeing with Labour colleagues, but they need to take that to their leadership, because the party cannot have the policy in its manifesto in 2019 and then drop it for the next election. If the Labour party is in government after the election, I hope that Labour colleagues keep up the pressure on their own leadership.
The benefits of free school meals were highlighted when we heard about increased attainment, increased pupil scores and increased cognitive ability. Free school meals also increase school attendance, because it encourages parents to get their children to school if they know that they will get a meal. The hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) talked about the benefits of that. I was pleased to read that free school meals also reduce obesity. We know that childhood obesity carries health problems on into adulthood, which has economic problems for us down the road, so it is worthwhile investing at this point.
Some 80% of the public support free school meals for children in households receiving universal credit. At its annual conference this month, The National Association of Head Teachers called for children to get free school meals automatically if their families are eligible for universal credit. James Bowen, the assistant general secretary, said:
“I think it’s an absolute no brainer.”
I agree.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of the poorest and most vulnerable children in our country.
We have heard powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for West Ham (Ms Brown), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). They all touched on the impact of the cost of living crisis on families in their areas, the shocking levels of child poverty, which is a scourge on our society, and the rampant inequality in our communities, which is holding our country back.
The cost of living crisis is making more and more families worry about how to make ends meet. Energy bills, rent, and the cost of clothes and basic essentials are leaving far too many children going hungry. School leaders, teachers and support staff are increasingly bringing food and supplies into schools and even washing uniforms to ensure that children have what they need and are ready to learn. In 2024 it is a national scandal.
Currently around 2 million pupils are known to be eligible for free school meals. The eligibility rate has increased sharply in the last few years—an indication not of the Government’s generosity but of appalling economic failure—and now represents around a quarter of children attending state schools. There are significant regional variations: in my local authority of Newcastle, 39.6% of children are eligible; in Wokingham, fewer than one in 10 are. Labour in government will focus on lifting those children and their families out of poverty, making sure that families have the dignity and peace of mind to be able to provide for their families.
An important first step towards that will be Labour’s plan to fund free breakfast clubs in every primary school, paid for by clamping down on tax avoidance and closing the tax loopholes in the Tories’ non-dom plan. It will give all primary school children not only a healthy start to the morning, but additional time in school to play, socialise and be ready for the school day, because it really is as much about the club as it is about the breakfast. Crucially, it will also help parents to save money on childcare. It will put money back in parents’ pockets directly and give parents greater flexibility at work so they can earn more for their families.
With clear evidence that our breakfast clubs would also improve children’s attendance and attainment, they will be central to our determined drive to narrow the attainment gap as well as tackle child poverty. We are prioritising breakfast clubs and have a plan to fund them at a cost of £365 million a year, which includes Barnett funding to the devolved Administrations.
In a report last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies argued that making free school meals universal for all primary school pupils would cost £1 billion a year; offering them to all children from reception through to year 11 would cost £2.5 billion a year. In the current economic environment, we must focus on more targeted measures.
The Conservative Government have done precious little for children from the poorest families. The failure to develop a good childcare and early years support system means that children eligible for free school meals are already five months behind their peers by the time they start school. Once in school, the attainment gap between children on free schools meals and their peers is the widest it has been for a decade. That is why Labour has committed to ensuring that inclusivity is a new focus for Ofsted, ensuring that inspections look at how schools support the attainment and inclusion of pupils eligible for free school meals, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, to ensure that they do what they can to break down the barriers to opportunity.
Patricia Gibson
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that one aspect of inclusivity is universalism when it comes to free school meals? She is quite rightly talking up the benefits of breakfast clubs and the importance of children starting the day not feeling hungry, but does she share my view that feeling hungry after lunchtime, if they have not had a lunch, is also a problem, and some children will miss out unless free school meals are universal?
Catherine McKinnell
Yes. I have focused on the role that Ofsted should have in ensuring inclusivity for children who are eligible for free school meals, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, but the focus of Labour’s policies is to put money back into parents’ and families’ pockets, so that we can break down the barriers to opportunity that far too many people in this country face.
I also want to comment on the quality and, in some cases, quantity of school food, as I know that concern is also expressed up and down the country. The Government produce guidance on school food that looks at issues such as foods high in fat, sugar and salt, healthy drinks and starchy foods. However, there are still concerns around schools and the quality of school food, and there is an evident need to ensure that all schools and food suppliers are ensuring that the highest standards of school food are in place. Especially considering our breakfast clubs policy, Labour would look at the guidance for school food again to ensure that they truly deliver the healthy start to the school day that we know children need.
I thank every Member who has contributed to today’s debate and assure them that the next Labour Government will be committed to reducing child poverty, which is a blight on our society that must be urgently addressed.
Munira Wilson
Breakfast clubs are a lovely idea, but does the hon. Lady recognise that, as a number of colleagues have said, many children live in temporary accommodation, have an extremely long journey to school and often miss breakfast, and will therefore lose out altogether? She talked about targeted intervention, so why would her colleagues in the other place not support the Liberal Democrat amendment to make sure that every child on universal credit got access to a free school meal, or, at the very least, Henry Dimbleby’s recommendation of raising the threshold to £20,000?
Catherine McKinnell
The breakfast club offer, which we have fully costed and will deliver, is a first step on the road to making sure that we put money back into people’s pockets, break down the barriers to opportunity and deliver a cross-Government strategy to tackle child poverty. Free breakfast clubs are the first step on that road.
However, we also want to see the costs of uniforms come down for all families. We want to give children the best start in life to set them up for life and set them up to learn. As the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out herself, after 14 years of Conservative Government we have a situation where an average of nine children in a classroom of 30 are growing up in poverty. That is why we will introduce a cross-Government taskforce aimed at breaking down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every community. We will focus the limited resources we are set to inherit where we believe they can impact the most.
Mrs Hodgson
I will be very brief; I think my hon. Friend is just coming to her big wind-up moment. I know she is in an invidious position—an impossible position. I am sure that, like the rest of us, she would like to stand here and announce universal free school meals, and obviously she cannot, because that is not in her gift today.
One thing that I notice has not been raised at all today—I know she will be concerned about it and could take this back to the Front Bench when they are developing policy—is the issue of dinner money debt. She talked about putting money back into parents’ pockets, and there are so many families who struggle with dinner money debt. Universal free school meals would obviously solve that. When the policy is being developed and talked about, I hope she will feed that in.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is such a passionate campaigner for children in her area, and indeed the country. I did not want to let this moment pass without her getting the chance to add in that final additional measure that she would like to see.
I am conscious that the Government need to respond to this debate, so I do not want to take up any more time. I want to finish by emphasising that child poverty in this country is pernicious, but does not demand a simple fix. It needs hard work, focus and prioritisation across Government Departments. It needs a targeted approach to tackle the root causes of poverty and break down the barriers that are holding far too many people back. The next Labour Government will take on that mission, and like previous Labour Governments, we are determined to deliver on it.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important debate. I thank everybody who has taken part alongside her: the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for West Ham (Ms Brown), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who spoke for the SNP, and the spokesperson for the official Opposition, whose speech contained a short section on free school meals. This is an important subject on which we have heard striking and compelling speeches from Members, and the debate has been important and useful.
The Government are determined to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, has the best start in life, and nutrition and school meals are important in that. Not only do they support the development of healthy eating habits that can pave the way to lifelong wellbeing, but they help pupils to concentrate, to learn and to get the most from their education in the immediate term. For those reasons, the Department for Education spends more than £1.5 billion annually on policies to deliver free and nutritious food to children and young people; that is on food provision alone. On top of that, we allocate money to schools to support the education and opportunity of disadvantaged children that is driven by their free-school-meal status, such as through the pupil premium and the deprivation factor in the national funding formula.
I am proud that this Government have extended eligibility for free school meals more than any other. We spend over £1 billion per annum delivering free lunches to the greatest ever proportion of school children: over a third. That is in contrast to the one in six who were receiving a free school meal in 2010. This change is despite unemployment being down by a million, more than 600,000 fewer children being in workless households since 2010 and the proportion of people in low hourly pay having halved since 2015.
Mrs Hodgson
I just want to point out that that is, of course, because of the introduction of universal infant free school meals, which, it has to be said, was a coalition Government policy; the Conservatives cannot really take full credit for that because I doubt it would have happened without the coalition Government.
Damian Hinds
When the hon. Member for Twickenham was on her feet, she claimed that the 2014 Act was entirely due to the Liberal Democrats. Of course, it was not; it was a coalition Government at the time. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West is partly right. There have been multiple extensions to free school meal eligibility, including the provision of free school meals to disadvantaged children in further education colleges. The big factor has been the extension of protections under universal credit, which of course has happened since the coalition Government.
Damian Hinds
I want to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great authority on these matters. I am worried about the time; if he is quick, I will be quick in response.
Sir Stephen Timms
Has the Minister thought about the prospect of uprating that £7,400-a-year income threshold for eligibility for free school meals?
Damian Hinds
The right hon. Gentleman has been in these positions himself, so he knows that, of course, we keep that under review. However, I gently point out that it has been under the current system that this much greater proportion of children and young people are eligible for free school meals than was the case when other Governments, including one of whom he was a very distinguished member, were in office.
Overall, more than 2 million pupils are eligible for benefits-related free school meals. In addition, as we have just been discussing, 1.3 million infants in reception, year 1 and year 2 get a free meal under the universal infant free school meals policy, which was introduced in 2014. Further to that, more than 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education receive a free meal at lunchtime. Together, this helps to improve the education of children and young people; it boosts their health and saves their parents considerable sums of money.
We have also introduced extensive protections, which have been in effect since 2018. They ensure that, while universal credit is being fully rolled out, any child eligible for free school meals will retain their entitlement and keep getting free meals until the end of the phase—in other words, until the end of primary or secondary—even if their family’s income rises above the income threshold such that this would otherwise have stopped.
We all know the saying that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and the evidence does back that up. It shows that children who do not have breakfast are more likely to have issues with behaviour, wellbeing and learning. That is why we continue to support the provision of breakfast, by investing up to £40 million in the national school breakfast programme. The funding supports up to 2,700 schools in disadvantaged areas, and means that thousands of children from low-income families are offered a free, nutritious breakfast, to better support their attainment, wellbeing and readiness to learn. I say gently to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North that we think it is important to target that breakfast investment where it is most needed, which does not mean only in primary schools.
Damian Hinds
I am going to ask the hon. Lady to forgive me, because we have less than five minutes to go, and I must reach the conclusion.
Further to that, we recognise that nutrition does not cease to be an issue outside of term time, and that holiday periods can be particularly difficult for disadvantaged and low-income families. That is one reason why we continue to support the delivery of enriching activities and provision of nutritious food through the holiday activities and food programme. It has been backed by more than £200 million in funding, and now sees all 153 local authorities in England taking part.
The success of the programme is plain to see. Since 2022, it has provided 11.3 million HAF—holiday activities and food—days to children and young people in this country. Across 2023, more than 5 million HAF days were provided during Easter, summer and winter delivery. Based on reporting from local authorities, over winter 2023 more than 290,000 children attended the programme, of whom more than 263,000 were funded directly by the HAF programme and more than 229,000 received benefits-related free school meals. In response to the hon. Member for York Central, there is a degree of flexibility for individual school provision for eligibility for that facility.
The HAF programme brings me to this point, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made in a different way. Of course, we have to see everything in the round—the full support given to families. In that context, the wider package of support, particularly for the cost of living difficulties the country has been through, is very relevant. That has been worth more than £100 billion over 2022-23 to 2024-25. It remains the case that pursuing policies that facilitate work and create jobs is the single most important poverty-tackling policy that a Government can have.
Colleagues, including the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Washington and Sunderland West, brought up the important question of auto-enrolment. We do want to make it as simple as possible for schools and local authorities to determine eligibility and for families to apply. That is why we have the eligibility checking service. I am also aware of some of the innovative things local authorities are doing to look at auto-enrolment. We think there is merit in those projects, which we will look at closely. We know that historically it has not been straightforward to achieve auto-enrolment, but it is definitely something we want to study further and learn from.
I am running short of time, but the hon. Member for Twickenham asked about disability. We debated that subject in this Chamber a few weeks ago, with some of the colleagues here today, and that included reference to children receiving EOTAS: education otherwise than at school. I am pleased to reiterate that we have done what we committed to do: update guidance in that area, particularly regarding children with disabilities, to make clear the duty to make reasonable adjustments under relevant legislation.
I hope I have conveyed the extent of free-meal support currently in place under this Government, and how vital a role it plays, ensuring that the most disadvantaged children receive the nutrition they need to thrive. I again thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today and all colleagues for taking part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of free school meals.
A226 Galley Hill Road
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will call Gareth Johnson to move the motion and then 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.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for repairs to the A226 Galley Hill Road.
This debate relates to the road named Galley Hill in my constituency of Dartford. It is part of the A226 route, often referred to as London Road, which runs from Dartford, through Gravesend—represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who would also like to contribute to the debate—to the A2 in Rochester. It is a vital thoroughfare that is relied on by local residents, businesses and haulage serving the local community and beyond. On 10 April last year, a stretch of the road that sits on a chalk spine collapsed, taking the road, footpath and utilities down on to business premises, and rendering the road completely impassable. To understand what may have caused the collapse, it is necessary to look at the road’s recent history.
In the September prior to the collapse, I met Kent County Council and Thames Water to discuss the road. A significant number of water leaks were taking place in London Road at the time, which was causing mayhem for people living in the area. At that meeting, I discovered that there had been no fewer than 47 serious water leaks in the previous four years, which is possibly the highest number of leaks on any stretch of road in the whole county of Kent. I do not know for certain whether the leaks caused the collapse of the road or whether the road itself was responsible for damaging the water pipes; that is an area of contention between Thames Water and KCC, and an issue that must be resolved to establish liability. I had hoped that they would resolve the issue of liability quickly; alas, they have not.
What we do know is that the road being closed for over a year has caused misery for people just trying to go about their daily business. Heavy goods vehicles have been using the narrow Swanscombe High Street; KCC has put in a temporary traffic order to stop them doing so, but that has not entirely solved the problems. A significant number of businesses in the area, on either side of Galley Hill, have seen their takings reduced because of the lengthy diversion to circumvent the collapsed road.
I met the previous Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to ask for his assistance and show him the road. He agreed, and came down to Galley Hill to have a look at the road and see the problem for himself. At that stage, it was hoped that liability could be established and that a contractor could get on with repairing or replacing the road. The current Minister, who is in his place, has met with me numerous times and with Kent County Council. I pay tribute to him for the keen interest he has shown in this issue and for trying to find a solution, which is typical of his attitude to such issues, and I am grateful to him for that. What we cannot have is for nothing to happen while Kent County Council and Thames Water resolve their dispute. It is highly likely that one of them will have to pick up the bill, but the residents of Swanscombe, Greenhithe and Northfleet should not be held to ransom while that is decided.
Adding to the complication is the fact that, in order to survey the road to establish the cause of the collapse, Kent County Council has to enter private land. The road is adjacent to three separate plots of land, each with its own owner. Two of the owners have agreed to allow Kent County Council access, but one is refusing, making surveys almost impossible to carry out. I am pleased that Kent County Council has now agreed to take legal action to gain access, but I plead with it to hasten its approach to this issue. In short, Kent County Council needs to find out as quickly as possible what caused the collapse. Local Kent County councillor Peter Harman, from a residents’ group, has been trying extremely hard to persuade the landowner to allow access but so far, unfortunately, to no avail.
I have secured this debate to formally ask the Government to step in to pay for the repair or replacement of the road while Kent County Council and Thames Water are arguing about liability. Whichever of them is liable can compensate the Government at a later date but, crucially, local residents would be able to see the prospect of an end to the misery they are suffering. I accept that the Government need to know what that liability is, so those surveys need to be carried out as soon as possible. The Government also need Kent County Council and Thames Water to agree to this course of action. My understanding—I will be corrected by the Minister during his speech if I have got this wrong—is that only Kent County Council has given its consent and that Thames Water has not responded to the Government. Just last week, I asked Thames Water for a meeting prior to this debate so that we could discuss the issues around liability and the way forward. I have had no response either from Thames Water, which is just not fair on local people, who are—we should not forget—its customers.
This is a very frustrating situation, and it has gone on for far too long. Kent County Council needs to carry out these surveys by legal action or otherwise. Thames Water needs to actually engage with people, and it cannot be surprised when people point the finger at it, given the history of leaks in the local area. I ask the Minister to do what he can to find a solution, and most importantly, for this road to be repaired or replaced so that local people can at last get their lives back.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for getting this debate. This thing has been something of a nightmare for quite a few of my constituents, and it is ongoing as we have heard. I really apologise for my voice, and I will cut my speech slightly shorter.
I have received multiple complaints about the situation. This road is a very important part of our road network, and its closure puts a massive strain on the A2. Whenever there is a problem on the A2 or at the Dartford crossing, the absence of Galley Hill makes it impossible for local people to travel easily to and from Dartford. Bus users are particularly affected, and people travelling by bus from my constituency to the local acute hospital now have their bus route split into two separate routes to cope with the congestion. Sometimes it also takes constituents up to half an hour to get out of Ebbsfleet International railway station car park, which more than doubles their journey time to London. The diversion for pedestrians and cyclists is also huge.
Getting the road open again is an absolute priority, and I am really grateful to the Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for being so proactive on that. I know that his Department devolves transport matters to the local authorities, but it is vital that the Government step in when a local authority cannot reopen a road in a reasonable timeframe, as is the case here.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford suggested, the Government can and should act to get the road open again in a situation such as this, where there is a lack of clarity about liability and an impasse is created. The Government underwriting the works without waiting for legal disputes to be resolved would make a huge difference to businesses and residents in Dartford and Gravesham who rely on the road. It would be an excellent use of taxpayers’ money, and the taxpayer would of course eventually get the money back through the water company or Kent County Council. I was going to speak about leaks, but to save hon. Members from having to listen to my awful voice, and because my hon. Friend has already mentioned them, I shall not.
I conclude by adding one more frustrating thing. Some of the problems that we have identified with traffic will remain even when Galley Hill Road reopens. That is because the Minister and his predecessors ignored my solution for the Dartford crossing, which was to have a long tunnel at Dartford for M25 long-term traffic and to use the infrastructure, bridge and tunnels that are already there for local traffic. The proposal from the Minister’s Department for the lower Thames crossing will not solve the problem of the traffic in Dartford. My constituents and, more so, those living in Dartford will continue to be plagued by traffic problems because of that mistake.
Finally, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to pass on my thanks and my constituents’ thanks to Councillor Harman for his efforts. I also thank the Minister, who has taken so seriously what is a relatively small thing in the scheme of things, given his huge portfolio, for so kindly engaging with us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) on securing the debate and speaking, notwithstanding what is clearly a pretty bad sore throat.
Let me start with one key point. At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said that this is a small matter inside the vast portfolio of the Department for Transport. It is not a small matter to the people of Swanscombe and the surrounding area; it is a massive issue. I accept that, I acknowledge it, and I appreciate it. All of us comprehend the scale of the problem. It is a bad day when Government in all their glory—or not glory—start thinking, “Oh, this is too small for us to get involved.” I promise my hon. Friend, all colleagues and anybody who is watching or reading this debate that we take this seriously. We are here to help, and we believe that there are things we can do to facilitate a resolution. The Government’s acceptance of this issue as significant—I put that on the record—is utterly vital. I give credit to both of my colleagues today and to Councillor Harman, who embodies the rich tradition of councillors who really get involved and go above and beyond to try to resolve local issues. Full credit to him.
I accept and acknowledge that Kent County Council has a difficult job. In the time that I have, I will try to both assess and analyse the extent of the difficulty and explain some of the causation of the ongoing problems and show some sort of light at the end of the tunnel we all face. In the first instance, what can the Department for Transport do? The first key point that must be accepted is that this is a significant road failure, which is not a standard thing that local authorities deal with. That is evidenced, bluntly, by the degree and number of surveys that are required to be completed before, first and foremost, the cause of the problem can be identified. Then, sadly, there will have to be an attribution of blame.
So how is the problem to be fixed? While it is the desire of everyone in this room or watching or reading the debate to fix the problem, solidifying a road on the base we are dealing with is clearly very technical and difficult, and there is no simple solution. To pretend otherwise is naive. However, I am very keen to ensure—it is already happening—that the technical experts at the Department for Transport, who build major roads and highways, are available to Kent County Council to work hand in hand with it.
Without getting too much into the nuts and bolts, the core funding for Kent has gone up considerably. It has received £181 million in funding for highway maintenance since 2019. It has also been a beneficiary of the Network North funding, following the Prime Minister’s decision in October last year on the second leg of HS2. Kent will receive £135 million in total between 2023 and 2034, and that funding comes in addition to local transport funding from the last funding review.
I acknowledge and accept that this will be a very expensive process. The tricky part is that until we identify the cause, which requires the surveys that Kent is trying to do, we will struggle. I echo and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford: it is vital that Kent progresses this matter. If it is required to take legal action, then so be it—legal action should be taken and it should be expedited. I will also put in a plea to the owner of the third property to consider the situation. While two of the properties have given their consent, the third property has not. This can be challenged and overcome through a legal process, but it will cost the taxpayer money and it will take time. I urge the third owner to reconsider and to be aware of the responsibilities we all need to discharge. I ask them to avoid the legal process that sadly will be necessary, but in which unquestionably—I cannot commit courts to this in the future, but I am confident, having been a lawyer for 20 years—Kent will be successful, although it will take time.
Once one has identified the cause of the problem—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford set out, there are huge amounts of leaks and water egress relating to the demise of the road—the question thereafter remains: was that caused by the collapse of the road or did it cause that collapse? None of us are structural engineers or water engineers who can assess that, so I am more interested in the long-term solution: how does one reconstruct a road on such friable land? That is not simple, but DFT is on hand to assist in whatever way it can.
The basic principle, which we cannot get around, is that under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, which was passed by this House, all local authorities are liable for the maintenance and repair of their local roads. That obligation continues to this day, and it is in no way the norm for the Department for Transport to step in and say, “Do not worry about the statutory obligations that are set out under the Highways Act and have been acknowledged under repeated Governments; we will step in and fix this particular problem.” So that is not, with respect, what I would propose. Kent Council is unquestionably the organisation on the ground best able to ascertain the problem and find a solution to it.
However, it is unacceptable that not all the parties in the room are talking on an ongoing basis. I do not want to get into a “he said, she said” situation with Thames Water or its respective legal teams or the lawyers who represent everybody. What I want to do is to talk about the art of the possible and the art of the possible, surely, is this. I, as a Minister, can declare at the Dispatch Box that my door is open to convene a meeting with Thames Water and with Kent County Council. To follow up, I will write a letter tomorrow to the Thames Water chief executive, inviting him in the next few weeks to come in, if necessary with legal teams, to discuss the way ahead.
It is complicated, because self-evidently everybody would like the road to be fixed just like that. However, it is impossible to do anything until we can identify causation and what a structural engineer says good repair looks like. However, there is a clear middle ground, whereby if, and this is an “if”, one can enter a legal agreement with the respective parties, Kent County Council and Thames Water, such that all parties put aside any issue of blame for the present and allow any mediation to go ahead on a blame basis, in either a court of law or a standard tribunal, which is regularly done with these sorts of things, as there is a standard tribunal that can be entered into for the collapse of roads, either in a court or in mediation—if that process is allowed to go ahead, the Government will step in and assist in whatever way they can to try and resolve the issue as fast as possible. That, it seems to me, is the best way ahead.
It is not the case that Government can fund this unilaterally. There is no specific pot that exists that the Department for Transport can dip into to bail out individual local authorities in these circumstances. However, I can definitely see the potential, whereby, provided we have a legal agreement that party A or party B will meet the end costs at the end of the day, so that the taxpayer is not out of pocket, particularly—this is the key point—if Thames Water is liable for this, we would then be in a position where the Government can step in and assist.
Clearly, there are a lot of ifs and buts in all that, but I want to assure my hon. Friends for Dartford and for Gravesham that we will try our hardest to resolve this issue in that way. That would be going above and beyond anything that has ever been done before, frankly, and I think there is nothing more that one could do, over and above that.
I must also be very conscious, first, that I have the funds within my portfolio at the Department for Transport to pay for what could be a very significant project, because any project that the Department proceeds with is taking up the project money of something else that is not proceeded with. Secondly, because I am liable for taxpayers’ money, clearly I must ensure that that money is spent in an appropriate way, when the normal course of events is that a local authority and a transgressor—whether a water company or any other landlord, or whatever—have to thrash things out between the two of them.
That is what I propose to try and do. It is unquestionably the case that the local authority will assist on an ongoing basis. I will certainly write to Thames Water to back up the email that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has sent, and will make sure, as I have publicly stated, that our door is open to try and resolve this situation. Clearly, Thames Water has its own issues, which we are all acutely aware of. However, at the same time it is a water company serving all our constituents and it has obligations, just as much as anybody else; and, if it is a matter of law, then the law can be paused whilst we resolve this between ourselves. That is what I propose; that is what I hope we will be able to do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has set out, my predecessor—the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—visited the site. My hon. Friend knows that he was in his constituency today, although I did not go to Galley Hill, to be fair. I am acutely aware of the wider impact, not only on his local businesses but on the daily lives of his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. We will do what we can, going forward. That is my solemn pledge to this House. I genuinely hope—
Gareth Johnson
The Minister is, of course, responsible for National Highways. If the A226 was any bigger, it would come under the responsibility of National Highways. Does he therefore have any objections, when we come to construction or rebuilding, to Kent County Council’s highways department contacting National Highways in order to seek some of its expertise?
Guy Opperman
No. In fact, I would go further than that and say that that is what I would expect to happen on an ongoing basis. It is in the interests of National Highways that one of the key roads leading into the Dartford Crossing and the A2 is functioning properly. There is no doubt whatsoever that the breakdown of this particular road and the consequences of that impact upon lots of other things in the surrounding area. I want to make clear—if I have not done so, I will try again—that when I say DFT officials will give full co-operation, as far as I am concerned, that includes National Highways. It is in the interests of National Highways that this road is up and running as soon as possible, which is in the wider national interest, not just the interest of the good people of Swanscombe and the surrounding areas. We are very keen for this to happen, because there are clearly consequences if the matter is not resolved.
Question put and agreed to.
Cyber-security
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cyber security laws and tackling crime.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am delighted to lead this debate on the important issue of cyber-security, particularly in relation to cyber-crime and the need to enhance the UK’s national cyber-resilience.
Cyber-security has a significant impact on society, the economy and individuals, as well as on both national and global security. The UK faces cyber-threats from a number of hostile actors, whether they are states, state-sponsored groups or criminal organisations motivated by money. Cyber-crime itself ranges from complex ransomware attacks to less sophisticated cyber-threats such as hacking and phishing, which many in their everyday lives. In today’s world, virtually every business, charity and public sector organisation is in some way digital, but, as high-profile incidents have shown, cyber-attacks exploiting that digitalisation can quickly undermine trust in our private and public sector institutions.
With a burgeoning cyber ecosystem, the UK is well placed to be a global leader on cyber-security, and I will come back to that point later. Often, however, we struggle to get the basics right, leaving citizens and businesses exposed as they move more and more of their lives and operations online. Last year, UK businesses experienced approximately 7.78 million cyber-crimes. Half of businesses and around a third of charities report having experienced some form of cyber-breach or attack in the last 12 months and such attacks have had a real impact on business and consumers.
A recent report by the think-tank the Royal United Services Institute brought to light some of the stark implications of cyber-crime, particularly in relation to ransomware, which is malware designed to deny a user or organisation access to their own data unless a ransom is paid to the attacker. RUSI’s report revealed the extent to which ransomware can ruin lives, with the harm going beyond financial and reputational costs for organisations. Victims and incident responders have revealed that ransomware creates both physical and psychological harms for individuals and groups, which have caused individuals to lose their jobs, evoked feelings of shame and self-blame, seeped into private and family life and contributed to serious health issues. Furthermore:
“The harm and cumulative effects caused by ransomware attacks have implications for wider society and national security, including supply chain disruption, a loss of trust in law enforcement, reduced faith in public services, and the normalisation of cybercrime. Ransomware also creates a strategic advantage for the hostile states harbouring the cyber-criminals who conduct such operations.”
Meanwhile, the threat landscape is changing and becoming more complex.
UK cyber firm NCC Group’s latest insights show that ransomware attacks increased by 84% last year, with the UK the second most targeted country for such attacks, only behind the US. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence have the potential to enable cyber-attackers to mount ever more sophisticated campaigns against organisations. AI is effectively lowering the barrier of entry into cyber-crime, making it easier for cyber-attackers to successfully target victims and widening the availability of voice cloning, deepfakes and social engineering bots. We are likely to see that manifest in a higher volume of cyber-attacks, an enhanced ability of cyber-criminals to generate malware and an improved success rate of social engineering and phishing attacks. With AI as an emerging threat, hacking as a service is being thought of as a growing market, whereby malware developers sell or lease cyber-attack tools and services to other cyber-criminals. Worryingly, such a business model extends cyber-attack capabilities to organisations and individuals that would not otherwise have known how to carry out attacks themselves.
Artificial intelligence is also advancing tactics that have been around for decades and, in its own way, evolving threats in line with technology. Deepfake phishing is just one example of a fast-growing threat that manipulates or confuses users in order to exploit their trust and gain access to their data. That can be done through emails or messages, video calls or voice messages, where personalisation and synthetic content can make the attack more credible.
Cyber-threats should be seen in the wider context of nation-state threats, too. The conflict in Ukraine has shown how cyber and kinetic attacks are increasingly interconnected in modern hybrid warfare. As thousands of lines of complex code control new and evolving physical functions and systems, such as in smart cities, cyber-security vulnerabilities can be exploited to effect change in the real world. Although we have not seen the so-called cybergeddon that some were expecting from the next big conflict on our globe, one thing is clear: cyber-warfare has proven itself to be a critical element in hybrid cyber-kinetic battlefields.
There is an opportunity here for the UK. To tackle cyber-crime, a close partnership between the public and private sectors is a critical part of the UK’s whole-society approach. In particular, the UK’s cyber industry is working closely with law enforcement, the public sector, academia and other private firms to ensure that the UK remains confident, capable and resilient in this fast-moving digital world. That includes vulnerability researchers, also known as ethical hackers, who identify security vulnerabilities in products, software and the UK Government. They rely on such researchers to identify bugs before they can be exploited by malicious actors for their nefarious purposes.
Meanwhile, threat intelligence researchers detect cyber-attacks and gain insight into attackers and victims. Researchers work with and pass on that important information to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies, enabling them to defend the UK against rising cyber-crime and geopolitical threat actors. Many of the recent takedown operations we have heard about, where law enforcement disrupted the servers or digital infrastructure that cyber-criminals used to conduct their illegal activities, were possible only because intelligence and insights about those cyber-criminals were shared across the public and private sectors. I firmly believe that there is an opportunity for the UK to play a significant leadership role in conducting the UK’s response, with the north-west cyber corridor at its heart.
We are already seeing that public-private partnership in action in wider Lancashire and in my own constituency of Preston through the National Cyber Force, which will open its new home in Samlesbury, Lancashire, in 2025. It is a partnership between defence and intelligence, and already carries out cyber operations daily to counter and contest the actions of those who would harm the UK or our allies, to keep the country safe and to protect and promote the UK’s interests at home and abroad. Furthermore, the Lancashire Cyber Partnership, or LCP, is a strategic collaboration between Lancashire County Council, the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, the University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire University and BAE Systems. In addition, the National Cyber Force has its own role in shaping, supporting and promoting the county’s world-class cyber strengths and fast-growing cyber ecosystem, becoming a destination for cyber businesses, investors, careers training, academia and, indeed, innovation. With a strong cyber industry, Lancashire and the wider north-west are fostering the growth of the technology, digital and defence sectors, as well as harnessing the investment, jobs and benefits that come with a thriving cyber economy.
We should be proud of the UK’s role as a responsible global cyber power, and we should also remember that there is widespread cross-party and cross-societal consensus on the importance of cyber-security as fundamental for thriving and prosperous digital societies and economies. However, we cannot be complacent. Research from the NCC Group has shown that citizens—our constituents—expect us, as political decision-makers, to do what we can to keep them safe and secure in cyber-space. We have strong foundations to build on, but we must continue to do more to take our cyber-security to the next level. Indeed, much more can be done to ensure that regional cyber clusters, such as the north-west, can play their part in making us all safer online, while also enhancing national cyber-resilience.
I would like to move on to the issue of the UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990. First and foremost, that Act, which is the main cyber-security Act that regulates the UK’s digital relationship between individuals and malicious parties, needs bringing into the 21st century. The Act was written more than 30 years ago when just over 0.5% of the world’s population had access to the internet, and before the cyber industry—as we know it today—even existed. As a result, the UK’s cyber-defenders, such as the vulnerability and threat intelligence researchers mentioned earlier, are held back by that outdated law from doing all they can to protect the UK. That is because the Act, which was written over 30 years ago, has a blanket prohibition on all forms of unauthorised access to computer material, irrespective of intent or motive. In this day and age, where an individual desktop PC is but a distant memory, where technologies are hyperconnected and where cyber-crime is rampant, that approach simply does not reflect the reality we live in. The legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and, worse, it might be detrimental.
There have been calls from industry, led by the CyberUp Campaign, to reform the law to include a defence for legitimate cyber-security work. Sir Patrick Vallance called for such a defence in the “The Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review”, and he recommended amending the 1990 Act to include a statutory public interest defence that would provide stronger legal protections for cyber-security researchers and professionals. That would have a catalytic effect on innovation in a sector with considerable growth potential. Countries such as France, Israel and the United States have already updated their regulations to provide that defence. I join Sir Patrick by agreeing that if the UK cyber industry is to compete on a level playing field, the UK Government should do the same. However, one year since Sir Patrick published his recommendation, and three years since the UK Government first launched their review into the Act, the Government are yet to set out how they will address the legal barriers that it presents to the UK cyber-security industry.
A second area where the Government must prioritise reform is in updating the network and information systems regulations, which set out the cyber rules for our critical infrastructure. Back in 2022, the Government announced their intention to legislate to enable new sectors to be brought within the scope of the NIS regulations, responding to the inevitable evolution of what constitutes the UK’s critical infrastructure, but those reforms were not included in the most recent King’s Speech. It is critical that there are no further delays in bringing forward the reforms, and that a Bill is prioritised. Failure to legislate would leave a core part of the UK’s critical infrastructure exposed when others globally are already moving forward with new laws to ensure that all relevant entities are appropriately and proportionately regulated.
Outside the UK’s critical infrastructure, we must look at how we protect small businesses and charities, the backbone of the UK’s economy. Despite six in 10 small businesses being victims of a cyber-attack last year, many lack the skills and budgets to implement proportionate cyber-protections, leaving them exposed. They can also be disproportionately affected, with cyber-attacks sometimes posing an existential threat. A survey found that 90% of European small and medium-sized enterprises believed that cyber-security issues would have serious negative impacts on their business within a week of the issues happening; 57% said that they would most likely become bankrupt or go out of business.
It is unrealistic to expect small firms to adhere to and invest in the same cyber-resilience standards as larger firms such as critical infrastructure firms. However, that leaves a significant part of the economy vulnerable to cyber-attacks. To tackle that problem, the Government should work with technology providers to embed cyber-security in their products, particularly those most relied on by small organisations. The Government should also look at how they can support smaller firms’ response to and recovery from cyber-attacks. That could include establishing a “first responder” service that provides proportionate—that is, free-at-the-point-of-use—support to small businesses that have been victims of cyber-attacks. That could include incident response services and the triaging of further steps, such as where victims could get the most effective help. Such a scheme could learn lessons from our counterparts in Australia, who recently announced a small business cyber-security resilience service.
Finally, the Government must look at how they enhance the UK’s cyber skills. The issue of cyber skills is not just about addressing the cyber industry’s significant skills shortage, although that is a critical part of it. It is also about equipping individuals—across organisations of all sizes and at all levels of seniority—with the cyber literacy that they need to make decisions about their personal, organisational and even national cyber-resilience. A national programme of cyber literacy is needed to ensure that everyone, from preschoolers right through to pensioners, is cyber-literate, no matter where they are on their learning, career or retirement journeys. That could include commissioning “Cyber Beebies”—keeping with the concept of CBeebies, which
“helps pre-schoolers learn whilst they play fun games, watch clips, sing songs and make things”—
in order to start cyber education and awareness in the earliest years.
We could also look at including cyber-competence—covering safe and secure online behaviours, privacy and use of technology alongside broader technology and computing lessons—as a mandatory part of the school curriculum. That should be reviewed and tested with an industry advisory board regularly to ensure that it keeps pace with technological developments and industry requirements. Teachers must also be regularly supported to understand new developments and how they should be reflected in the school curriculum.
STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—programmes throughout the country have had a critical role in creating opportunities for today’s youth as they advance their education and skillset. In my own constituency of Preston, I am very proud of the work of Cardinal Newman College. One of the highest-performing sixth form colleges nationally, it has partnered with Lancaster University to harness the skills of young people with a passion and aptitude for the study of maths and science. In doing so, they have further developed the young people’s interest and education while providing them with opportunities for their future, including—especially—in the field of cyber at the new cyber defence centre.
I welcome the Minister, who is about to take his place in the hall. I should like to ask him four questions. Will he join me in praising and expressing pride in our UK cyber industry? Will he acknowledge, as we all do, the role that our industry plays in keeping us all safe and secure in cyber-space? Will he set out the Government’s further ambitions to take our cyber-security to the next level and beyond what has been announced as part of the national cyber strategy? Will he provide more information in particular on the Government’s plans to finally make progress on introducing legal protections for legitimate cyber-security activities as part of ongoing efforts to reform the Computer Misuse Act? Will he set out the Government’s views on following the Australian example of introducing a cyber first responders service for all our small businesses and charities, and set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to invest in our national cyber-resilience?
I thank the Minister for engaging with me on this important issue. It is good that there is cross-party consensus on a matter of such importance, but it is clear that much more needs to be done when it comes to cyber-crime and ensuring that Government policy keeps pace with technology in the ever-changing cyber landscape. The public need to be better educated and trained from an early age in the use of computers. That will add to the resilience the country needs to overcome the challenges of cyber-crime for the purposes of cyber-security.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before I call the SNP spokesperson, I want to note that the Minister was not in his place, which is disappointing given the importance of the issue and the effort put in by the Member in charge. We have been grateful to Minister Opperman for sitting in, who is fortified with the relevant information. I am sure he will let his colleague copy his homework, so he is able to respond, if the Member in charge is happy with that.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
On that basis, we will proceed. I call SNP spokesperson Owen Thompson.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I commend the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this debate on such an important issue. The past few years have challenged us like no other time in recent history, but they have also served to highlight how critical digital technologies are to all our lives and to the functioning of society and the economy. Whether working or learning from home, running a business or keeping in touch with friends and family, digital technologies underpin and continue to support our critical national infrastructure. Nowadays digital appliances and smart tech are everywhere, and it is more and more common to find that a lack of an internet connection or a charger is becoming a major issue. When we consider the attacks, as outlined by the hon. Member, be they personal or on a national level, it is critical that we consider the resilience that each of us has individually in how we manage to protect ourselves from those who wish to do harm, but also collectively as we look to protect our society.
As the hon. Member has outlined, digital technologies cut across everything we do. The secure and resilient ways we use them cannot be an afterthought. Cyber-resilience cannot be viewed simply as an IT issue; it is the very backbone of every public service, business and community. It is also a critical part of our economic and societal recovery and renewal, especially in Scotland as we embrace new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, smart cities and 5G wireless networks. Those can all be positives, albeit there are clearly those out there who wish to use them to do harm.
Digital technologies are now at a stage where it is not simply enough to turn them off and on again to fix problems that arise. Cyber-resilience is key to operational resilience and business continuity, as well as our capacity to grow and flourish as we adapt to the demands of operating online. Our ability to deter, respond and recover from national cyber-attacks has to be a top priority, and we need a plan exercised and to reflect continually and collaboratively to ensure that we are prepared to withstand any such cyber-threats.
In Scotland, the strategic framework for our cyber-resilience sets out what we need to do to make us a digitally secured and resilient nation. It builds on the work of Scotland’s first cyber-resilience strategy published in 2015, and it expands on its achievements and addresses ongoing and new challenges because, as the hon. Member has outlined, the challenges are forever changing. This is an ever-changing landscape that we are dealing with.
The cyber-threats we face cannot be met by Government alone, and we have a role to play in protecting ourselves, our families and our communities. Our public sector, third sector and private sector organisations need to work together, with Government, to minimise the harm and disruption that can result from cyber-incidents. As Members of Parliament, some of our colleagues have been targeted and directly impacted by cyber-attacks, and we have seen what that has meant for them, as well as what it means for the rest of us collectively. We need to make the very most of technological advances and use them to protect ourselves as those who wish to do harm look to exploit loopholes in the system.
The recent pandemic reminded us of the importance of resilience and agility. The Scottish Government pledged to review the implementation of the framework regularly, monitoring indicators against the four outcomes and the action plans that will guide delivery. Scotland’s four key cyber-resilience outcomes are ensuring that our citizens have access to basic and specialist learning and skills to help keep safe and secure online; working with partners in the public, private and third sectors to enhance all our cyber-resilience; raising awareness of the importance of cyber-resilience and how to achieve it by providing easier access to advice and support; and taking advantage of the economic opportunities resulting from greater cyber-resilience. It is great if people have the knowledge and understanding to grasp those opportunities, but we have also to recognise that there are so many in our communities who want the massive benefits of taking advantage of our digital infrastructure but do not know where to turn. There is a massive job for all of us in making sure that that information is as widely available as it possibly can be.
On this issue perhaps more than many others, it is critical that any work is done in collaboration with other Governments. The problem is not unique to Westminster, Scotland or any of the devolved Parliaments; it affects us all, and it is only by working together that we can truly tackle it. The UK Government published the national cyber strategy in 2022. It describes the UK’s overarching cyber policy and, as noted, takes a whole of society approach, arguing that Government must work in partnership with private sector organisations and cyber-security professionals to improve cyber-security. Between 2017 and 2021, the Scottish and the UK Governments allocated £10.28 million under the UK national cyber security programme to support a programme of action on cyber-resilience.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Preston that there is an urgent need to seriously look at the Computer Misuse Act; that is long overdue. With that in mind, what plans do the Government have to review the Act, and what steps does the Minister feel are most urgent? Certainly, there are many.
Cyber, digital infrastructure and technology are not there just for the specialist few; they are there in the day-to-day lives of everyone in our communities, all our families and all our friends. More than ever, it is critical that we take whatever steps we can as legislators to ensure that protections are in place and information is there for everyone, so that we can protect ourselves from those who would look to use them for ill ends. On that note, I again thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I am sure that it will not be the last we hear of it.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. May I say how good it is to see the Minister in his place? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) on securing this important debate. He is a long-standing and dedicated servant to his constituents and Lancashire more widely; any compliment about Lancashire does not come particularly easily from my side of the Pennines, but that is certainly one that my hon. Friend deserves for his very long-standing service for his constituents.
I pay tribute to the men and women who serve in the National Cyber Force, soon to be based in Samlesbury, and to those who serve across the security and intelligence services and in the cyber-security sector. They fight on the digital frontline day in and day out to detect, disrupt and deter individual and state-sponsored adversaries that threaten our cyber-security.
The cyber threat is constantly mutating and spreading. The latest crime survey for England and Wales shows a staggering 29% increase in computer misuse between 2022 and 2023. Computer misuse disrupts services, obtains information illegally and extorts individuals, meaning that personal information can be published online without consent, entire life savings can be lost due to fraud, and individuals, including children, can be blackmailed. The Government need to be increasingly ruthless in their approach to countering those threats and legislate for the challenges of today, not those of yesterday. Doing so will give cyber-security professionals the means to retain the advantage over those who seek to harm us and protect more people and organisations from cyber-crime.
Therefore, as the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) rightly said, the Computer Misuse Act needs updating to reflect the challenges of the cyber age, not those of the Ceefax age. Accelerating technological change means that outdated legislation is struggling to catch up with cyber-threats posed by the likes of artificial intelligence. That is why, on this side of the House, we have already proposed criminalising the programming of chatbots that radicalise and spread terrorist material. We also welcome the Government’s announcement last month of the criminalisation, through the Criminal Justice Bill, of the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. Outdated legislation is at best restrictive and at worst punitive for cyber-security professionals in the UK who conduct ethical hacking to expose system vulnerabilities and protect us from harmful cyber-attacks.
The National Cyber Security Centre, which is home to exceptional men and women fighting cyber-crime, has said that ethical hacking reports by individual researchers provide valuable information that organisations can use to improve the security of their systems. That is why the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would reform the CMA by introducing a statutory defence for cyber-security researchers and professionals involved in ethical hacking.
Our amendment comes after the Chancellor’s commitment to implement all of Sir Patrick Vallance’s recommendations on the regulation of emerging digital technologies published alongside last spring’s Budget, which included the introduction of a statutory defence. If this Government do not deliver, the next one should. Until that happens, the legislative lag will have consequences. Half of UK businesses and 32% of charities suffered a cyber-breach or attack in the last year alone. Breaches due to vulnerabilities in cyber-security drive some of the most pernicious types of criminality. According to the accounting firm BDO, fraud doubled in 2023.
Furthermore, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy warned in December that the Government could face a catastrophic ransomware attack at any moment. The sobering reality is that such attacks are already happening on the UK’s critical national infrastructure. Just today, it was reported that in response to a ransom not being paid, personal information illegally obtained by a ransomware attack on NHS Dumfries and Galloway has been published on the dark web—a truly despicable act that accompanies another deeply concerning development today: a hack into the Ministry of Defence’s payroll records by a malign actor.
Those are only two of the most recent examples, and they show that the threat landscape has never been more dangerous. However, progress on reforming the CMA has been buffering for three years since the Government first announced their review of the legislation. Despite two public consultations, a Home Office industry working group and several public commitments, the Government have not yet made progress and, as the Minister will know, we are fast running out of parliamentary time. Though time is in short supply, there is consensus on acting in the national interest to update the CMA, and the Opposition are keen to play our part.
I would be grateful if the Minister would answer the following questions. He will know that they are meant in the constructive spirit in which we always seek to engage on these important matters. First, will he give an assurance that the proposed legislation, as outlined in the Government’s response to the CMA consultation, will be introduced in this Parliament?
Progress on legislation requires political leadership. However, the JCNSS report on ransomware said that the leadership by a former Home Secretary did not treat it as a priority. The Minister will remember that I wrote to him in January about this matter and others identified in the JCNSS report. Can he give a further assurance that his Department and other Departments are now prioritising ransomware by confirming that they will finally respond to the consultation on unauthorised access to online accounts and personal data, which was published in September 2022?
On public sector payments to ransomware, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to me at Cabinet Office questions on 25 April by saying that that “is not something” that he would “rule out totally”. However, the Security Minister’s written answer to me on the same question on the same day was much more resolute about the policy not to pay ransoms.
Dan Jarvis
I am listening to the Minister. I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister is; that is possibly the problem.
It would be really helpful if the Minister would say whether a new approach to the public sector paying ransoms will be included in any update to the CMA. These assurances and clarifications matter, as the Home Office is part of a cross-Government response to countering cyber-threats, joining the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the MOD, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office in driving policy to detect, disrupt and deter cyber-criminality.
As the Minister will know, the fulcrum of such activity is the National Security Council, but he will also know that, while it has a sub-committee for economic security, there is not a dedicated equivalent for cyber-security. Has consideration been given to the creation of a dedicated sub-committee of the NSC for policy responses to intermediate and long-term cyber challenges?
Another long-term challenge, which the Minister will be familiar with, is the retention of our best and brightest in fighting cyber-crime, both in the security and intelligence services and in the cyber-security sector. Do our modern-day Alan Turings, who play a vital role in keeping our country safe, feel that the most innovative and effective work can happen in the UK under current cyber-security legislation? The answer, sadly, is likely to be no: 60% of respondents to a recent cyber-ops survey said that the CMA is a barrier to their work in threat intelligence and vulnerability research, and 16,850 cyber-defenders—the equivalent of two GCHQs—are estimated to have been lost due to outdated cyber-security laws. The Minister knows that criminals profit the most from poor retention and recruitment, so has he considered how changes to the CMA could unlock the cyber-security sector’s huge potential to protect our country’s cyber-space better?
This debate has not just been about protecting our cyber-space through effective legislation; it has been about the principle of legislation retaining the advantage over malign actors intent on harming us. I said at the start of my speech that there are exceptional men and women working to defend our cyber-security, who are very much at the cutting edge of efforts to detect, disrupt and deter myriad threats. As legislators providing the legal framework for that crucial work, we must now all play our part.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is a great pleasure to see you this evening, Ms Bardell—as ever, the surprise only adds to the joy—and to respond to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), who is quite right to have secured this debate. The challenge that he talked about and the ways of addressing it are fundamental not just to his constituents and the National Cyber Force, which he rightly paid tribute to and will be hosting in his constituency, but to the very nature of our country.
It is interesting to note that over the last 200 years, the British economy has been based on many things: the ingenuity and brilliance of our people; the rule of law and the ability to predict the future based on prior agreement; the genius of economic reforms innovated out of Edinburgh and Glasgow; and the ability to keep trade moving. For most of our existence, that trade has been maritime trade of various descriptions. It has been guaranteed not just by an extraordinary industry of sailors and shipwrights who have created the vehicles of commerce, but by the Royal Navy, which has kept the sea lanes open, the sailors safe and the goods moving.
The truth is that over the last few years, the nature of that commerce—that commercial gain and exchange—has changed. We have gone from sea lanes to e-lanes. We have gone from looking at the red ensign as a guarantee of security at sea, to looking at GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre as a guarantee of security on the internet and in cyber-space. Those changes have been fundamental. They have enabled us to do things that are frankly quite remarkable. Look at the change in the way communication works that our country has been through in the four years since covid struck us. With so many of our lives going online—even this place went online briefly, although we seem to have forgotten how convenient that was—many of us have been able to transform the businesses that we were working in from local or national to global.
That change has been a phenomenal blessing, but none of it would have been possible without the dedication and brilliance of some remarkable individuals who have kept us safe. Those individuals started off being headquartered solely in Cheltenham. Those of who have had the privilege to visit Cheltenham know that the extraordinary brilliance and genius of those remarkable people has been fantastic not just for our country but for many partners and allies around the world.
What we see today is that it is not just the Government who need to be kept safe. The reality is that companies and individuals guarantee that security in many different ways. What we are talking about this evening is how the wider economy is defended. That is where the Government have made some important changes, which I hope will be built on in coming years. The cyber-security force that we have created is an essential part of keeping the UK’s commercial interests safe. It is a fundamental building block of our economy not just today but for the future.
The way that has worked with the National Cyber Security Centre is essential, because the reality is that the economy of Britian is not guarded simply by the Government, and national security is not limited to the arms of the state. It is fundamentally true that many suppliers to Government and many different institutions that connect to Government are also important. More than that, every single aspect of our lives is a part of keeping our country safe. Although it is true that the Government do not provide the food, the supermarkets that feed us every day are part of our national security. Although it is true that the Government do not move the money, the banks that keep us fluid in that sense are absolutely part of our national security. It is therefore true that all those capabilities—all the cyber-defence that goes into the wider economy and into our lives—keep us all safe. Sadly, one of the things that has distressed me most in this job is discovering the level of abuse that I am afraid is now prevalent online. Hon. Members will not require me to tell them this, but we see an explosion in online bullying and abuse, and sadly we have seen an explosion in online harm that has taken not just many young people, but many people from across every walk of life, to dark places—and in some cases, very sadly, cost lives.
The cyber work that we do is about protecting not just the state, the Government or even the economy, but homes and families across the United Kingdom. That is why the work that we are doing in the reform of the Computer Misuse Act is so important, because, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and particularly as the hon. Member for Preston put it, the changes we have seen online in the last 20 or 30 years since the Act was passed are phenomenal. The Act was passed before the internet, the iPhone and social media. It is, in a modern sense, historical; it is dated and based on an era when to hold data was to hold it on a solid drive in a computer, not in the ether or on the cloud. The nature of intervention to keep cyber-defences alive and test them was very different, and the Act was drafted for that era. That is why the work of Sir Patrick Vallance and the way in which he has approached it have been so important, and it is why we have been looking so carefully at what he recommends and at how to get the best answer out.
The truth is that any decision we make is going to be difficult. It is going to raise questions about the ways in which businesses work and partner with others around the world. The right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) asked about ransomware and the way in which it is changing. That is where the direction that we take it so important—for example, the counter-ransomware initiative that the United Kingdom led and changed in various ways, and the approaches we have taken to ensure that we are properly structured to get its benefits. The reason I am confident that we are going in the right direction is that we are setting the agenda.
In the 18 months since I had the privilege of becoming the Security Minister, we have launched at least two actions. Forgive me as I try to remember how many were public and how many were private; hon. Members will appreciate that in this job it is probably best to get that distinction right. I will say that we have launched at least two public actions alongside partners on counter-ransomware actions. Noticeably, one from about a year ago was against various Russian targets who had decided that it was to their advantage to try to extort and exploit organisations in the United Kingdom and United States. Our reactions—the ways in which we have partnered with allies and friends—have ensured that we are able not just to defend ourselves, but to make the punishment fit the crime. We are putting in place sanctions, closing down accounts and ensuring that we have those resources in partnership with organisations like the FBI to resist those different areas.
This subject also raises some questions about the state, which were hinted at. I will go a little further into it, because this is not just about individual actors, those in the so-called troll farms or the Internet Research Agency, which was so famously used by Russia recently; it is also about states themselves. Sadly, we are seeing states trying to use these forms of exploitation as means of profit. We have seen one state in particular, North Korea, seeking to quite literally use them as a cash cow—as a way of paying for its nuclear weapons programme, extorting money out of individuals around the world to advance its own hostile interests.
This is where some of the changes we have been able to make—alongside the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, to whom I pay tribute, and with support from parties on all sides—will, I think, make a substantial difference in the years to come. Those changes include the National Security Act 2023, which, through the various different elements of co-operation with foreign states, makes criminal actions that formerly would have merely been assisting or would have been hard to define; they may not necessarily have been breaches of the Official Secrets Act, or empowering or profiting a foreign state in a direct sense and in a way that would have been criminal. The National Security Act has been essential in making sure that espionage is properly punished and that the support of hostile states is now criminalised. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others, because that legislation has been an important change that has enabled us to make a difference.
We have seen various different ways in which states have used these sorts of powers. For example, I am afraid that we have seen the various different ways in which Beijing has been ordering different threats against us. I will not comment on things that are being gossiped about in different places—in main Chambers rather than in Westminster Hall—but I will say that the state-affiliated cyber group APT31 has been, and consistently remains, a threat targeted against the UK. I am afraid that we have seen that again and again, and we have had to take action to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves. This is one of those areas where the work of the National Cyber Security Centre has been so incredibly important in protecting not just the state but our wider economy—and that is where we have a wider mission, because the truth is that protecting the wider economy is about protecting not just all those areas, but families and individuals across our country.
I am proud of some of the work we have done alongside businesses, some of which are from the UK and some of which are international, which has enabled us to change some of the incentives and pressures on them. We have brought down fraud in the last year; 16% is not as far as I would like it to go, and I am sure that others in the House will recognise that there is further to go, but that is a hell of an achievement by some fantastically dedicated law enforcement professionals and their cyber partners to make sure that homes and families across the United Kingdom are safer.
We are moving further online. For instance, one can look at the national health service today, and see the amazing investment in technology and in the changing way in which we communicate with our doctors. As many of us know, the NHS app—which, I think I am right in saying, has been downloaded by about three quarters of all adults in the United Kingdom, although I will have to check that—is a fantastic way in which we can communicate across the medical professions. However, all of this means that we have wider vectors of attack, which means that it is enormously important to ensure that we are working together. That is why—I correct the hon. Member for Barnsley Central—although the National Security Council may not have a cyber element in that sense, there is a ministerial cyber board, which meets on a similar basis except that it is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and brings together Departments from all across Whitehall. That is an extraordinarily important place where we set the policy and make sure that it works together, because the UK Government are already doing a huge amount.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central asked about the policy of paying ransomware. We have set out that no public body should be using state money to pay ransomware. We have set out this agenda with the national health service and have been very clear to organisations, including the British Library, that it should not be happening. That policy has been made clear. It is also clear that some ransomwares that are being used for profit are being closed down. I do not know if Members are aware of the LockBit sanctions, but they have been incredibly important; in the last few days we have not just taken over the LockBit site—a brilliant piece of work by the National Crime Agency and others, including the FBI—but exposed the people behind it. That is an extremely important way in which we are taking the fight directly to the criminals who are challenging us and making sure that the National Cyber Force, which is soon to be wonderfully homed in Preston—
Tom Tugendhat
Many of its people will be homed around there, I am sure, though they may work in other parts. That force is a fantastically important element in our national defence. While once we flew the white ensign to protect sea lanes, today we fly a different sign —a national cyber-security sign; and with wider British Government protection, we can protect our e-lanes of communication that keep us not just safe but free.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I thank those who have taken part in the debate, principally from the Front Benches, for their contributions and thoughts on the way forward with legislation in this area. We did not get a direct response from the Minister on whether there would be any attempt to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 this side of the election, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, we look forward to that at some stage. I cannot remember all the questions I posed—Hansard may now have disposed of them—but they are still pending with the Minister, so I hope he can write to me with answers. I look forward to hearing from him again.
I do feel very strongly about this issue, because apart from British Aerospace—BAE Systems, as it is now—and the new cyber centre that people are working away at, many of the important educational, technological and industrial developments taking place in and around my constituency in Lancashire are very important for local jobs and the economy, and in the national context. As all the Front-Bench contributors have said, the industry is a key part of keeping Britain and our constituents safe, and making sure that we continue to thrive in economic, political and democratic terms.
Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms Bardell. I am pleased that it has taken place, and hope it is a seed for further action in the coming weeks and months.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cyber security laws and tackling crime.
Written Statement
WorkWell
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Today, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we are announcing the 15 pilot sites that will deliver WorkWell services.
Good work is good for people’s physical and mental health, wellbeing and resilience. We want to make sure more people can reap these benefits by getting the timely health and employment advice and support they need to remain in work or return quickly.
Through WorkWell, this Government are spending £64 million to support 59,000 people to get the joined-up work and health support they need to start, stay and succeed in work.
Individuals who are out of work or at risk of falling out of work due to their health will be referred to WorkWell through their GP, employer, and a range of local and community services—they can also self-refer. Multidisciplinary WorkWell teams will provide an expert assessment of their work and health needs, create an action plan to ensure they receive personalised, accessible support in their local area, and offer regular follow-up support.
Following their work and health assessment, people will be able to access through WorkWell both physical and mental health services, employment support like universal support, employer engagement and advice on workplace adjustments. WorkWell services will also signpost or refer participants to external support such as health promotion programmes, council services and debt advice.
Every WorkWell pilot area will be locally designed, responding to local needs. As such the exact make-up of the WorkWell team and the local support offer will be decided by each local WorkWell partnership. In turn, each action plan will be tailored to that person’s unique needs.
An example action plan might include in-house physiotherapy sessions, counselling from a mental health professional and advice from an occupational therapist. In addition, the participant could be referred onwards to local training opportunities to explore new career opportunities and get recommendations to join relevant local support groups, perhaps focused on financial advice, smoking cessation and physical activity.
The successful 15 WorkWell pilot sites are:
Birmingham and Solihull
Black Country
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
Coventry and Warwickshire
Frimley
Herefordshire and Worcestershire
Greater Manchester
Lancashire and South Cumbria
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
North Central London
North West London
South Yorkshire
Surrey Heartlands
WorkWell will remove existing silos between work and health to improve work outcomes, for the benefit of individuals, communities and the economy. This Government’s recently announced plans to reform the fit note focus on that same goal. These reforms together work towards end-to-end system reform including in areas with some of the highest numbers of fit notes issued in the country. The reforms will be brought together by testing a new fit note process in some WorkWell pilot areas to offer better triage, signposting and support to those who need it. This will mean more people have easy and rapid access to specialised work and health support to help them stay in or get back to work.
WorkWell has employment at its heart; integrating work and health services locally to improve health outcomes, reduce health disparities, and help people get timely access to the support they need to return to and remain in work.
[HCWS440]
Grand Committee
Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 14 March 2024. This is a good news story: Atlantic bluefin tuna are present again in UK waters and are increasing in abundance after an absence of many years. In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature changed its assessment of bluefin tuna from “endangered” to “least concern”, which reflects the improving state of the stock. There is significant demand for recreational fishing access to bluefin tuna, which will boost tourism in coastal communities and deliver social and economic benefits.
Following our exit from the EU, the UK joined the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, henceforth referred to as ICCAT, which is the international organisation that manages Atlantic bluefin tuna. This enabled the UK to secure bluefin tuna quota for the first time. In line with ICCAT rules, this instrument will enable UK fisheries administrations to open their own catch-and-release recreational bluefin tuna fisheries. It will permit authorised recreational fishing vessels to target bluefin tuna by rod and line only and on a catch-and-release basis, meaning that fish should be returned to the water unharmed. Without this legislation the UK would be able to run only commercial and scientific bluefin tuna fisheries, preventing us unlocking the social and economic benefits associated with the recreational fishing of this valuable species.
So far, UK fisheries administrations have taken a cautious and measured approach to managing bluefin tuna quota by running scientific catch-and-release tagging programmes, known as CHART, over the past three years. Under the English CHART programme, bluefin tuna were caught and released with an exceptionally low mortality rate of 0.7%. The programme provided valuable data on the social and economic benefits associated with recreational access to bluefin tuna. A trial commercial fishery for bluefin tuna ran in 2023 in UK waters.
This year, the UK has been allocated around 66 tonnes of bluefin tuna quota by ICCAT, which represents 0.16% of the total allowable catch shared between all ICCAT contracting parties. Comparatively, the European Union has been allocated 53%. In future years, the UK hopes to increase its quota allocation; decisions on how we intend to use it will ensure that bluefin tuna fisheries meet our international commitments, contribute to delivering the Fisheries Act 2020 objectives, and reflect stakeholder interests. This year, 16 tonnes will be used for recreational fisheries and 39 tonnes will be used for the trial commercial fishery, which is running for a second year. The remainder will be used for commercial by-catch and scientific tagging programmes. Although the tuna will be caught and released in the recreational fishery, quota is needed to cover any incidental mortalities.
The Marine Management Organisation is expecting to open a recreational fishery in English waters this summer. The Welsh Government are also considering opening a recreational fishery in Welsh waters this year. These fisheries will run alongside further CHART programmes elsewhere in the UK. ICCAT requires any recreational targeting of bluefin tuna to be authorised. The UK fisheries administrations currently do not have the appropriate powers to authorise recreational fishing for bluefin tuna. Therefore, the Government wish to proceed with the legislation being debated today to bring recreational bluefin tuna fishing in line with ICCAT requirements.
This statutory instrument has been created using powers under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act 2020 to add provisions as amendments to existing assimilated law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/1627. This UK legislation enables each of the four UK fishery administrations to issue non-transferable, time-limited permits to UK recreational vessels to fish for bluefin tuna in their waters should they wish to do so, regardless of where in the UK the vessel is based. It gives fishery administrations the power to set permit eligibility requirements that support the delivery of Fisheries Act objectives; to set appropriate criteria for ranking applications in the event of oversubscription; and to refuse permits on the grounds of safety, conservation or appropriateness.
The SI also gives fishery administrations the power to amend or revoke permits. It explicitly prohibits both the unauthorised targeting of tuna on a recreational basis and the removal of bluefin tuna from the water anywhere in UK waters, whether on a vessel or from the shore. It amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 to confer enforcement powers on the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities. Finally, the SI creates new offences for the unpermitted recreational targeting of bluefin tuna and for breaching permit conditions, ensuring that we protect this unique species and its encouraging return to UK waters.
These amendments are distinct from the licensing requirements and powers under Section 14 of the Fisheries Act 2020, which apply only to commercial vessels. This legislation will support delivery of the sustainability and scientific evidence objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020.
With an annual allocation this year of 16 tonnes of quota, bluefin tuna recreational fisheries are expected to generate £25 million in charter fees and significant additional spend over the next 10 years in deprived rural and coastal communities. These benefits will increase if quota allocations increase. We are keen to improve our knowledge of bluefin tuna in UK waters, which is why this instrument stipulates that recreational fishers must report their catch within 24 hours of each trip.
The devolved Administrations are supportive of the amendments made by this UK instrument. If the instrument is not passed, there will not be enough time to open the bluefin tuna fishery for the full 2024 season, with the consequence of lost revenue for charter businesses and an increased risk of illegal fishing.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords on the purpose and aims of this instrument, which will deliver socioeconomic opportunities to coastal communities across the UK. For the reasons I have set out, I commend these regulations to the Committee. I thank noble Lords for their support and remain at their disposal for any questions that they may wish to ask.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have one or two questions to ask him, because I have been involved in some fishing discussions in the south-west, where I live.
I start by asking the Minister about this SI. We are talking about recreational fishing boats. Can the Minister explain in a bit more detail the difference between a recreational fishing boat and a commercial one, if there is a difference? Is the difference that you are required to throw the fish back on a recreational boat but, on a commercial boat, you can eat the product? It is unclear to me. I know that they all have to be caught by rod and line, but does it matter who catches them?
At the end of his useful introduction, the Minister mentioned an income of £25 million for the fishing industry, but, only a couple of months ago, a similar decision was made to ban pollock fishing completely. That will probably put a large number of small fishing boats whose owners live in small villages in Cornwall, where I live, out of business, and they will probably have to sell their boats.
The reason I raise this issue is that, in the debate on pollock fishing in the other place, on 11 March, there was a lot of criticism from all parts of the House about the lack of data. There was a quota of several thousand tonnes a year of pollock that could be caught, but suddenly, just like that, the whole thing was banned —no fishing at all—with maybe a small amount of compensation if the fisherman’s main income was from collecting pollock. There has been a series of bad rows in the south-west and other places because it is not easy for these small fishing boats to diversify.
In a media statement, the then Minister for fishing and fishermen—I do not know who it was but he has been quoted among the fishing sector in the south-west—said, “If you’re suddenly not allowed to fish for pollock, you can always fish for tuna”. As the Minister here will know, tuna are rather heavier than pollock and you need different equipment. Today, we have a draft regulation telling people that if they if they want to fish for tuna then they have to chuck it back—which I think is a good idea—but a couple of months ago a Minister was telling people that if they were not allowed to fish for pollock then they could go fishing for tuna.
People who are about to lose their livelihood—quite a few of them are having to sell their little fishing boats in places such as Mevagissey—being told that they can go and fish for something else, and that by the way they will get a small grant for one-quarter of the difference, is bad enough, but when people dug into that a bit more they found that there was no data about why the ban was suddenly introduced, without any warning to the fishermen concerned—it just suddenly came. If the stocks were gradually reducing then I could understand that fishermen might be told they could not fish for so many and their quota had to go down for the next year, but to be suddenly told that you cannot fish for them at all, even though that is your livelihood—and we might give you a bit of money for a cup of tea but nothing else—is ridiculous. It shows complete ignorance of the industry. I was talking to a fisherman in the Isles of Scilly at the weekend. I asked what he thought of it and he said, “Well, there’s more pollock around my coast than there are human beings in Cornwall. These people don’t know what they’re doing”.
I would be interested to know the basis on which people can continue to fish for tuna and either chuck it back or eat it, depending on which of these different commercial arrangements are in place. Will the Minister comment before the Government introduce any more sudden changes in regulation? This has a dramatic effect on small boat fishing around the coast, not just in Cornwall and Scilly but in many other places. How are they going to improve things in future? I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing on this statutory instrument.
When reading through the Explanatory Memorandum and the SI itself, I was confused about what exactly was expected of both commercial fisheries and recreational fishers. I am delighted that Atlantic tuna stocks have increased to such an extent that the UK is now in a position to be allocated quota for the fishing of tuna to begin once again.
Of the quota currently allocated to the UK as a whole by the international commission, as the Minister has said, 39 tonnes is for commercial fisheries, 16 tonnes is for recreational fishers and 10 tonnes is for research purposes. Commercial fisheries will apply for a licence and recreational fishers for a permit. Whatever is caught has be measured, weighed and recorded. The commercial fisheries will get to land their catch and send it to be sold and the recreational fishers will have to throw their catch back, live if at all possible, under the CHART programme and ICCAT requirements. I understand that, for a recreational fisher, the skill of the man or woman against the guile of the fish is a great part of the experience, but it seems to me that not to be able to land your catch at all, even though you have a permit, is likely to discourage rather than encourage applying for a permit in the first place.
My only concern with this SI is the enforcement of the quota against the fish caught and landed. The restrictions are strict on how this should happen. It will be easy for enforcement authorities to see who has a commercial licence, and thus be alerted to a commercial vessel fishing for bluefin tuna without a licence and so take action. On the recreational front, I think this will be more difficult: the fisher with a permit is likely to be indistinguishable at sea from the fisher with no permit. The fisher with no permit may also be fishing for other fish and hiding their tuna catch among that fish, and certainly not throwing the tuna back.
Extensive consultation took place on this SI and the previous one we debated in February. I have read this and understand that the consultation was positive, for the greater part, and welcomed the introduction of the quota and the way in which it was to be monitored. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the bluefin tuna fish quotas are to be policed. Are there sufficient personnel to carry out effective monitoring of this new fishing quota, and will this be carried out by the MMO?
I understand that the main concentration of UK bluefin tuna is around Scarborough, Scotland and Ireland, and obviously around Wales as well if the Welsh are considering applying for a quota. This should help with the policing. However, it is likely that some fishers and charter boats will try their luck outside these areas. How are the other areas to be policed?
The Minister indicated that once the quota limit has been reached, fishing for bluefin tuna will cease for that year. Since the monitoring of what is caught and landed appears to be very tight, it should be easy to ascertain when the quota limit has been reached, but this will not take account of any illegal fishing that has taken place. Can the Minister give reassurances on this matter?
I am delighted that tuna stocks have recovered to such an extent that the UK is now eligible for quota allocation. However, it will be essential for the catch to be strictly monitored against the quota in order to prevent overfishing in the future. I have to say that I am very concerned by the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the banning of fishing for pollock. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough introduction to this SI. He talked about bluefin tuna or, as they are known in the SI, BFT, which means I can think of them only as the “Big Friendly Tuna”. They were pushed to the brink of extinction because of overfishing, so it is really welcome that the fish have returned to UK waters over the past decade and that populations are recovering in other areas such as the Mediterranean, as noble Lords have referred to.
I want to look at just a few bits. Paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum outlines that
“Defra intends to open a BFT CRRF”—
I have not decided what else CRRF could be, but there are a lot of acronyms in the Explanatory Memorandum. The maximum scale of the CRRF is to do with the availability of the quota. We heard in the Minister’s introduction and in noble Lords’ comments about the implications of that quota in the long term, not just as it is set now.
I was also interested to see in paragraph 10.3 that there was a fairly thorough consultation between July and September 2023. Paragraph 10.3 outlines a number of ways in which the scheme has been revised following the consultation. One of the things I wanted to pick up on, and I will come back to, is the reasons why the introduction of permit charges was delayed.
One of the responses to this announcement was from the leader of the Blue Marine Foundation, Charles Clover—I am sure the Minister knows this. Charles Clover said he is anxious that
“we are just starting off a cycle of commercial fishing far too early in its recovery which we cannot control. We are creating a new commercial interest in fishing bluefin which will need close scrutiny. Realistically, the survival of the bluefin now will be about setting quotas strictly within scientific advice”.
Clearly, we all want this to work. Can the Minister say something regarding Charles Clover’s concerns? On the face of it, the quota that has been brought in by Defra looks absolutely fine, and we support the SI, but, having looked at the Blue Marine Foundation’s comments, I ask the Minister: how will the quota be kept under review? Will Defra be prepared to make significant changes if the data suggests that any changes are needed? How would that come into play?
On that point, I want to look at what my noble friend Lord Berkeley said about pollock. Again, this is about the accuracy of quotas, when this is reviewed, how it is implemented and the impacts on the fishing industry. It is often very small boats that rely on this for their living.
To come back to the postponement of the introduction of permits, the Explanatory Memorandum says that
“the introduction of charges for permits has been postponed, to allow time for further work to confirm the scope and scale of such charges, as well as how any charging income would be used”.
Questions were asked about the delay in charging for permits when this SI was debated in the other place. The Minister responded that permits would ensure that
“the whole industry will be conducted responsibly, with the best welfare in mind”,—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 24/4/24; col. 8.]
which obviously we support, but it would be useful to have a bit more information as to the timescales for this, what is likely to happen and what it is likely to look like when it comes in. What does “further work” mean? What kind of work is being carried out? It would be useful to know. Having said that, we are supportive of this. It is good for the industry and for coastal communities, and it is great that we have tuna back.
I hope the Minister will forgive me, because I know this is not what the SI is about, but I want briefly to raise concerns about the salmon farming industry, following a story I read in the media this morning. Official figures from the Scottish Government suggest that farmed salmon mortality hit record levels last year, with over 17 million deaths. There has been increased incidence of mass mortality events in farms elsewhere in the world. We know that these mass die-offs are believed to include sea lice infestations and environmental stressors, such as poor oxygen levels in water, with overpopulation of pens exacerbating the problems.
I was concerned about Defra’s decision to allow Salmon Scotland’s application to change the protected name wording on the front packaging from “Scottish farmed salmon” to “Scottish salmon”, as I think that is pretty misleading. That change is also not supported by Animal Equality UK and WildFish, which say that, as well as being misleading, it breaches assimilated EU Regulation 1151/2012—the Minister may want to write that down—on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. I am aware that this is outside the scope and subject of this SI, and I apologise to the Minister for being a little cheeky, but I know that he has a particular interest in and knowledge of this area, so I would be grateful if he could look into this.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their interest in this matter and in other fishery-related issues.
I start by commenting on the issues in Scotland, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am highly sympathetic to this issue because, in a previous life, I chaired the Atlantic Salmon Trust, which deals with wild salmon and interacts with the aquaculture industry on a daily, permanent basis. There are some serious challenges in this space. I have a personal view and then there is a Defra view. I should probably stick to the Defra view for the moment—unless your Lordships can coax the other one out of me later.
The level of mortality of farmed salmon, in my view and Defra’s, is completely unacceptable. As your Lordships know, salmon farming is an issue devolved to the Scottish Government. The only jurisdictional reach that Defra has into aquaculture is through its work on antimicrobial resistance and the use of antibiotics, which is UK-wide. It is no coincidence that salmon farming is one of the least successful industries at reducing its antibiotic use. It is an area of serious concern and those concerns are being raised. I accept the noble Baroness’s comments on the name change. I can see from noble Lords’ body language that those are collective comments and, as your Lordships’ can probably see, I am minded to share those views. I will take that back to the department to quiz officials further. It is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
I turn my attention to some of the questions that were raised on bluefin tuna. The issue that sits behind many of them is the sustainability of this particular fishery. We have been in a bad place in the past, but there were no rules, regulations and oversight then. My personal assessment of the situation is that ICCAT has a very firm handle on the conservation status of Atlantic bluefin tuna.
As I said in opening, the issue for me personally is that we get 0.16% of the overall quota. My maths is not brilliant but, if we get 60 tonnes in round terms, and the percentage is then only 0.16%, there are many hundreds of thousands of tonnes being allocated elsewhere. This is an Atlantic fish; it is only in the Atlantic. It seems inconceivable that the UK’s involvement, in its recreational or commercial fishery, would in any way impact on the population, when we are getting 0.16% of the quota that has been allocated by an international organisation that has the welfare of the bluefin tuna at stake. That satisfies my personal position on this, and I hope it goes some way to satisfy others as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the pollock fishery. In many respects that fishery, which is governed under ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, seems to be sitting almost 50 years behind the bluefin tuna. I do not know quite how we got ourselves into a position where a fish species has been designated as below a certain conservation status, and therefore we cannot take a quota from it, but we are governed by ICES and restricted by its quota. This has been much debated in the other House. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that, other than that it is in no one’s interests that our fishery stocks are depleted to the state that we are in today, because that causes all the hardship, aggravation and financial stress and strain that we are seeing down on the south-west coast.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful for that answer. We are where we are, but can the Minister provide any assurance that, in future, the monitoring of not just pollock and tuna but other fish that need to be monitored is done consistently and comprehensively? At the moment, I am told that anybody who is allowed to fish for pollock can get extra money from somebody in the Government if they put a tag on it or if it gets monitored. It seems to me that the monitoring should have been going on continuously for many years and the results published, so that people can form their own view as to what is likely to happen in future—and challenge the MMO and anybody else if they do not like it. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give me some comfort that it is going to get better.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
That is exactly it and precisely the place that we all want to be. Specifically on the bluefin tuna fishery, we have gone into this carefully. We have done three years of scientific study without even starting up a commercial or recreational fishery, so the lessons are being learned. I take the noble Lord’s point about having a consistent approach and will certainly take a closer look at that when I get back to the department.
We had some comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on how the fishery is to be enforced. I know that she is a keen fisherman herself and an expert in catch and release. In England, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—IFCAs—and the Marine Management Organisation will be enforcing the new legislation. IFCAs enforce waters up to six nautical miles from the shore and the Marine Management Organisation enforces from six miles to the 200 nautical-mile limit. Fishing for bluefin tuna without a permit or in contravention of the legislative requirements and permit conditions will be a criminal offence. The MMO will have the power to vary, suspend and revoke permits, under the conditions set out in this new legislation.
Enforcement of the fishery will be a risk-based and intelligence-led process, with the primary objective of enforcing the prohibition of non-permitted activities. Clearly, we are dealing with small boats in a big sea with limited resources. It is not going to be 100%, but no system ever is. However, there is quite a lot of local intelligence in this space and I believe that the MMO and the IFCAs have the resources in place to manage the entire process.
I think that covers everything. If I have answered all the questions, I hope that the Committee shares my conviction that this instrument is required to enable the UK fisheries administrations to establish recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in their waters. These regulations will bring social and economic benefits to the fishing industry and coastal communities, and support the sustainable management—I stress “sustainable”—of bluefin tuna. I will be sure to check Hansard and endeavour to respond in writing if I have missed any of the specific details. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before us were laid before the House on 21 March. They will, if approved by Parliament, complete the legislative framework for the funding of the new combined county authorities.
In recent months, similar secondary legislation has been made to provide rules for the election and by-election of combined county authority mayors, as well as for their overview and scrutiny and audit committees. Today’s statutory instrument is the last key building block in the architecture of legislation for combined county authorities as a category. These regulations will provide for mayors of the new combined county authorities to set budgets for the costs of their functions and raise a precept for those costs, subject to consideration and a vote by the combined county authority. They also provide for a mayoral fund.
As with preceding legislation, we are following the principle that provision for combined county authorities should be the same as that for combined authorities. The regulations do this by amending the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017 to apply its measures to combined county authorities. The 2017 order provides for an effective process aligned with wider local government budgeting timetables, including robust arrangements for scrutiny and challenge of the mayor’s spending proposals by the combined authority. The effect of that application to combined county authorities is in essence identical and is as follows.
There is a requirement for combined county authority mayors to submit, by 1 February, a draft budget to their combined county authority for consideration; for the combined county authority to recommend any amendments to the draft budget before 8 February; and for the mayor to consider these amendments and respond with a further proposal if they choose to do so. Ultimately, the constituent members of the combined county authority may impose amendments to the mayor’s draft budget if supported by a significant majority—usually two-thirds. In the absence of this majority, the mayor’s proposals are deemed to be accepted by the combined county authority.
The combined county authority must set a mayoral budget on the mayor’s behalf if the mayor fails to submit a draft for consideration by 1 February. The mayor may fund mayoral functions through a precept. The standard local government finance regime applies so that precepts must be issued by 1 March; mayoral costs are itemised separately on council tax bills; and, where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, these are listed separately. To aid transparency further, the mayor is required to maintain a fund in relation to the receipts and expenses of the mayor’s functions—excluding police and crime commissioner functions, for which there is a separate police fund.
As for consultation, before introducing the original 2017 order for combined authorities, the Government undertook an informal consultation with officers of the constituent councils of then current and prospective combined authorities, including via a working group of senior finance officers. Our inquiries with finance officers of existing mayoral combined authorities during the development of these draft regulations found no operational difficulties in the existing arrangements. The regulations therefore simply extend the application of the existing provision, in line with the broader policy of parity between combined county authorities and combined authorities.
These draft regulations will apply the regime already in place for combined authorities to combined county authorities to support their mayors in funding their functions through a precept, where they choose to do so. They prescribe a tried and tested budget-setting process that allows for effective challenge and robust and transparent scrutiny by the combined county authority. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for presenting the statutory instrument before us. It gives us the opportunity to try to better understand what the financing of the new mayoral authority will be. I am grateful to her for setting these provisions out.
I understand that we have moved away from the district and borough model. We were told that that was to save money, but now we have the regulations to show that there is to be an extra precept on those living in, for example, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority as well as the new authority—I am not quite sure what it is called—that I understand encompasses Newcastle, Sunderland, Northumberland, Durham and everywhere other than Tees Valley.
It would help my understanding, and that of people living in these areas, to hear how that money will be raised. In connection with the powers that I understand the mayors will have in these combined authority areas, they will take on the responsibilities of the police, fire and crime commissioners. They will also have powers over transport, housing, adult education, policing and security, as well as land development. Will those powers be held concurrently with the existing powers of the combined county authority or will they replace those powers?
Will the precept be an additional precept on the residents through council tax in those areas? Will there be a reduced precept for the powers now to be carried out by the mayor under this new role in that regard? Is the precept in addition to something that my noble friend Lady Penn informed me of on the Floor of the House: that there will be the possibility for combined county authorities to apply for grants? I presume that that will be for funding areas such as transport. Who will have the last say as to how, for example, transport funds will be spent?
I have to congratulate the Labour Party, because it now has a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire —which does not surprise me entirely, given that it is easier to get a vote out in an urban area such as York rather than a rural area that is very sparsely populated, such as North Yorkshire. Will the mayor or the combined authority have the last word on spending on transport, in particular, and on housing developments?
I ask that question because a long time ago I was a member of the Transport Select Committee in the other place and, as I understand it, North Yorkshire is unique in that, along with Lincolnshire, we have two of the largest networks of rural roads. They are used by people who do not live in North Yorkshire but are passengers and car drivers who transit through it. I am sure they have a lovely time using our roads, but obviously they do not necessarily contribute to the roads in that regard. With those few remarks, I welcome the regulations before us.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Grand Committee that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As we heard from the Minister, these regulations extend the provisions of the 2017 order so that it applies to the new combined county authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, mayoral authorities require funding to operate as organisations. However, in extending the number of mayoral authorities, as has been said, the Government failed to publicise that the consequence would be an addition to the overall council tax bill for households in those areas. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the average mayoral precept currently is for combined authorities. She may not know, but it is all right; I have some examples, so it will be okay.
Greater Manchester’s mayoral precept, which includes its fire and civil defence authority, is £112.95 for band D. I dug further into that figure and, on its own, the mayoral precept is only £31.75. What I want to raise here is that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that precept ought to be separated on people’s council tax bills. Currently, the council tax is set by the local authority and there is the adult social care precept, which the Government insist on. Then there is the police precept and the mayoral precept, which includes fire and civil defence authority funding. The latter should be separated out, so that there is a clear indication of what is for the fire and civil defence authority and what is for the mayoral function. I hope the Minister can assure me that that will happen or, if she cannot, can tell me what we can do to ensure that it does.
My next point is that the 2017 order, which I have found, sets the governance requirements for acceding to the mayoral precept. The Minister said that a two-thirds majority would usually be required—I wrote it down—to confirm a mayoral proposal for the precept. If it is not “usually”, what is it? I think it needs to be clearer than “usually”. The 2017 order says two-thirds, but that a three-fifths majority is required for Tees Valley alone. I think this needs to be clearer than it usually being two-thirds.
Those are my two concerns: the first is about getting transparency and the second about the governance arrangements for decision-making. Obviously, if we have combined authorities and mayors then they have to be funded, which is an additional ask of council tax payers. For most authorities, the social care precept and this would add around £250 to people’s council tax bills, so we need to know whether they will get value for money.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first local government item on the agenda since the elections, I think it is right to congratulate all those who stood for election and took part in the democratic process at a local level. It just shows, again, that local government matters. My congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on her election.
Democracy was the winner on Thursday. There is no better illustration of that than the West Midlands election, which was won, in an electorate of some 3 million, by 1,500 votes. Apparently, there were 1,500 ballot boxes in that election, so, if there had been one extra vote in each of those ballot boxes, the result might have been different. That is a great illustration of why local democracy is important.
We have no intention of creating any unnecessary controversy over this straightforward SI, which extends the powers already granted to mayoral combined authorities to the more recently created combined county authorities. I am pleased to see that different geographic, social and economic issues that exist in the two-tier areas of the country are now being recognised and accommodated, and that this SI puts in place the financial mechanism to enable that.
As the Minister will be aware, during the passage of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we had the opportunity to express our reservations regarding the governance arrangements for combined county authorities. It will take some testing of those new arrangements in practice to see whether the topics we were concerned about create any ongoing issues. For example, the lack of representation of district councils, which have the planning, housing and economic development powers, on combined county authorities has the potential to frustrate mayoral plans, if they are not used properly. I hope that enough thought will be given to the mayoral structures as they move forward to smooth this path; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to this issue.
That said, it is absolutely appropriate that all areas, including those with two-tier government, can benefit from the combined authority approach. How much flexibility will the Government allow to those authorities outside of urban areas to create county combined authorities that work for the geography, particularly the economic geography, of their areas? As an illustration, the inflexibility of Boundary Commission reviews can, on occasion, act as a blocker to structural arrangements that would facilitate the progress of developing economic areas. It would be a shame if people were stopped from doing that just because of an arbitrary boundary somewhere.
It would be wrong to consider any SI relating to local government finance without referring to the wider picture of the extreme financial pressures facing local government. I am sure that the Minister will have all those stats that get rolled out to us every time we mention this in the Chamber—they are the Government’s smoke and mirrors to make it look as though they are piling cash into our sector—but, of course, those on the front line know better. The increasing demand driven by costs in adult care, the increasing number of young people needing an urgent and comprehensive response to their special educational needs and the tsunami of homelessness as rents in the private sector soar ever upward, leading to mass evictions on affordability grounds—as well as the unfunded inflationary pressures across the board—are seeing councils struggle to make ends meet and, as we have seen on occasion, be unable to continue without intervention. Nothing in this SI will change any of that.
We all know that the bulk of the new funding for local government is coming from the pockets of hard-pressed council tax payers—another issue referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh. The Local Government Association talks about figures
“based on the assumption that councils will raise their council tax by the maximum permitted without a referendum”,
leaving councils with tough choices about whether to increase council tax bills in order to bring in desperately needed funding at a time when they are acutely aware of the significant burden that this places on households in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
Can the Minister tell us the overall cost of the new mayoral combined authorities? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about individual levels of precept but do we have a figure for the overall cost for those combined authorities and county combined authorities? None of these new structures comes free. It will be interesting to see, over time, whether the economic growth that the new structures are intended to generate justifies the cost of setting them up.
The Minister spoke about transparency in combined authority and combined county authority finance, but we all know of the dysfunction there has already been in the local authority audit sector. Some 300 councils missed the deadline for audit at the end of 2022-23. Only three of them—1% of councils—were on time. Some 150 have not been audited since 2020-21; 61 have not been audited since 2019-20; 22 have not been audited since 2018-19; and 10 have not been audited since 2017-18. This is a really important reassurance for the public about how public money is spent. There is no better illustration of the importance of this than the issues that have arisen in Tees Valley.
The Government’s stated objective for setting up these new structures is to enable the levelling-up agenda. However, this year has seen the fifth one-year settlement in a row for councils, which continues to hamper financial planning and financial sustainability. Only with adequate long-term resources, certainty and freedoms can councils or combined authorities deliver world-class local services for our communities, tackle the climate emergency and level up all parts of the country. Can the Minister tell us what work the Government are doing to ensure that short-term funding settlements will not continue to hold back councils and combined authorities from achieving the ambitious aspirations that they have for their communities? Until those long-term funding arrangements are in place and designed to provide the stable, sustainable platform to deliver what is necessary, all this tinkering about is just moving deckchairs on the “Titanic”.
That said, we agree that there is a financial and democratic need for transparency in the funding of combined authorities; in granting equal powers to mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in this regard, this SI does the job it is intended to do. We will not oppose it but I am interested to hear the Minister’s answers to our questions.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I express my thanks to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for the number of points that have been made today. I will respond to as many of them as possible but I will have to respond to at least a couple of them in writing following this debate, given that they are very specific. In the time of this short intervention, there has not been time for everything to come from the Box—although a couple of answers have just come in, so I might be able to answer a couple more questions than I thought.
Let me begin by covering a few things. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about implementation. This SI is specific to the new combined county mayoral authorities rather than to combined authorities. In the immediate future, these new regulations will apply to the east Midlands, in particular; they will also then apply to all mayoral combined county authorities as they have been established in England. The Government’s devolution deal for the east Midlands has been in place since 30 August 2022, so this will be the first time it is used. Two further deals were announced alongside the 2023 Autumn Statement and, if implemented, will result in two further combined authorities: one for Lancashire and a mayoral one for Greater Lincolnshire.
This SI applies to them but, with regard to the noble Baroness’s broader comment about the way in which the spending works and how we generally feel the precepts are being set, we believe that the current method is working. Local authorities participating in it and the mayors who have been running it have told us that it is working. From that point of view, we have some confidence that this is the way to go and, therefore, should work. I will get back to the noble Baroness on grants, which is not in my folder; I suspect that it is covered by a different team to the one I have behind me. I will also come back to the noble Baroness on her specific transport inquiry.
With regards to the transparency of the mayoral component of the precept, it is already a requirement that that is broken out. It can be displayed as one number but it needs to be transparent somewhere as to what that number is. With the police and crime element of that, it is obvious how it is broken out. I will go back in my own time and check what is there, but we would certainly expect transparency to be something that every mayor would want, because it is in their interests to be honest with their electorate as to what they are paying for and how much it is.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, this is going to be interesting. The East Midlands will have eight constituent members with two from each authority, as I understand it, so neither two-thirds nor three-fifths works numerically. Do we take the bigger number or the smaller? Do we round up or down?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am going to write to the noble Baroness with the exact number and calculation that will be used in the East Midlands situation. Ah—somebody knows the answer. It works out as two-thirds or more, so it would go up not down. There we go.
On the precept overall, the regulations provide for decision-making processes applying to those mayors who set a precept, a process which involves the constituent members who have the ability to challenge and, with a significant majority, amend the mayor’s plans for that precept. Where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, the referendum principle for the PCC component of the mayoral precept has been set at the same level as for PCCs. The Secretary of State has been clear that he will consider any increases set by mayors when determining referendum principles in future years, so there are measures that allow us to intervene if need be.
It is true that local audit is vital to support democratic accountability and in providing the assurances for local people that their elected representatives are doing what they should be doing with the budget that they have. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council and others in taking action to deal with the significant backlog of local audits in England and put the system on a sustainable footing. In February this year, system partners, including the Government, issued a joint statement setting out a package of measures to meet these challenges. During February and early March, DLUHC and the National Audit Office consulted on core elements of these proposals. We are reviewing that consultation response and will set out our intentions and respond in due course. It is an urgent matter and we are trying to get to grips with it. I am not taking it lightly; it really does need to be dealt with.
A number of other questions have been put but I think it will be of interest to Members to have proper, detailed answers, rather than what I am scrabbling together here. I will come back with written responses to those, but in the meantime I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, this order is supplementary to what became Statutory Instrument No. 150 of 2023, which I had the honour of moving in this Room on 23 January 2023. That SI provided legal aid for the new procedures under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, namely: domestic abuse protection notices, known as DAPNs, which provide immediate protection following a domestic abuse incident; and the new domestic abuse protection orders, known as DAPOs, which provide flexible, longer-term protection for victims.
Under that statutory instrument, legal aid was provided for a number of procedures in the family, county and criminal courts but, at the time, there was a small omission for advocacy in the magistrates’ court or on appeal from orders in the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. This order simply fills that lacuna, which came to light in the course of working through both how this new regime was to operate and the complex provisions of Schedule 1 to what is known as LASPO to make sure that the legal aid regime covering these new orders was complete and comprehensive. We are simply filling a small gap in the regime that had not been spotted before.
This new statutory instrument before the Committee will ensure that legal aid is available for those proceedings. Let me go into more detail. The statutory instrument before your Lordships will make advocacy for those persons who are protected by a DAPO—or those who are subject, or potentially subject, to a DAPO—available under civil legal aid in magistrates’ courts. This form of civil legal aid will apply to DAPO cases where the application for the DAPO is made by the police in the magistrates’ courts. It will extend to appeals to the Crown Court and to applications to vary or discharge the DAPO in these courts. The respondent to an application for a DAPN will also be entitled to legal aid.
Your Lordships may recall that these procedures will for the first time enable these kinds of orders to be made by a range of courts, including magistrates’ courts, family courts, county courts and the Crown Court. In practical terms, they will make sure that the procedures and approaches to these orders mesh together, in view of the different courts that now have jurisdiction. This matter has been, and is being, worked through; as I understand it, a pilot scheme will be launched later this year to test the way in which these procedures will work. If your Lordships approve today’s statutory instrument, there will at least be a comprehensive legal aid scheme covering the procedures envisaged by the 2021 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this welcome SI. We are happy that the lacuna has been addressed. I disclose to the Committee that I am a magistrate in family and criminal courts, and I occasionally have DAPO hearings, at which both the applicant and respondent are often unrepresented at the moment, so I welcome this situation being addressed.
The Minister mentioned a pilot starting, but I was not quite sure to which he was referring. Is it the one in Croydon, which I have been told about? As I said, I hear domestic abuse prevention orders when I sit at the moment, so is this a development in the existing orders I already hear? I am not quite sure to which pilot he refers.
I also make the point that family courts hear non-molestation orders now. These may be replaced by DAPOs, and we welcome the meshing together of the various civil orders across different jurisdictions.
I want to raise a separate issue, which I am afraid I did not have the foresight to give the Minister notice of. Last year, on 24 July, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about updating the information that must be disclosed on enhanced criminal record certificates. I gave the example of domestic violence prevention orders —not domestic abuse prevention orders—and what would happen if such an order were put in place. It is clearly not a criminal order but, if it is breached, it is a criminal offence and it would appear on a criminal record check. I will not go into the details of the case on which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but he gave me a very comprehensive answer on that issue, on 5 October. My point is that the answer was a complicated one—in fact, I will give the concrete example, because it is difficult to explain this without doing so.
I was hearing a domestic violence prevention order, and the applicant was a woman who wanted the order made against her former boyfriend. The applicant’s lawyer was a part-time judge and she was paying him privately. The applicant’s lawyer said to me that the best way to resolve this was with a no-facts finding, where an order is put in place, and that for a limited period the couple did not want to see each other any more. He said that it would be satisfactory to proceed in that way. The respondent heard the advice that I had received, and I explained that, if he were to breach the order, it would be a criminal offence. I asked what his attitude was to that course of action. The respondent said to me, “This is completely impossible for me because I am a primary school teacher. If I get this civil order, I will have to disclose it to my head teacher and I do not know what impact that would have on my career”. I gave him the advice to find a lawyer and fight the application. That is what actually happened, and that is the case that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
Subsequent to that hearing, the legal adviser said to me that the primary school teacher would not have to disclose the matter to his head teacher because the legal adviser, as a solicitor, would not have to disclose an equivalent civil order to her professional body. It was therefore not necessary for the respondent to disclose this information. This was said after the hearing.
I was very cautious about accepting that advice, because different professional bodies will have different advice and, particularly when you are working with children, different and more stringent circumstances may pertain. I explained all this to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and, as I said, he gave me a very full explanation of the situation in which that primary school teacher would find himself. In a nutshell, it is complicated. What that man has to disclose, as an obligation and what the order requires to be disclosed, is not straightforward.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for those comments. I think that I can reply briefly. I recall that on 23 January 2023—because I reminded myself of the passage in Hansard—the noble Lord raised the example of the teacher, and I am interested that there has been a follow-up, that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has advised on this and that it is complicated. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is making is that, the more we make these orders, and the more we create these procedures, the more complex it becomes. That is a fair point, and it is one that I hope the Government take account of as we go along, because there are unintended consequences to some of these things.
The underlying thought is that the existing procedures, such as they are, in the magistrates’ court and with the non-molestation orders in the family courts, needed a more overall approach. The family courts needed additional powers to order tagging and various other powers that, for the moment, are reserved to the criminal courts—so we have a comprehensive scheme, but exactly how it works is still to be worked through. In that connection, my understanding is that there will be a more detailed pilot, which apparently includes Croydon, Greater Manchester and the London Boroughs of Sutton and Bromley, as well as—for some reason—the British Transport Police, to work through some of those issues and the best way to deliver the legal support that is so important in these areas.
I entirely welcome and support the noble Lord’s comment that legal advice for all parties here is very important. I am not completely sure that the teacher in the example given would have qualified for legal aid, but at least there is now a structure there that should enable people to have legal advice on a wider scale than has hitherto been the case, now that we have plugged that gap.
That is probably as far as I can take it at the moment—save again to say that, as we create all these different procedures, processes and possibilities, up to a point we risk bogging the system down in all kinds of other complexities. That is, I am afraid, the cost of proceeding down this road.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I had expected to be able to continue doing what I was doing while the debate on this order took place but I was fascinated by the example that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, gave. I would just make the rather obvious point about the importance of wide consultation when arrangements are being brought in, in order to avoid the unintended consequences to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Nobody can have enough imagination to anticipate all the intended consequences or consequences that might be less desirable than others but I have noticed recently that, for a number of SIs, the Explanatory Memorandum has said that there has not been any consultation because it has not been necessary.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sure that the noble Baroness’s point is well taken. I very much hope that the pilots I mentioned will sort out the unintended consequences, or at least minimise them.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 11 March, will make amendments to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000. It will remove an inconsistency between the 2000 order and the findings of a High Court judgment in proceedings brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements relating to the EU settlement scheme. That scheme enables EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the EU exit transition period on 31 December 2020, and their eligible family members, to obtain a UK immigration status. It gives effect to key aspects of the UK’s commitments under the citizens’ rights agreements—that is, the EU withdrawal agreement and the equivalent agreements with the other EEA states and Switzerland.
In line with the agreements, the 2000 order provides for an EU settlement scheme status holder to lose their immigration permission automatically after more than a specified period of absence from the UK. For a pre-settled status holder, the specified period is currently two years’ absence; for a settled status holder, it is five years’ absence. Swiss citizens and their family members have a specified period of four years, due to differences in the terms of the citizens’ rights agreement with Switzerland.
The High Court judgment found that, where a pre-settled status holder has rights under the EU withdrawal agreement or the agreement with the other EEA states—Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—they can automatically acquire a right of permanent residence, which is another form of settlement, once the conditions for it are met, and so benefit from the longer period of absence. The effect of the judgment is that the 2000 order is inconsistent with that legal position because the order does not cater for the group of pre-settled status holders who have automatically acquired a permanent residence right.
That ability does not extend to Swiss citizens and their family members due to the different terms of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The EU settlement scheme is also more generous than the citizens’ rights agreements as regards eligibility criteria and because, for pragmatic domestic policy reasons, it is open to wider groups of people than those covered by the citizens’ rights agreements. As a consequence, not all pre-settled status holders can automatically acquire a permanent residence right.
However, to achieve consistency, the draft order provides for all those granted leave under the EU settlement scheme to benefit from the longer absence period before their immigration permission lapses. This is irrespective of whether such individuals hold pre-settled or settled status, and whether they are from the group that has acquired a right of permanent residence.
We have done that for reasons of simplicity and operational practicality. Generally, a Border Force officer will not know on initial examination if a pre-settled status holder has obtained the right of permanent residence, as that would require a detailed examination of the circumstances and relevant evidence, which is often impractical at the border.
The change to the 2000 order does not prevent the Home Office from cancelling pre-settled status where a holder who has not acquired a right of permanent residence has been absent from the UK for longer than the period permitted by the relevant citizens’ rights agreement, which is generally six months in a rolling 12-month period. The scope of this action will remain available by decision under the Immigration Rules, rather than by lapsing of leave under the 2000 order.
For the avoidance of doubt, the draft order does not extend the permitted absence periods for holders of pre-settled status, which are set out in the relevant citizens’ rights agreements. It affects only the automatic loss of leave under the 2000 order.
The draft order gives clarity to citizens by bringing our legislation in line with the legal position as determined by the findings of the High Court judgment. It achieves that in the simplest and most sensible way while not preventing the Home Office from taking the appropriate action where a person is no longer eligible for leave under the EU settlement scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, although I have to say that my head was beginning to spin even though I spent a bit of time looking at this issue yesterday. I have a couple of questions and a request for an assurance on which I wrote to the Minister yesterday by email, which I hope got to him.
My first question is: with the judgment having been given in December 2022, why has this taken so long? I appreciate that it will have needed some consideration. I note too that the current guidance was published in November last year, so it seems to pre-empt the order. Does it?
The order takes effect the day after it is made, so I wonder about the sequence of events. Being more practical about it, I wonder whether any people will be caught in the gaps. I do not feel at all qualified to guess at that, but there may be applications pending. In the last debate, there was reference to unintended consequences—I hope that will not be the case here.
I am grateful to the organisation the3million for its briefing on this next issue. A pre-settled status holder who has not achieved permanent residence will be affected. Such a person will not ultimately be able to apply for settled status if they are absent from the UK for too long, and they are at risk of having their pre-settled status curtailed if they are away for too long. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to that at paragraph 5.8 but these issues are not immediately identifiable from the order itself. The substantive part of it basically says, in four different places, “after such and such, omit the word ‘unlimited’”, which seems quite hard for an adviser to follow through.
The change in legislation following the High Court judgment is welcomed by the3million, but it is concerned that both individuals and advisers—I should think that advisers dealing with this sort of thing must have a permanent headache—will incorrectly think that pre-settled status holders can be away for up to five years without loss of status. The organisation has said to me that it explains to them that that is indeed the case but they should beware because it is meaningless for an individual who does not have permanent residence rights in law, and that in itself is not straightforward to explain. It says that a pre-settled status holder who does not have permanent residence rights and is away for over six months is likely to be questioned at the border on return and is at risk of their status being curtailed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support the order as well, and I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. Currently, pre-settled status lapses when somebody is outside the UK for a period of two years or more continuously; settled status lapses after five years of absence.
A court ruling, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, found in late 2022 that, first, applicants granted pre-settled status should not lose their rights of residence if they do not make an application for settled status. This was on the basis that the wording of Article 13(4) of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that a right of residence can be lost only in very specific circumstances. The expiry of the status was not among them. Secondly, the consequence of the above is that settled status rights accrue automatically once the conditions of such status have been satisfied by the individual without the need for a second application.
As we have heard from the Minister, this SI aligns the law with this ruling in ensuring that pre-settled status can lapse only after five years’ absence. The Government also announced last year that some pre-settled status holders will be automatically changed to being settled status holders this year.
Can the Minister confirm how many people have applied to switch from pre-settled to settled status but are currently waiting for a decision on their applications? We know that there is still a backlog. Will he tell us what information the Home Office has on the number of people who currently meet the eligibility criteria to switch from pre-settled to settled status but have not yet submitted an application to do so?
In July 2023, the Home Office said that its intention was to take steps to automatically convert as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status once they are eligible for it, without them needing to make an application. Can the Minister update us on the progress of those plans? As he has acknowledged, the draft order seeks to implement a change to current legislation that is required as a result of the court’s decision. We approve of the order but I would be interested in the answers to those questions. They are actually the same questions that were asked in the other place when this matter was considered.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. It is worth saying to start that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success—and I shall come on to the numbers in a second. We have gone above and beyond our obligations under the citizens’ rights agreements and are pleased that so many families, friends and neighbours have obtained the status that they need to remain in the UK.
To respond to the various points, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about facts and figures. This also answers a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made. There is no complacency here: as of 31 December 2023, 7.7 million applications were made to the scheme by an estimated 6.2 million people, of whom 5.7 million have obtained a grant of status. We have received 1.7 million applications since 30 June 2021, of which 38% were late applications; 39% were repeat applications, including those moving from pre-settled to settled status; 23% were joining family members; and 1% were from derivative rights applicants—please do not ask me what that means, because I do not know.
Nearly 1.6 million of the applications received since 30 June have been concluded; 746,000 people have moved from pre-settled to settled status, which represents more than half of repeat applications, and contributes to settled status outcomes being proportionately high when looking at the monthly outcome figures in the quarterly statistics. Application intake has remained high—the average monthly intake for the final quarter of 2023 was approximately 51,000. However, we continue to conclude more applications than we receive, concluding on average more than 57,000 applications a month.
Finally, there are 121,830 pending applications, compared to 142,430 in the previous data released to 30 September 202, which is a 14% reduction. I appreciate that that was a lot of numbers. It might be helpful if I commit those to paper and send them to both noble Lords.
The order is not retrospective, in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If the leave of a pre-settled status holder lapses before the coming into force of this order and they have not obtained a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence, they will have lost their immigration permission to enter or remain in the UK. That is consistent with the citizens’ rights agreements, because the point at which pre-settled status currently lapses, after more than two years of absence, is more generous than any of the periods of absence permitted under the agreements.
On why we have not given pre-settled status holders a more generous permitted absence period in line with the draft order, the current provisions already allow pre-settled status holders significant periods of absence while maintaining their status. We have gone further than required by the citizens’ rights agreements. There are no plans to take a more generous domestic approach to permitted absence periods for pre-settled status holders than those set out in the agreements. Pre-settled status is a route to settlement, and we expect an individual to show a level of commitment to the UK. Not only are these absence periods well established under previous immigration arrangements with the EU; it would be unfair on UK nationals in EU member states who would not benefit from such greater flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me why we were slow to implement the judgment. By virtue of UK domestic law, the withdrawal agreement as interpreted by the judgment is directly effective, which means that the rights are, and always have been, available to citizens. Our implementation is therefore focused on ensuring that it continues to be easy for citizens, government departments and third parties, such as employers and landlords, to evidence rights or check that they are in place. Some of that work is not straightforward and necessarily takes time. No guidance on the order has been published, but it will be shortly.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for submitting her specific question, which was about confirming that the GOV.UK web pages make it clear that the change made by the SI will not benefit a holder of pre-settled status who does not have permanent resident rights. The change will benefit pre-settled status holders who have not acquired a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence by extending the five-year lapsing provision to all EUSS status holders. I can confirm that the GOV.UK pages will be amended to clarify the position for leave that has lapsed before and after the order comes into force. The position remains that the easiest way for a pre-settled status holder to prove their right to live permanently in the UK is to apply for settled status.
I hope that that addresses all the points raised today. I appreciate that this is a particularly complicated subject. In conclusion, the draft order upholds the judgment of the High Court; it ensures consistency in the legal framework and does so in a simple, practical and workable way. I thank noble Lords for their support and commend the order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
International Health Regulations: Amendments
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the warning by independent WHO experts at the Brownstone Institute that amendments to the International Health Regulations to be made at its forthcoming meeting in May 2024 may contravene Article 55 of those Regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government are satisfied that negotiations on amendments to the International Health Regulations comply with Article 55 of those regulations. Member states proposed amendments, which were communicated to all member states in December 2022 and then posted online. Since then, member states have been negotiating the proposals. As per Article 55, the timeline is well in advance of the World Health Assembly this May, where they are due to be considered for agreement.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reply. Irrespective of the WHO’s current interpretation of its own rules, the fact remains that Article 55(2) clearly says it is required to give member states four months’ written notice before the amendments are agreed at the end of this month, and it has clearly failed to do so. Bearing this in mind, and that the Government have been less than transparent about the UK’s aims in these negotiations, and bearing in mind the WHO’s woeful performance in the Covid pandemic, does the Minister agree that, regardless of the legal position, it would be wise to delay the votes until the next WHA so that we can have proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the Government are signing us up to?
Lord Markham (Con)
The key thing that we are looking at here, which I would hope that all of us could agree on, is that we will not agree to anything in this process which impacts our sovereignty as a country and our ability to react to a pandemic in a way that is appropriate for this country and this Government. I hope that we can all rely on that, and that is very much our approach to these negotiations.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, objective 2 of the UK’s Global Health Framework says that the Government will:
“Reform global health architecture, including through a strengthened World Health Organization, driving more coherent governance and collaboration across the international system”.
Aside from producing a winning sentence for policy buzzword bingo, can the Minister point to any specific global health architecture wins that the Government have had in the year since that policy was published?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am not sure in what year that policy was published. However, I can talk about how, when we were president of the G7 in 2021, we led the calls to donate vaccines on a worldwide basis, which led to 1.2 billion doses being donated to countries all around the world, led by Britain’s initiative with AstraZeneca. That was great global co-operation and we can feel very proud of it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government said that they would learn the lessons from the Covid problems. How have they tackled the issue of production of equipment that was needed for Covid but which we did not have? The Government promised to make sure that we will have it next time. Can he give us an update on that?
Lord Markham (Con)
Of course, we covered much of this when we had a Question on 15 April around this. This is about making sure that we have the diagnostic capability—which we have—and the ability to scale up. We have made a £125 million-fund available for precisely the issue that the noble Lord mentions, so we have the mothballed capacity ready to operate at quick notice.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, on 14 January 2020 the World Health Organization declared that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission of the Covid virus. It was parroting the line of the Chinese Government, which at that time were terrified of any investigation of the lab leak theory. Does my noble friend the Minister worry that giving more powers of co-ordination and control to this body will mean less diversity, more homogeneity and the suppression of any attempt to be a Sweden or a Florida, or anyone else who might buck the consensus and thereby, God forbid, suggest that these extreme and draconian lockdowns may not have been the best policy response?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are talking about two very different things here. One is ensuring that, as a country, we are armed with the information as quickly as possible so that we can act; getting the genomic sequencing of the original strain was vital for us to be able to prepare a vaccine so quickly, so that information sharing is vital. In terms of the impact on our ability to act as a sovereign Government, that is something very different; it is key and understood, and the Covid inquiry now is all about learning lessons. As my noble friend knows, I have personal views about that second lockdown: we need to be looking at the wider impact of that second lockdown in areas such as mental health and other areas in which there was an impact on children, but that is a matter that will always be for the UK Government to decide on.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the problems that arose during the Covid pandemic in respect of the WHO were because the WHO was let down by one of its members and not properly informed quickly enough of the symptoms that were occurring in that country. There is no point in blaming it when the blame rests with the collective membership of the WHO, which now needs to be repaired. Does the Minister not agree that postponing that repair work will not serve our or anyone else’s purpose?
Lord Markham (Con)
I do agree: I do not think that it would help to postpone it. I had this exact conversation with the American Health Secretary, who is very aware that we are getting nearer and nearer to an American election and, for all the countries to be able to co-operate fully, the timing is right to reach a solution now. However, we will not reach an agreement at any cost or anything which might impact our sovereignty.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Brownstone Institute, to which the noble Lord’s Question refers, was set up to work against Covid restrictions and lists articles which argue that Covid-19 vaccines do not work, that children should not be vaccinated and that vaccine mandates compare with the crimes of the Soviet gulag. On this basis, perhaps the Minister would like to comment on what note he should be taking of the Brownstone Institute, if any. What assessment has been made of the impact of dangerous propaganda like this on the low take-up rates of vaccinations that we see among minority ethnic groups and where there are regional and social disparities?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. All Members of the House, when we had a good Question on the take-up of Covid vaccines, agreed that information supporting the take-up is a vital health message to get across. To any detractors, I say very firmly that it is not the view of the Government, and I know that it is not the view of nearly all noble Lords.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, returning to the treaty, am I right in thinking that it contains provision that envisages a role for the WHO in vaccine certification? If that is the case, how would that have played out when we wished to roll out our own vaccine very speedily? Would we have had to wait for WHO certification?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, my noble friend will agree with me that our ability to assess the vaccine more quickly than any other country and roll it out very quickly was a key asset for the UK. Clearly, we will not do anything that will put that at risk.
Period Poverty
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scale of period poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not have specific data on period poverty, but we understand that women and girls are impacted by the cost of period products. That is why we abolished the so-called tampon tax and ensured that period underwear receives the same zero rate of VAT. We have a scheme for schools and colleges, with free products available for all who need them so that periods are not a barrier to education. All hospital patients can also receive free products.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, as chair of Empower and of UN Women UK. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the scheme that she mentioned. Will she confirm that it will continue post election in a new Government? It is critical that young females get access to sanitary products throughout their school life. Secondly, what discussions are taking place with retailers on reducing the cost of sanitary products, particularly for low-income households where there may be multiple female house- holders?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the first part of my noble friend’s question, we are aware of how important the scheme is in schools, with 99% of secondary schools having placed an order since it began. The current formulation of the scheme is planned up to summer 2024, but I know that the department is in the process of confirming plans for its future. On our work with retailers, we were concerned when we abolished the tampon tax on sanitary products that not all of that benefit was passed on to consumers. That is why we are monitoring the impact on reusable period underwear, which is also now zero-rated for VAT, and making sure that that is passed on.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the Government for the scheme in our secondary schools; we have 99% take-up, so we can safely say that it is important and welcome. However, period poverty affects one in five women across the UK. Given the cost of living and the rise in prices, it is a health and gender-based injustice, with increasing numbers struggling to afford what is an essential healthcare product. The Government agreed to work collaboratively with a range of organisations to create a period poverty taskforce in 2019, but the group has not met since the pandemic. Does it intend to resume, and if so, when? Secondly, how does the programme for secondary schools deal with school holidays?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to follow up with the department on the noble Baroness’s first point, and I will respond to her in writing about our plans to meet the group she referred to. With regard to school holidays, the House will be aware of the Government’s enormous support for people on lower incomes, which is, obviously, available to all families during the holidays.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, on this day I am sure that the House will remember the tireless campaigner, Kris Hallenga, who had breast cancer and passed away recently. She set up the charity, CoppaFeel!, which reached out to millions using her creativity, sense of fun and ingenuity to ensure that young women were made aware of and took on the challenges of breast cancer. She was diagnosed at the age of 23 and given a life expectancy of two years, but survived cancer for 15 years. Could we take a leaf out of Kris’s book in looking to engage young women on the issue of period poverty, using social media and channels that can reach them so that we help them engage and listen to them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a good and poignant point about talking to young people in their own language and on their own terms and, as he says, using social media to reach them. We know that part of the issue with period poverty and wider women’s health matters may be a financial one that is a barrier to accessing products, but equally if not more important is the stigma associated with raising issues like this, which we need to try to remove as quickly as possible.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, according to the pressure group Bloody Good Period, in the workplace, two-thirds of people who menstruate do not have access to the basic essentials they need, costing British industry £3.3 billion in lost workdays. We often feel a bit squeamish talking about these matters, but what will the Government do to make employers aware of the inequality that so many of their employees face, and of how easily and cheaply productivity could be increased?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The department is well aware that women in the workplace miss extra days of work, suffer pain and stay in the workplace in considerable discomfort. Our experience is that employers often want to help but are not always very confident about how to do so, be it period-related or menopause-related issues. We are working with a range of businesses and professional membership bodies to identify how employers can best support women’s wider reproductive health and share their good practice.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, we should be steering away from the idea that we need to address only period poverty, but instead provide period dignity for all, which would also address period poverty. What I mean by period dignity is achieving parity with toilet paper: wherever toilet paper is provided by the public or private sector, period products should also be provided in the cubicle. Have the Government carried out any research on best practice in other countries on how to provide period dignity for all?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that we have done international research in this area, but I am aware, as I mentioned in my initial Answer, that in schools, hospitals and prisons now there is free access to period products. Many workplaces offer that also.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am not often given to commending the Scottish Government, but as your Lordships may be aware, particularly the ladies present, they have introduced a universal system to try to address both period poverty and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly says, period dignity. I wonder if there would be any benefit in a constructive engagement with the Scottish Government to understand how their scheme works, what it costs and if there are any lessons to be learned.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The department works regularly with the devolved Administrations, and we are always happy to learn from others.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, 16.7 million sick days are taken annually due to period-related symptoms. What are the Government doing to encourage more scientific research in this area, in order to help the 47% of women who suffer from severe period pain every month?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Last month, the National Institute for Health and Care Research announced more than £100 million of funding to 20 policy research units, including a new unit dedicated to reproductive health. This will undertake research on a number of areas, including menstrual health, gynaecological conditions and the menopause. In addition, the Office for National Statistics is also planning to investigate the impact of period problems and endometriosis on women’s participation and progress at work.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the Government to undertake an educational programme for young men and boys—and, indeed, older men—on period pain and period poverty?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We already have a programme, called RSHE, which every child will follow and that absolutely speaks to the noble Lord’s point. The current statutory guidance makes it clear that all pupils should be taught the facts about the menstrual cycle, and we have developed a series of teacher training modules to support schools in delivering this.
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ireland about their approach to addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland since April 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, at the last two British-Irish Intergovernmental Conferences, the Secretary of State and I pressed the Irish Government to co-operate fully with both the Omagh inquiry and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to provide information for victims and families who desire it. The Secretary of State also wrote to the Tánaiste in January, challenging the Irish Government’s own approach to addressing legacy issues, including the number of Troubles-related prosecutions brought in Ireland since April 1998.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, are we not entitled to expect that the Irish Republic, which we have always sought to treat in a spirit of good neighbourliness, should take some steps to acknowledge that many terrorist atrocities during the Troubles in Ulster were assisted by the planning that took place in its territory and the refuge it provided to some involved in the most dreadful crimes? How vividly I remember the despair at the constant refusal of extradition requests brought to Airey Neave, as Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, long ago when I worked for him. Are we not also entitled to take strong exception to the Irish Government’s decision to bring a case against us in the European Court of Human Rights? Granted that the independent commission to deal with issues arising from the legacy of the Troubles became fully operational on 1 May, under the chairmanship of a most distinguished retired judge, does my noble friend agree that the Irish Government should drop their interstate case and focus on co-operating fully with the new legacy body, setting aside the controversies that surrounded its origins?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has vast experience of Northern Ireland matters. He makes a number of extremely important points regarding the role of successive Irish Governments during the Troubles. On the interstate case, the Government profoundly regret the decision of the Irish Government to bring this unnecessary and unhelpful case against the UK, particularly when these matters are likely to be dealt with by the domestic courts long before the case ever reaches Strasbourg. For many families, effective information recovery will require the co-operation of the Irish authorities, and the Government therefore encourage the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the new commission to help provide information to families who want it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree about the importance of adherence to the rule of law, and that the legacy Act is considered by many to violate the principle of the rule of law? In view of the various legacy cases, judgments and pending cases, what action will the Government take to ensure that victims and survivors are protected through the repeal of this legislation, in particular the immunity provisions, which have caused immense consternation throughout the wider community in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, while I completely respect the views of the noble Baroness, I do not share her characterisation of the legislation. She will be aware that the High Court in Belfast, in its recent judgment, found that the new legacy body, the independent commission, would be able to operate independently of government, and would be able to carry out fully effective Article 2-compliant investigations. It also found that the disclosure obligations on the state meant that the new body is likely to be more effective than the current mechanisms in providing information and answers to victims and survivors.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Omagh bomb was the single biggest terrorist attack in the Troubles, costing 29 people their lives, including a woman pregnant with twins. It was also a cross-border incursion, with terrorists coming from the Irish Republic, where they returned after the bombing. I simply ask the Minister why he believes the Irish Government are still refusing to hold their own inquiry into the bombing. What can they possibly be hiding?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his question. We all remember vividly where we were when we heard the news of that awful atrocity in August 1998, and I pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and the other Omagh families who have pursued their case with great dignity and tenacity. As I said in my opening Answer, I raised this directly with the Irish Foreign Minister and Tánaiste at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last Monday, and I am pleased that he committed to full Irish Government co-operation with the Omagh bombing inquiry. The Government’s focus is on ensuring that the inquiry has every chance of success, and the Irish Government’s role in that is crucial.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is not just the Irish Government who were opposed to the very controversial legacy legislation. Every single Northern Ireland political party opposed it. The Minister knows that you can move in Northern Ireland, eventually, only by consensus. It seems to me that there has to be more discussion with the Irish Government, who are a joint guarantor of the Good Friday agreement after all. Now that the Assembly is up and running, surely it is time to engage every party in that Assembly to have a consensus on the way forward on what is very vexed legislation.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, what is really important, now that the independent commission is operational as of last Wednesday, is that we give it the time and space to carry out investigations and do its work in delivering answers for victims and survivors. I must point out that I read the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Irish News last week, and what was clear, once I managed to decipher the complete muddle in that interview, was that the party opposite has no coherent plan for dealing with legacy matters whatever, other than taking us back to square one.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the legacies of the Troubles is the high level of trauma and PTSD suffered by victims? The answers to the questions on the legacy Act did not include the Minister informing the House that major provisions of that Act have now been held by the High Court in Belfast to be in breach of national and international law. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to provide support to those who have been further traumatised by the passing of this Act and the consequential termination of normal processes, such as inquests, many of which could not proceed because of the refusal of the Northern Ireland Office and MI5 to grant disclosure of materials, even in the form of gists prepared by the PSNI? What support will be available to families who have attended up to 40 hearings trying to get that information and whose inquests are now closed?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the ongoing uncertainty caused by the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling on immunity is merely prolonging the pain and uncertainty for victims and their families who have already waited so long for justice?
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. The commission, as she knows, became fully operational last week and is now proceeding with its work under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Peter Sheridan, a former senior police officer.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister reflect on the remarks of Michael McDowell TD, a former Irish Attorney-General and Minister for Justice between 1999 and 2007, as quoted in the Irish Times last November, when he reminded us that the Republic’s approach to legacy has always been based on the indemnities presently being condemned by some noble Lords in this House? Will he also add something: that the approach of the Belfast agreement was to honour and care for innocent victims and to support their right to remember as well as to move on and contribute to a changed society? Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that the UK’s current policy is consistent with the Belfast agreement in all its aspects?
Lord Caine (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that the legislation is absolutely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to which we remain resolutely committed as a Government. It is worth recalling that both the UK and Irish Governments have previously decided to make compromises on established criminal justice processes in the hope of moving the process forward, including decommissioning, prisoner releases and the search for the location of victims’ remains. As my noble friend made clear, the Irish Government’s position is hard to reconcile in relation to the positions they have adopted on these matters in the past and, indeed, their own record of dealing with Troubles-related cases within their own jurisdiction, where, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single prosecution since April 1998.
Faith Schools: Impact of Removing Admissions Cap
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of removing the admissions cap on state-funded faith schools on community integration and cohesion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the admissions cap has not significantly increased the diversity of intake in faith-designated free schools, and it has prevented providers such as the Catholic Church, which attracts a more diverse intake, opening new schools. All faith-designated free schools are required to demonstrate their commitment to community cohesion and how they promote fundamental British values.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this policy would increase religious discrimination in schools that the British taxpayer is paying for. Many parents will be paying for local schools from which their own children will be excluded. It will diminish diversity and inclusiveness, increase racial segregation and further disadvantage poorer families, non-religious families, and families of the “wrong” religion. It is hard to find an upside to this, so why are the Government proposing such a retrograde step when they supported the 50% cap until only a short time ago?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government do not see it as a retrograde step and I do not accept the description that the noble Baroness makes of our faith schools, which are extremely inclusive, many working with other schools in their local area, and which produce some of the best academic results in the country.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that it has never been Tory policy to advocate 100% faith schools? No Tory Education Secretary since 1945 has advocated them. They have preferred the model of the Church of England schools, which welcome children of no faith and all faiths. Indeed, I went to such a school myself during the war; my primary school was Holy Trinity in Southport, which was a community school. It so happened that my closest friend at that school was the single Jewish boy, who was a refugee. We became very close friends. I learned from then on that Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus at school should all study alongside each other, play with each other, eat with each other and go home with each other as members of a multicultural society.
Does the Minister realise that, if this goes through, it will be not only Catholics but Muslims who apply for independent, free faith schools. Does she really consider that appropriate in our country at this time in our history? This is an absurd proposal and it should not feature in any way in the manifesto of the Conservative Party at the election.
Baroness Barran (Con)
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, so it might perhaps help the House if I explain what the Government are proposing. They are proposing to make no change whatever to existing schools, faith schools and non-faith schools. The 6,700 faith schools that exist today will not be affected by what is proposed. What is proposed is a consultation on whether there should be a restriction on free schools—new schools—that are opened with a faith designation. So far, 95 such schools have opened.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the removing of the admissions cap and the explanation the Minister has given to the House. Will she firmly rebut the erroneous idea that these schools fail to promote integration, diversity and cohesion and confirm that they are the most ethnically diverse in the country? In England, 45.5% of their pupils are from ethnic minorities, compared with 37% in the state sector, and 50% of the pupils educated in those schools are from the most deprived backgrounds.
Perhaps I may share with the noble Baroness the work of the Liverpool John Moores University’s foundation for citizenship, which I founded. We saw outstanding examples of schools promoting virtues, values, duties, responsibilities and the wider common good. The Government’s decision to build on those achievements and prevent such schools having to turn away members of their own community is to be greatly welcomed. I know that many in the country will do so.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and echo his remarks about the ethnic diversity in our faith schools. I agree with him that faith schools can and do offer the very important tenets of our major religions including, of course, tolerance.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the rationale behind the proposed change to the state-funded faith schools admissions cap by the Government is in large part, as the noble Baroness has said, to increase the number of school places available. Has the department made any estimate of how many more places will be made available and when? What will the Government do to ensure that school places are established where they are needed most and for families whose children most desperately need the best start in life?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The number of additional places will depend on levels of basic need where there are not enough school places available. The noble Baroness well knows that in some parts of the country we have the opposite challenge at the moment. That also answers the second part of her question; it will be where there are population pressures.
I would like to take the opportunity in answering the noble Baroness’s question to pick up on the second part of the consultation. If agreed, it would mean that faith schools were able to have a faith designation. I know the House agrees with me that we need to move faster to make sure there is provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, Church of England schools will continue our long tradition of seeking to serve the common good and welcoming a huge diversity of people; we are glad to do that. The Minister has spoken about the huge problem of there not being enough special educational needs places. If I have understood this correctly, it means that this will be a new possibility. We in the Church of England would be keen to play our part to help with this, but one issue is the funding available for it, which makes it very difficult to offer. Alongside this announcement, what consideration have His Majesty’s Government given to providing additional funding for those SEND places, which we hope can release more energy into that deprived area?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To be clear, and to avoid upsetting my noble friend Lord Baker one more time, the changes we are proposing in relation to special schools will not affect eligibility. Eligibility for a place in a special school will be dependent on a child’s education, health and care plan. The Government fund all the capital costs associated with developing a new free school. The funding is provided through the local authority for children with an education, health and care plan.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, should we not be proud that the new schools that we have opened since 2010 include Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faith-based schools, which were the first in the country, as well as additional Church of England schools? Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in line with previous suggestions for changing the admissions arrangements for new free schools, what is proposed is just that the admissions criteria that apply to existing Catholic schools will be the same for a new Catholic free school? There will be no change to the admissions policy for Catholic schools; it would just be the same policy across the board.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will know that we are developing, one hopes, a successful, multicultural society, with children of different faiths and none having the opportunity to learn and work and play together. Does she not think it important that in all our faith schools there should be children of different faiths?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The vast majority of our faith schools have children of different faiths. It is typically only in schools for the smallest-minority faiths that one has a concentration of children of those faiths. This is a longer debate that I am happy to have with the noble Lord, but parental choice is fundamental. We are very pleased to see the volume of activity that faith schools undertake with other faith schools of different denominations.
Israel and Gaza
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what representations they are making to the Government of Israel in light of a potential new offensive by Israeli forces, and (2) what humanitarian aid and support of essential services they plan to provide to the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we want an end to the fighting as soon as possible. Well over six months since Hamas’s terror attack against Israel, it is appalling that hostages are still being held. Too many civilians are also dying in Gaza, and this weekend Hamas rockets killed four IDF soldiers and injured others. As we have said, the fastest way to end the conflict is to secure a deal which gets the hostages out and allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. It is then that we must turn that pause into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire.
Regarding the situation in Rafah, our position has been consistent. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military incursion, given the number of civilians sheltering there and its importance for delivering aid. It and other crossing points, including Kerem Shalom, must be reopened quickly to allow essential aid in. Israel must facilitate immediate, uninterrupted humanitarian access in the south, including for the entry of fuel, and ensure the protection of civilians and safe passage for those who wish to leave Rafah. As yet, we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians.
We are following closely the latest developments around hostage talks and, at this stage, while events are still shifting quickly, we will not provide a detailed running commentary. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we want a deal agreed that will ensure the release of hostages and a pause in fighting. A generous offer was on the table last week, proposed by Egypt and accepted by Israel. We need now to see Hamas also accept the viable deal so that we can start building the momentum towards a permanent, sustained ceasefire. In parallel, we will continue to push as hard as we can to get much-needed aid into Gaza via vital land routes alongside sea and air to alleviate the suffering. Israel has now committed to significant steps to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. We now need to see this turned into action to ensure that aid actually gets over the border and is safely and properly distributed. I—
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. My concern is with the immediate humanitarian crisis facing civilians in the Gaza Strip, with Israeli forces now in control of the southern border crossing. What representations have His Majesty’s Government made about getting more fuel, food supplies and medicines in? Are there any other avenues by which we can get aid into the country to alleviate the immediate suffering?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I seek the House’s indulgence. The reason my Answer was slightly more lengthy is that it has been a very long working weekend on this and I wanted to give details. In answer directly to the right reverend Prelate, I say that we are imploring Israel to ensure that the crossings that were shut are opened immediately, including in Rafah. Noble Lords will know that the southern border on the Palestinian side is currently controlled by the IDF. My noble friend Lord Cameron had a conversation with the President of Israel this morning, and just a little while ago I also had a conversation with the chief negotiator of Qatar.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has made the case: there should have been a government Statement today on this subject and we should have had more time to discuss it.
I ask two basic questions. Does the Minister not think that an attack on Rafah presents a clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law? Can he confirm whether he or the Foreign Secretary have received any assessment—not legal advice, but any assessment or policy advice—from FCDO officials that the threshold has already been met? We need a clear view on that. This changes things dramatically. Also, as the right reverend Prelate said, aid is surely important. When will the Government resume funding to UNRWA? There is an immediate and urgent need for it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, there were two reports set up by the Secretary-General. One—the Colonna report—has reported back; the other oversight report is being reported shortly. As the Prime Minister said, those will be reviewed. I accept the principle, as I have said repeatedly, of the important role UNRWA plays, particularly in Gaza. On the earlier point, of course this is evolving. We are receiving regular information. I have already made the point about the importance of the escalation into Rafah on a number of occasions. It needs to be immediately resolved, because there are now 600,000 children in Rafah—almost 50% of those in Rafah are children. We need to ensure their safety and security and at the moment, as I said earlier, we have not been reassured at all about any detailed plans on where these people will move. Mawasi is pretty barren land, but that is being suggested as a place where they may shelter.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Israeli Defense Forces advising 100,000 civilians, the majority of whom will be women and children, to move to a so-called humanitarian zone where there will be no support for food, shelter, medicine or security is a breach of international humanitarian law? Further, does he agree that, given the fact that the World Food Programme’s executive director said on Sunday that there is now famine north of Gaza, for the IDF to refuse entry of UNRWA staff to provide life-saving assistance is also a breach of international humanitarian law? Has the Foreign Secretary communicated that to the Israeli Government? What actions will the UK Government take, as it is a fact that there is no justification for the UK to replenish licences for military equipment and arms to the Israeli Government, given the situation? What are the consequences for the warnings that have been provided by Ministers, including that of the Foreign Secretary to me on 12 March? There is very little point in having a conversation if there are no consequences for actions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the issue of consequences for actions, we have raised a number of concerns directly with the Israeli Government. I am sure the noble Lord saw, for example, on the issue of settler violence, that specific sanctions were issued on Friday, including against key settler organisations. These were a direct response. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are making representations. Israel is a friend but, at the same time, the candid nature of our friendship means that we will not desist from action, as we have demonstrated. On the noble Lord’s earlier points, of course we are keeping all elements of our policy under review. What is really important, as I tried to get across earlier, is that we should be unrelenting in ensuring that aid reaches where it should and that there is a cessation in the fighting immediately. There is a deal on the table and I assure all noble Lords that we are working strenuously on the UK side in diplomacy to make sure that it becomes something that can last and be sustainable.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister has recognised, it is vital to remember the hostages. Does he share my disgust that, after seven months, Hamas is still holding 133 hostages—some of them elderly, some of them children, all of them detained no doubt in appalling conditions—and using them as a bargaining chip in flagrant breach of international law? Will the Government redouble their efforts to do all they can to secure the release of these unfortunate people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I give the noble Lord that assurance. I have on a number of occasions, as have the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, met directly with hostage families—sadly, I would rather I did not have to meet with them on a weekly or fortnightly basis. We give that added assurance, and have seen the real emotion gripping the streets of Tel Aviv and elsewhere. It is time to bring the hostages home, get the aid in and stop the fighting.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, we are very near to the prospect of aid being delivered by sea once the Americans have finished the construction of the quay that they are undertaking. Have the Government made any progress in reassuring us about the orderly and safe distribution of aid by that route when the quay is ready? What is their present position on direct British involvement, including the use of British troops if necessary, to work on proper distribution of that aid to the people we hope will be able to receive it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise the maritime route, and I assure him that we are involved in all elements of that process. We were involved in the initial call for that route, and there are developments under way. On the issue of safe distribution within Gaza—that is the key component of this—we want to ensure that we do not see the tragedies repeated against those agencies working on the ground that we saw with World Central Kitchen and other UN agencies, where workers were directly in the line of fire and were killed. They have the expertise. We are looking at all the dynamics on the best way to support the British operation in this international effort. As details evolve, I will share them with your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Government repeatedly said that the invasion of Rafah should not happen and that it was a red line, as did the Americans. That invasion has already started, with casualties resulting from families constantly being bombed. As my noble friend pointed out, the place where the Israeli Government say they will evacuate 100,000 people—mostly children—to is not fit for human habitation. I know that the Minister is working extremely hard on this—I have enormous sympathy for the work he is doing and pay tribute to him—but conversations do not seem to be enough. What other action can the British Government take? They have been very silent over the weekend; I did not hear or read any statements from the Foreign Secretary.
Furthermore, do the Government support the work of the ICC, the ICJ and the chief prosecutor, who is a British subject and is facing threats to himself and his family from Republican senators? I am glad that international law has been cited on this Question because the ICC is trying to uphold international law. Are we expressing our support for international law at any of the international courts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s earlier point, I have spoken proactively about the deep concerns. I know the lay of the land on Mawasi regarding the proposal to move. There are 1.4 million people in Rafah—the size of Westminster or thereabouts—and how to move quickly when almost 50% of them are children is why we have called for compliance. IHL has been mentioned and that is part and parcel of this.
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, the United Kingdom is a long-standing supporter of international courts. They act independently, and their role in the application of the rule of law is important.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the quickest way to get aid in is to get the hostages out, the quickest way to get the hostages out is to have a sustainable ceasefire, and the quickest way to have a sustainable ceasefire is for Hamas to agree to the generous terms which Egypt has proposed and which Israel has already agreed to?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend has articulated the Government’s approach extremely well. That is exactly what I assure all noble Lords that the Foreign Secretary and I are working on.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, on the topic of international law, will the Minister remind Egypt of its obligations under the refugee convention to accept such refugees as make their way across the border, rather than beating them back? Will he also set aside the misguided, misinformed statement by—shamefully—some former members of the Supreme Court that it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide? That allegation must be put to rest.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the second point, the Government’s position is well known: genocide determination is a matter for the courts. We remind all sides, including partners, friends and allies in the region, of the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law obligations.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My noble friend the Foreign Secretary set out five objectives—which I fully agree with—one of which was the elimination of Hamas from Gaza. I went to Kerem Shalom twice, once before 7 October and once after. Many of the people we met before 7 October who were delivering aid to Gaza have been killed by Hamas. The people who were left told us that one of their biggest problems was distributing aid because it was being taken by Hamas before it could be distributed. Do His Majesty’s Government still have the objective of the elimination of Hamas from Gaza?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s position has always been that we need all sides who come to the negotiating table to recognise the other side’s right to exist. Therefore, we have been very clear as part of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary’s conditions, and as my noble friend Lord Leigh has laid out, that Hamas can no longer be in control in Gaza.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, have the UK Government seen any evidence that the Israeli authorities have put in place serious provisions to ensure that the Palestinian refugees in Gaza are being protected? If they do not see any such serious evidence—the Minister mentioned that he looked for it—what action will they take?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have already answered the first question; we have seen no credible plan as to where people would go. I assure the noble Baroness that we are pressing the Israeli authorities to ensure that their obligations in this regard are fulfilled if the full-scale Rafah operation goes ahead.
Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 7th May 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Tuesday 7th May 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (2 May 2024)
Lord Verdirame
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may include descriptions of considerations (including disregard thereof) to give effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide for a clearer way of implementing the international law exception in paragraph 6 of Part 2 of the Schedule.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to move the first amendment in this group, Amendment 18 in my name, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It must be read together with Amendment 29, which is also in this group. I shall speak to both of them together. These two amendments deal with the problem arising from the international law exception at paragraph 6 of the schedule.
A number of noble Lords highlighted this problem at Second Reading. In my speech, I referred to the opinion on the Bill by the Richard Hermer KC. I disagree with certain aspects of his opinion, but I agree with his analysis of the effect of paragraph 6 of the schedule. As he put it, a breach by the UK of an unincorporated treaty does not normally give rise to a claim under domestic law, but paragraph 6 of the schedule provides a domestic law foothold for such claims on a virtually unlimited basis. Unless the paragraph is amended or removed, the consequence will be that, contrary to the purposes of the Bill, local authorities, for example, will make their own determinations about UK compliance with international law obligations. If there is a dispute about the correctness of the position they have taken, that dispute will be decided by our courts.
We do not normally implement international law obligations on such an unspecified and broad basis. What we generally do is give effect to specific international law obligations in a manner that is clear, and thus consistent with the rule of law requirement of legal certainty and clarity. There are countless examples of this approach, from the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 to the Human Rights Act. In essence, what happens is that the implementing legislation identifies specific provisions in a treaty that are to be incorporated in domestic law, and sometimes those provisions will be listed in a schedule to the Act. The legislation will then create special rules or mechanisms that Parliament considers are required to give effect to those international law obligations. Examples include the declarations of incompatibility under the HRA and Foreign Office certificates under Section 4 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
Paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Bill does not do any of that. It purports to import the entirety of international law—potentially all treaties, whether incorporated or not—in every rule of customary international law, and invites decision-makers to consider for themselves whether their decisions will be compliant with any such international law. It is an inherently uncertain and unclear provision. Moreover, the international law obligations that might be relevant in this field are contested and unsettled.
This is particularly the case for international legal rules on the duties of third parties vis-à-vis a serious breach of peremptory rules of international law—most notably, Article 41 of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility provides for three very general obligations for states faced with a serious breach of international law by another state. Those obligations are non-recognition, non-assistance and co-operation; but whether this rule entirely reflects customary international law and what it specifically requires of a state are not settled.
Public bodies would also have to determine for themselves whether they can avail themselves of the international law exception. That too requires a complex international law analysis. Whether an entity is a public body under domestic law is, of course, a question of domestic law, but whether the conduct of that body is attributable to the state on the international plain is a question of international law. Universities might be an example of public bodies under domestic law—we have been discussing that in previous debates on this Bill—but it is not the case that the conduct of a university would ordinarily be attributable to the state as a matter of international law.
The amendment that we propose would maintain the international law exception but add clarity to it by ensuring that regulations are adopted to include descriptions of considerations, including disregard thereof, to give effect to the UK’s obligations under international law. There may be a better formulation than the one we propose, but in essence the idea is to replicate the manner in which we have given effect to international law obligations that have not yet come into existence: for example, those that may arise in the future under decisions of the Security Council.
An example of this power is in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It creates the power to make regulations for purposes of compliance with UN obligations and, more generally, for the purpose of compliance with any other international obligation. What happens in practice is that the Foreign Office lawyer, together with the Attorney-General, will consider the specific international law obligations that have arisen and then contribute to the drafting of clear, specific and precise regulations to give effect to those obligations. To be clear, the power that we are proposing will not, of course, replace the power in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. It would be in addition to that.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, take the view that that power in paragraph 6 may not be needed and could simply fall away. Our proposal is a compromise that reflects the reality that this is a sensitive area and we thought that embedding in the Act a power to make regulations for purposes of complying with international law may, in this context, be useful. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 28 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for adding his name. I should first say that I am in complete agreement with the thoughts that lie behind Amendments 18 and 29, to which the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has spoken so eloquently.
My Amendment 28 is simply a more direct way of dealing with the same problem. It deletes paragraph 6 of the schedule in its entirety, so that public authorities cannot use international law considerations as a means of avoiding the effect of Section 1 of the Bill. Public authorities are not experts in international law but might well seek to use ill-founded concerns about the UK’s adherence to international law as a smokescreen behind which they believe that they can hide their boycott activities. Put simply, it creates a huge loophole in the Bill.
I tried to compare the Bill with last year’s Procurement Act to see whether the exclusions in the schedule to this Bill are the same as the mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion in the Procurement Act. This was not easy, because it is clear that two completely different sets of draftsmen have been involved in the two Bills. However, the one thing that I am pretty sure of is that the Procurement Act did not have an international law exclusion ground, so the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule to this Bill is somewhat puzzling.
I shall comment briefly on Amendment 31 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, because that would extend the range of things that public authorities could look at to breaches of international law outside the UK. Not only is this way beyond the Procurement Act exclusions as well, but it adds yet another loophole, making the loophole as big as it could possibly be in order to allow public authorities to justify boycotts. For that reason, I cannot support it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 31 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I have no observations on the amendments that have just been spoken to.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 disapplies the bar in Clause 1 of the Bill on a public entity, for want of a more precise definition, from taking into account political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct in making procurement or investment decisions in one particular situation. A procurement decision is defined in Clause 2(2) as
“a decision about a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the decision-maker”.
Paragraph 6 applies where the decision-maker reasonably considers that its political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct is relevant to whether the procurement or investment decision would place the UK in breach of its international law obligations. I have no problem with that at all.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I support Amendments 18 and 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to which I have added my name. In view of what has been said in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I can be very short.
Put very simply, the international law exception in the Schedule, as currently worded, leaves entirely to the relevant public body the right to reach its own conclusion as to whether a failure to boycott or a positive decision to make a procurement in relation to the foreign state would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. This is contrary to the Government’s own policy in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes that the obligations under international law relevant to a BDS decision must be determined by the Government and not by individual relevant bodies. As we all know, many aspects of international law derived from numerous sources can be highly contentious. One has only to think of disagreements expressed in this House over the past few years on the proper meaning and effect of the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights to see that that is so.
Paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes states that decisions of public policy about procurement and investment based on political or moral disapproval of a foreign state are permitted only if the decision is,
“positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy”—
I emphasise—
“as determined by the Government”.
The Minister, in response to me on Second Reading, was not entirely consistent in relation to this matter. She said:
“This exception is necessary to ensure that public authorities are not forced to make a decision which could put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. Public authorities cannot have their own subjective views on what constitutes a breach of international law”—
which is fair enough. She continued:
“They must reasonably consider the decision relevant to the UK’s obligations under international law”.—[Official Report, 20/2/24; col. 595.]
Therefore, there is an insertion there of “reasonable consideration” but no reference at all to the Government’s policy stated in the Explanatory Notes that foreign policy is to be determined by the Government and not by individual public entities.
In short, we simply cannot have disputes before our domestic courts about the proper meaning and effect of international law sources relevant to decisions under the Bill going through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court at great cost to the public as well as, of course, to the ratepayers and the council tax payers of the relevant body.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly support the two amendments, one from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the other from my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider carefully the purpose of these amendments.
I completely support the Bill and I am grateful to the Government for bringing it forward, although I recognise that not all noble Lords will be of the same mind as myself. However, I stress that using a test such as that proposed in paragraph 6 of the Schedule, as to whether the decision would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law, is problematic.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment. Not only has he made a very powerful case as a renowned labour rights lawyer, but he has mentioned the question of the Welsh Government’s position, which is something I want to ask noble Lords, and in particular the Minister, to consider. Supposing the Welsh Government faced a decision by the UK Government not to support the steel industry with the support that it needs, we could see the closure of the Port Talbot steelworks, which directly employs just under 3,000 people on wages that are high for the area; indirectly, with the multiplier effect, at least 9,000 workers would lose their jobs, and a whole series of supplier industries would be affected. That would be the equivalent of closing mines in former pit villages, which I experienced as a Member of Parliament in the Neath valley, specifically representing those within the old constituency of Neath for nearly a quarter of a century. Closing the Port Talbot steelworks will be the equivalent of ripping the heart out of that whole area, and, as I have said, the multiplier effect will be devastating. It will be equivalent to closing the mines, particularly in the 1980s and flowing on into the 1990s.
I make that point because, if a steel supplier replacing the collapsed British steel industry was found to have labour standards that were in breach of international law, as my noble friend Lord Hendy has so authoritatively explained, why would—and should—the Welsh Government not have the right to say, “No, we won’t source that steel for infrastructure development”, which the Welsh Government largely have responsibility for in Wales under the devolved powers? Why should they not say, “We won’t do that because of the terrible labour standards, which are out of compliance with international labour law”? Why are they being denied that opportunity? Under this Bill, they will be denied that opportunity, unless the Government are willing to accept my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment.
This is a terrible Bill. I am normally on the same side of the argument as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but this is a terrible Bill, and I will further explain why in the discussion on the next group of amendments. I ask the Minister to consider where the Bill is taking public bodies such as the Welsh Government—and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, which might be in the same position. If this Government allow the Port Talbot steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for the area, particularly employees in Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, it might say, “In any future procurement decisions, we will not source steel from this or that country, replacing the Port Talbot steelworks, because of their labour law standards and their failure to comply with international workers’ rights and other matters”.
I cannot understand why the Government are driving the Bill forward without considering detailed amendments like that of my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that the Minister has not replied yet; perhaps she will surprise us and say, “Yes, I agree with the noble Lord’s amendment”, or, at least, “I will take it away and look at how we might refine it in a fashion that could be acceptable to the Government and which he might be willing to accept”.
I hope the Minister surprises me by doing that but, if she does not, I ask her, the Government and the Conservative Benches to consider where this country is going on such matters. We are not respecting human rights. That is a matter for the next group of amendments, but we are not respecting our international obligations to uphold workers’ rights—conventions, by the way, that we have signed up to as a UK Government. That does not seem a good place to leave this country, and I hope that the Minister, having listened to the speech by my noble friend Lord Hendy, will agree to look at how she might be able to support his amendment, perhaps in a slightly modified form.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declaration of interests. It is exactly from that position that I wish to ask a fundamental question of my noble friend. We spend an awful lot of time trying to get companies not to be complicit with the Government of Myanmar, for example, because of their actions. We are proud that there is a whole series of decent private and public companies that make decisions on those grounds. Are we sure that we should be in a position in which we will encourage public and private companies to make decisions on those grounds but specifically exclude the right of elected bodies—and some non-elected bodies, because they have been designated as public bodies—to make those decisions? I find that a very difficult position to support.
Part of the problem is that we are now in a complex and extremely uncertain area, which is why all the amendments before us are of considerable importance. They say that we are putting public bodies—we are not quite sure what they are—in a position where they do not know quite how they should behave, and we are opening them up to the opportunity of people taking them to court because the decision they have made has not been in conformity with what the plaintiffs suggest should have been their decision in relation to international law. At the same time, we are saying to them that they should not take into account the same things most of us would try to get private companies—and public companies, in that sense—to take into account.
We are getting into a real mess here, and I do not see that this is a carefully written Bill. Indeed, my last point is simply that this is a terribly badly written Bill. I do not know who thought it through. We have now had a series of people taking rather different views—as a matter of fact, I am unhappy about the particular way in which Israel is treated in the Bill. We are all taking different views, but we are all saying that the Bill is so badly written that people will not know how to deal with it.
This is a central concern for this House; we need legislation through which we can explain to people what is happening. If I may say to the noble Lords who put the amendments forward, it took a bit of listening to understand what their problem was, to put it bluntly. How on earth are we going to have public bodies coming to decisions when they have to read that to start with to understand what mess they might be in? I hope my noble friend will help me to understand how this Bill will be simple enough for it, first, to be enforced and, secondly, to be proper. At the moment, I feel it is improper, because it is so badly drafted.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we should get this into perspective. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that this Bill is handling one particular aspect: fundamentally, boycotts and divestment decisions. There is a whole range of law in the Procurement Act, which we passed last year, which sets out the UK’s version of the procurement rules we used to take from the EU—they have been modernised for our own purposes, but they are still hugely complicated.
For a very long time, the Government’s own procurement advice to public bodies was that:
“Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government”.
In many ways, this Bill provides a more liberal approach to that blanket proposition, which was in a government procurement policy note and which has been governing procurement for a long time. We need to see this Bill in context and in the light of the rather narrow area it is trying to deal with.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think this is a rather good Bill, although I agree respectfully with him that these amendments, particularly those on international law, merit careful consideration by the Minister and the Government. I say that essentially for three reasons, and I can be brief.
First, the general approach in this country is that public bodies do not have their own interpretation of international law. It is the Government who assess international law obligations, because they are binding on the United Kingdom as a state.
That leads me to the second point, which might in part answer that made by my noble friend Lord Deben. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to introduce, by the back door, potentially vast swathes of international law into our domestic legislation. As I never tire of saying in this House, we have a dualist system: international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is incorporated. So the answer to my noble friend’s point may well be this: if somebody were to say in a domestic court that a public authority was in breach of “the law” because it had not complied with some international law obligation that was not part of our domestic law, the public body’s obvious retort would be to say that it is not subject to that obligation.
The third point is a practical rather than legal one. My concern is that, in the real world, if the Bill is left as drafted it will in practice drive a coach and horses through what it really seeks to achieve, because the courts will be clogged up with arguments, even if they are entirely unmeritorious, as to the scope of international law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about Richard Hermer KC’s opinion: it is something of a curate’s egg, and I will perhaps come back to that in a later group. But I agree that, on this point, he is absolutely right to sound a note of warning and to highlight that the Bill as drafted risks undermining the Government’s ambitions for it.
I gently invite my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach to this international law question, which we can perhaps come back to at a future opportunity.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee because I did not participate in previous days in Committee or at Second Reading, but as these groups touch on the areas that I speak on from these Benches—international trade and international relations—I want to ask the Minister for clarity on a couple of areas.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that these amendments simply highlight the mess that the Government have got themselves into with the Bill as a whole. The Bill imposes some extraordinary obligations on public bodies, which I presume is the reason for paragraph 6 of the Schedule—it is necessary only because of those extraordinary measures.
Most of the amendments in this group do not deal with the fundamental issue that the Bill is incoherent. Amendment 18, in trying to deal with this issue, potentially gives huge powers to Ministers to profoundly shape or change the nature of the Bill by their powers to set out what should be regarded and disregarded in terms of international law obligations. Amendment 28 pretends that the overall issue with the Bill—which is the reason that paragraph 6 of the Schedule exists in the first place—does not exist. Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is a very bad Bill. These amendments just underline why.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I wish the Bill was specific and addressed the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to boycotts, disinvestment and singling out Israel. The problem with the Bill is that it is wide. It covers all kinds of issues that will place public bodies in a very difficult position. In the debate on this group of amendments, we have senior legal people all saying basically the same thing: this will end up in court. When that fear of ending up in court occurs—when people read a law and say, “This is so complicated that we don’t know what it means; it will end up with us in court”—what happens then? It is the chilling effect. There will be decisions made not in the interest of the public body but on the basis of it not being sure that it is capable of making this decision. That is the important thing.
I support my noble friend’s amendment on extending the exceptions. The Schedule lays out other obligations on public bodies, not least very positive legislation that this Government have implemented on modern slavery, on other international law issues, on labour-related misconduct and so on. They are naturally there because these public bodies have already been told that these obligations are on them. There will be a lot of confusion. I agree with my noble friend’s point about taking into account potential breaches of international law by the UK but not those by other countries in the supply chain. Most of our experience of labour issues is that those supply chains can be incredibly convoluted. You do not know the origin of certain products. We have had debates in this Chamber about the use of cotton grown in Xinjiang by slave labour and being sold in British shops. Companies have decided to find out where that goes.
My noble friend also raised the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013. I remember it well, and I am sure that the Minister does, too, because many of our retail companies were selling products made in factories that were incredibly unsafe and used child labour. That disaster will stay in my mind. The government response at the time was, “There are potential breaches of international law. We will give the ILO extra money to go and investigate Bangladesh so that it commits to its proper responsibilities”. We did that.
The Government in this legislation are saying, “There are all sorts of factors that we can’t take into account—and even if we can, there are exceptions, the Secretary of State has to be involved, and we know it’s going to end up in court.” That is the problem with this legislation. It is not straightforward dealing with BDS. I wish it were. We will come on to that in the other group.
I have been trying to work out at what point I should read out the guidance on the Occupied Territories in Palestine that the Government have issued to companies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, please read it. The noble Baroness is nodding; she has read it. Great. I shall read it into the record, although it may take longer than the 10 minutes I am allowed.
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties … There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.
That is the Government’s advice, recently issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are saying that there is one policy for the private sector and another for the public sector. That is absolutely crazy. There are so many contradictions in this legislation that it beggars belief. I hope that the Minister will think hard about the complex nature of the Bill, and perhaps give it due consideration. I shall not repeat my comments on the next group, but we have often said, “Let’s sit down together and come to a solution that meets the requirements that were set out in the manifesto”. This legislation does not; that is why it is so wrong.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I will address the various amendments tabled in relation to international law. If the Committee is content, I will start by addressing Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. It is a wide-ranging amendment, as some have said, which would allow public authorities to choose not to procure a good, service or works if their manufacture, provision or supply may have involved a breach of international law. Where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government and not a public authority to determine the appropriate response. This amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns and would undermine the legislation.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend is saying that, if a regime controls by force and in the most terrible way the whole economics of a nation, I can advise a private company not to deal with it and remove itself from it, but a public body could not say, “I will not trade with or buy from Myanmar”, unless the Government decide that they will not deal with Myanmar in that sense. I find that morally extremely difficult to take. We are asking private people to do things—I am sure the Government would support that—but we are going to exclude those who are democratically elected or who are looking after, for example, a university. I find that very difficult to take.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are of course dealing with investment and procurement and the public bodies themselves.
Perhaps I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who mentioned the Occupied Territories, which we will be coming back to on later amendments. Although the Government recognise the risks associated with—
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am perplexed by her view that foreign policy is simply a matter for central Governments. Foreign policy affects the population of the UK; it affects thousands of institutions in one way or another. We live, after all, in a global world. We do not live in a completely isolated country with no contact with the rest of the world. Foreign policy is not just something that can be determined and administered entirely by central government without the engagement, involvement and acceptance of those policies by a very large number of public and private institutions and individual members of this country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I note what the noble Baroness says, but the Bill does not change UK foreign policy. That is for FCDO and the UK Government to decide. This applies only to public authorities and to investment and procurement, which I have continued to emphasise, because I think some of the discussion is needlessly wide-ranging—and, if I may, I will now make progress.
The Government, as I was saying, in relation to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, recognise the risk associated with economic and financial activities in the Israeli settlements, but we do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are inherently divisive and may lead to inadvertent negative effects on Palestinians, as well as undermining the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that we speak with one voice internationally. None of this changes existing government guidance.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This is a fundamental point. I have made clear the Labour Party’s position on boycotts. We are talking about investment in factories in illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. What is the noble Baroness saying to a public body that realises that an investment it had has suddenly transferred from Jordan to a factory in the Occupied Territories? Is she saying that that public body cannot say that the investment is in breach? It causes reputational risk and could fundamentally affect the value of the investment, because it is illegal. What is the noble Baroness saying: that we are going to put it in this Bill, come what may, because that is the foreign policy? It makes no sense to me at all. The Government are talking with two voices. The FCDO is saying one thing and this Minister is saying something completely different.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think there is a difference between us and the FCDO. If I may, I will move on to the other amendments, because I am trying, as I always do, to answer the questions noble Lords have asked. There are a number of different amendments in this group, and I think we should look at them in the round. I will turn to Amendments 18, 28 and 29.
I will start with Amendment 28, which is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would remove paragraph 6 of the schedule. She said that was a direct approach. I thank her, more generally, for her support for this legislation and for providing this opportunity to explain why this provision was included in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of the schedule makes an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker in a public authority reasonably considers to be relevant to compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law.
Amendments 29 and 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has explained, would remove the existing exception and replace it with a narrower exception that would only allow public authorities to consider international law in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, in line with regulations made by the Secretary of State. I would like to thank him, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising this matter. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s valuable expertise in this area— of course, they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Wolfson.
There are very limited examples of when this clause might be relevant to public authorities, such as when abiding by sanctions under international law. It is therefore intended as a safeguard. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that public authorities could make their own subjective interpretations of foreign policy that are not aligned with the foreign policy of the UK Government. This exception can only be exercised by public authorities in a way that is “reasonable”. It would be up to the enforcement authority, or the courts, to determine whether the exception was exercised reasonably.
However, I appreciate noble Lords’ various concerns on this matter, including the impact on the courts, and the Government will consider these. We will no doubt return to the international law issue on Report. I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can I press the Minister on that? My understanding is that, under the Bill, in the absence of a Minister or the Government coming to a determination that international law has been breached, a decision-maker in a public authority can make the decision that there is the potential of a breach. Therefore, a decision-making body at the moment, for example—because Ministers are warning the Israeli Government that their actions in the West Bank and Occupied Territories are potentially in breach of international law—would be permitted under Schedule 6 to make a decision not to invest.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understand the noble Lord’s question, but I will reflect on it. We will come relatively shortly to a group that will look at these issues more broadly. If I am able to do so, I will come back to him at that point.
As I have already said, various concerns have been raised, which we will consider. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we value this House’s expertise, as I said at Question Time only last week. The Government will continue to think carefully about the important points that have been made. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The key driver behind our amendments was a concern about clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out. International law is not just a law but an entire legal system, so to say that you cannot breach international law is like saying that you cannot breach Chinese law. The legislative instruction has to be more specific than that. That is the essence of our concern.
I do not think the power we are proposing in my amendments, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would be excessive, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. We have other examples of that in the legislation. As for the Minister’s comment on sanctions, we already have powers in legislation to deal with sanctions, so there would not need to be an international law exception on such a broad and unlimited basis to cover that situation; we already deal with that in our existing legislation.
I thank those who supported our amendments and analysis, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. I look forward to the proposals that the Minister said she would consider bringing forward on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.(4B) A “Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights”—(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights, and(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of a Statement for the purposes of this section.(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1 where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations—the policy would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment and speaking to Amendment 48, I stress that we are very happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and her departmental colleagues to see whether there is a way forward to address the fundamental principle of not outlawing BDS but ensuring that decisions are not simply made to single out one particular nation—and that is of course Israel.
There is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment decisions—we had a lengthy discussion about this in the earlier group —but those decisions must be consistent. We have heard many legitimate criticisms of foreign Governments and many Ministers have expressed concerns. They may not have clear policy, but they have expressed concerns.
In these amendments, which will hopefully have the support of the Government, we are trying to stop people who seek to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards from other countries, question its right to exist and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people, in doing so creating hate and hostility against Jewish people in the United Kingdom. We have seen a lot of evidence of that in recent times and it is completely wrong.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 19, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name. Amendment 48 is focused on a simple question: does the statement of compatibility by the Minister on the face of the Bill comply with the terms of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, or would the Minister have been wiser to make a statement under the terms of Clause 19(1)(b) of that Act?
Just to remind the Committee, the Minister states on the face of the Bill that its provisions
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
It is, of course, possible for Parliament to pass legislation that is not compliant with convention provisions. That is indeed provided for in Section 19(1)(b) of the 1998 Act. But if we adopt that course, we have to fess up to the fact that although Ministers are
“unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.
I recognise that some members of the Conservative Party would find it a badge of honour to flourish a statement of non-compatibility with the Human Rights Act, but I would not have placed the Minister in that group, so I am curious to find out what is going on.
First, however, I must own up to my personal involvement with and attachment to Section 19 provisions in the 1998 Act, when I was a senior policy adviser to the then Home Secretary. At that time, there was a robust debate about whether, despite the sovereignty of Parliament, legislation could be stopped if it breached ECHR provisions. Quite naturally, parliamentary sovereignty inevitably triumphed, but there was concern in the Labour Government at the time that they wanted proper consideration to be given to the ECHR when Bills came to Parliament. With my good friend the late and much-missed Lord Gareth Williams, a distinguished lawyer, Home Office Minister and later Leader of this House, we came up with the idea of a ministerial statement of ECHR compliance on the face of the Bill. That led to the drafting of what became Section 19 of the 1998 Act. This provision was intended to make Ministers stop and think carefully about human rights convention compliance before they introduced a Bill to Parliament.
It is quite difficult to see that this has happened with this Bill. Clause 4 as drafted is a straightforward gagging provision. It stops people openly discussing a full range of possible actions they might take to express their disapproval of an Israeli Government’s continued breaching of international law in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. This places the Bill in breach of Article 10 of the convention—the right to freedom of expression—and therefore in breach of Section 6 of the 1998 Act.
That is not just my view—it is the clear view of Liberty, Amnesty International and many others, including many parliamentarians. People cannot see how Clause 4 can be squared with Article 10 of the ECHR. Liberty has also argued that the Bill constitutes an interference with the rights of freedom of conscience under Article 9 of the ECHR, a view that I think is shared by Quakers, given their beliefs.
In these circumstances, I am at a loss to see how the Minister can make the statement on the face of the Bill that it is compliant with Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. When I consulted the clerk about framing an amendment to delete the statement on the face of the Bill, I was told I could not do that. However, they helpfully suggested that I could insert a provision that after the passage of the Bill, there should be a review of its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 within a given period. That is exactly what Amendment 48 would do, with particular attention paid to compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression. If that review found that the Act was not compliant, the Government of the day would then have to decide whether they would go forward and implement the Act, in contravention of the 1998 Act.
I return to the question I posed at the beginning of my remarks. If the Minister still believes that she has placed the correct statement of compliance on the face of the Bill, I respectfully ask her to share with the House the source of the legal advice that convinced her it was the right thing to do.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, to which I have added my name and strongly support. I will not repeat the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is an important step towards making the Bill more compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I fear that the Minister’s statement on the Bill’s compliance will not pass muster.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, helpfully explained in his opening remarks the extent to which he agrees with the aims of the Bill but not the means chosen. However, his amendment could open a huge back door to councils and devolved authorities doing what they want in relation to BDS activities, because they would only have to dress up what they want to do as a statement of human rights policy. That statement is not even fully defined as regards what is meant by human rights. This could be a massive loophole. At the end of the day, it would still involve public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, in ignoring foreign policy as set by the UK Government. We must not allow ourselves to get away from the fact that that is crucial. We cannot have public authorities setting foreign policy.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness’s diktat position whereby central Government decide the policy and nobody else can have a view. That would undermine the position. It was the thrust of the noble Baroness’s earlier speech that the Minister indicated that it is for the UK Government to set foreign policy on boycotts and sanctions, and nobody else can do anything about it. As I pointed out at Second Reading, that would have made illegal the decision by many local authorities, universities and student unions to boycott products from apartheid South Africa, and I quoted a KC’s legal opinion confirming that.
How can the noble Baroness possibly justify her position, given the history of the downfall of apartheid, which is contrary to what she tried to suggest? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in a very unfortunate speech, tried to suggest that sanctions played no role. No serious student of the history of South Africa agrees with that position. Sanctions certainly played a part. But the boycott decision taken by many local councils, universities and student unions, in particular, among the public bodies covered by the Bill to refuse to source products from South Africa—and indeed, to impose sanctions and boycotts and to support Nelson Mandela’s being freed from 27 years of imprisonment—would have been illegal under the Bill. Why? Because the Government of the day in the 1980s, under Margaret Thatcher, did not support that boycott and sanctions policy. So all those local authorities and churches, including many archbishops, bishops and vicars, supporting those boycott campaigns would have all been acting illegally under the Bill if speaking for public bodies.
I want to speak especially to Amendment 19 and to notify your Lordships’ House that I do not wish to move my Amendment 49, in the sixth group, not least to spare Members hearing a further similar speech from me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the analogies in discussion around the Bill are being pushed too far. The Bill is about procurement and investment. When student unions sit in, they are not doing procurement and investment. It is only when student unions start spending their money in contravention of charity law—to which they are subject—that they may be beginning to breach the law.
The Bill is not about curbing freedom of speech—far from it. As far as the South Africa analogy goes, the point of those sanctions was to bring an end to that particular regime. The point about the BDS movement and sanctioning Israel is not just to change the regime; it is calling for the eventual end of the state—as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, knows, because in the past he has called, in print, for the dismantling of Israel.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I have not called for the dismantling of the State of Israel. I was a Middle East Minister for the Government and conducted diplomacy with the Israeli Prime Minister in 2000, trying to repair the damage from the collapse of Camp David. I support the right of Israel to exist, as I support the right of the Palestinians to have their own state. Please do not misrepresent me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have it in print, from many years ago, but I am glad that it is no longer the case. I can share it with the noble Lord. The analogy should not be pushed that far.
I also note that a group called Muslim Vote, which has put 18 demands to Sir Keir Starmer, has as the 17th demand the throwing out of the Bill, which I think shows what the group understands the point of the Bill to be: simply that it might stand in the way of whatever its aims are in relation to Gaza.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, part of the concern about the Bill is not its narrow scope but that it is extremely broad in its scope. Indeed, it would have a chill effect on decisions made across the country by decision-makers, fully consistent with their human rights obligations. I therefore support the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that it is not possible to define human rights. I think her Front Bench and previous Front Benches, going back a very long time, will disagree with her; the FCDO publishes annual human rights reports. Her disagreement is not necessarily with the Bill but with the Government.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I merely said that it was not defined in Amendment 19.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It does not need to be defined in Amendment 19 because it would adopt the normal practice of human rights, as defined in the definitions at the front of the Government’s annual report on human rights—which I am sure the noble Baroness reads on an annual basis, as I do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, indicated, those human rights reports refer to a separate category of countries, the priority countries, and he named them: the A to Z is Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The thrust of the Bill seems to suggest that, unless the Government, through legislation, put sanctions to limit trade with certain countries, any decision-makers would not be able to make any decisions about investing in that country. That is contrary to current practice with countries from A to Z on the priority list.
For example, other than the sanctions that exist against certain elements of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Bill would prohibit a decision-maker in the United Kingdom deciding not to invest in a Taliban state-owned enterprise. That is extraordinary. Under this legislation, a decision-maker would be prohibited from making a decision about investing in a mining or a gold company in Zimbabwe, which has had many concerns over human trafficking and other human rights concerns. That is also extraordinary, because unless the Government have put in trade sanctions, the Bill will prohibit any other decision-making.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I very much support what the noble Lord said about Zimbabwe. He will know that there was a lot of corruption in the Marange diamond mines, with Government Ministers taking a rake-off from those diamonds. We should be boycotting diamonds from conflict zones such as that, or where corruption is involved—there are many other examples in Africa. I very much support the noble Lord’s point. The Bill would stop public authorities doing that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Not only do I agree with him but it goes beyond that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point for me. Where bribery or labour-related misconduct are concerned, unless the Schedule relates to those, and there are general human rights concerns stated in the priority countries list, a decision-maker who uses the priority list—or, indeed, those issues that have been campaigned on, such as blood diamonds as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Oates—would be in breach of law. That cannot be right, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put my mind at rest.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; I am trying to be helpful. It seems to me that it is even worse than he is saying. Clause 4(1) means that a democratically elected person could not even publish a statement saying that, had it been lawful, he or she would have done X or Y. It is not just that they cannot do it; they cannot even talk about doing it, even though they have been democratically elected by much of their population to take action in a moral and ethical way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord as that leads on to my next question. It relates to those who are democratic figures in those countries and, indeed, our country.
As regards this country, my reading of this legislation is that, if I, in Parliament, call on the Government to sanction, let us say, a foreign Government’s Minister, or an enterprise or a body operating in another country—as I have done regularly in relation to the Wagner Group, by calling on British enterprises not to trade with those enterprises owned by the Wagner Group —I would be a person under this Bill whom a body would have to disregard. Not only are the Government seeking the nonsense that decision-makers should set aside due diligence on human rights, they are seeking to neuter parliamentarians raising the very concerns that we have raised on a regular basis.
I remind the Minister why this is so important: on 12 occasions, I had called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, and called on any British enterprises to desist from having any relationship with it, before the Government made the decision to proscribe it. Up until the point that the Government made the decision to proscribe the group, which I supported, I was in contravention of this Bill. I was in contravention of it on all the occasions that I called on the Government to do what I asked them to do, which they then did.
The nonsense of this legislation gets serious when it comes to Parliament raising human rights concerns about other countries. One country on the list is the DRC. A country not on the list is Rwanda. I have raised human rights concerns about the March 23 group in the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC. I am prohibited from calling on any British bodies not to trade with a group that is not currently proscribed by the British Government.
I refuse to be neutered in this Chamber, by this Bill, on raising human rights concerns. The Leader of the House is shaking his head from a sedentary position as to how I might be neutered by this Bill. I am sure that he has read the Bill. I am allowing him to intervene on me to explain why I am wrong in my interpretation of this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am talking about not the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but the Leader. No, the Leader prefers to shake his head and not to intervene. In his absence, I can think of no better deputy than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I will answer the noble Lord’s question: he is not a “decision-maker” for the purpose of this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am not a decision-maker for the purpose of this Bill but, under Clause 1(7)(b) of this Bill, I am considered to be a “person”. A decision- maker making a decision based on what I asked them to do would be prohibited. Now the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Why would I not be considered a “person” under Clause 1(7)(b)?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to waste the time of the House getting into these nitpicking debates. The noble Lord is not covered by this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I do not think that it is nitpicking. I would be considered a person when a body was making a decision based on what I called them to do. I know that I am not a decision-maker, nor am I a Minister of the Crown, nor am I an exempted officeholder, but I would be considered a person calling on bodies to act. If bodies choose to act on what I say, they are currently prohibited under this from acting.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The central point the noble Lord is seeking to make is that he will not be neutered. He would not be neutered because this Bill does not prevent any person seeking to influence a decision-maker. What it will do is prevent the decision-maker acting on those considerations if they are contrary to the Bill. The noble Lord can say what he likes here, in the street or anywhere else. This is a totally futile point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful that Hansard will record the contradictory nature of the noble Lord’s intervention on me, when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the point of seeking to influence groups. Let me turn to why—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am hesitant to interrupt an interruption, but I will. One of the issues we have discussed—it is about Clause 4 as well—is what hat somebody is wearing. For example, a leader of a council might go to a political conference and argue a particular policy. He is a decision-maker but is not performing a decision-making function. The people who might hear his speech at that political conference might think, “He is our leader; he will influence us”, so there is an impact on people being able to advocate particular policies. Is that not true?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think it is. Other noble Lords may think not. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to make sure that this is clear.
I wish to move the Committee on to a specific question about British International Investment. That is a body which receives its funding from government—from the taxpayer—but it is charged with making investment decisions in emerging economies. It operates under its ethical investment policy. It has a toolkit and operates under its own set of compliance rules when it comes to how it defines human rights. It takes international obligations under its co-ordination. That policy is not set by Ministers and is not determined by the Government. It makes its own, independent decisions on which countries it invests in.
British International Investment could choose, under its toolkit, not to invest in any of the human rights priority countries. My reading of this Bill is that this will be prohibited. Unless the Government specifically state that BII should not make investment decisions, BII would be in the scope of this Bill. That would be another very retrograde step for the UK with a development institution such as BII leading the charge on international human rights determinations for investments. I would be grateful if the Minister could state that BII is specifically exempt from this Bill.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not at Second Reading because, as some of you know, I have been away for six months for reasons I will not explain.
The argument goes on from side to side, but the simple answer for me lies not just in the Bill but in the Explanatory Notes on economic activities of public bodies overseas. In the background to this legislation, we are told by those who prepared it that, if people argue that there should be no investment in Uganda—let me just give that as an example, as it is the country I come from—because of a number of human rights questions, the public body should not agree to that if the Government’s policy is different.
I find the Explanatory Notes absolutely disturbing for any democratic body. Many noble Lords know that I led a campaign against Robert Mugabe’s regime. In fact, I cut up my dog collar and never wore it for nine years and nine months. Some people would have said, “You are an archbishop of the Church of England, so you are part of a public body. The Government have not stated that you could do such and such a thing; therefore you will be in breach”. I find this sentence disturbing. There may be those who want, for example, to say that we must disinvest from a particular body, country or place because it is breaching part of our understanding and that sanctions should be brought, but paragraph 6 states:
“The Government has set out its view that it is not appropriate for public bodies to accede to such campaigns except where to do so is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 Election included a commitment to ‘ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.’ This Bill is intended to fulfil that commitment”.
Friends, in a free democracy, should we rule out public bodies that may feel, for example, that they should not invest such an amount of money and have our people working with a Government who are oppressing their people from doing so unless it is consistent with government policy? Sometimes opposition to certain things tells us who we are. I trust, I think because of our parliamentary democracy, that things will be challenged in both Houses but, for heaven’s sake, why impose such a thing on a public body? Are we simply saying that the Government cannot err, cannot turn a blind eye, cannot behave in a way that their citizens may find quite difficult? Some of us campaigned against the South African apartheid Government. At that time, there was a particular sort of Government who did not agree with sanctions. I remember arriving in Cambridge. We wanted to boycott green apples from South Africa. There was no way of doing this, but some of us decided to go to Sainsbury’s and announce as loudly as we could, “We are not buying these green apples from South Africa”. Do you know what happened? We never saw those green apples any more in Sainsbury’s. That is democracy. You cannot ban a public body from engaging in an activity which those who belong to it may feel very strongly about.
The Bill is trying to do something, but it is the way it is drafted. The explanation given has a chilling effect on a lot of us, because it suggests that the Government, of whatever shape, will always get it right, that, somehow, they have become omnicompetent and omniscient, and that there are no areas where because of political pressure they will not do it. I know where the Bill is trying to go, but it needs far greater revision if we are going to protect the rule of law in this country and not suggest that the Government always get it right. Some of our foreign policies have not been good. Somehow, we have spoken. Noble Lords have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about some people from Africa. I find it disturbing that they would think that Ukraine should not be supported because all of them—and I am being honest—are getting a lot of money from Russia and are being supported by China, so any criticism of China and Russia, as far as the African continent is concerned, is very bad, but they will find it very easy to say, “What about Gaza? Why aren’t you doing so much about it?”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will make three short points, the first following on from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. I made the point at Second Reading: I find it really disturbing that the Minister said we must speak “with one voice internationally”. For me, that is not democracy; it smacks of totalitarianism. There is a multitude of voices in a democracy, not a single one.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, finished her speech with reference to a Muslim group that called for the Bill to be thrown out, and she seemed to imply that that meant it was against the State of Israel. There are myriad groups that want the Bill thrown out. Many of us made the same point at Second Reading: we do not think this is a proper Bill, but we are working with it, and what one thinks of it says nothing about one’s attitude to Israel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, called it “improper” because it is so badly drafted.
Thirdly, and going to the substance of the amendments that we are discussing, my noble friend, in effect, held out an olive branch to the Government by taking the Bill at face value. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about the statements of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, but let us take that at its face value. If the Government genuinely believe that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, why should they oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble friend put forward in their amendments? They would strengthen and give substance to the declarations about human rights.
I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to my noble friend, she will take his amendment in the spirit that he put it to her and be willing to discuss whether it is a way forward. Although many of us dislike the Bill completely, we could at least work on the basis of that amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is not my usual role, but I shall be a bit more conciliatory than other speakers. Although I see the Bill as very heavy-handed, almost draconian, and it should never have been brought to your Lordships’ House, at least we have an option now. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, the House can work together. The Minister herself said that she values this House’s expertise. We have not noticed that over the past few years, because virtually everything we suggest gets thrown out. Amendments 19 and 48 would make the Bill less heavy-handed and would mean that public authorities could make decisions of their own when they saw illegitimate human rights abuses. I do not see why anyone would want to reject that idea.
I say to the Government: bring your own amendments if you want to, but, in essence, repeat what we are trying to say here and, perhaps, make this Bill less awful.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will come back to the text of the proposed amendment. I hope it is in order if I use my short intervention essentially to ask the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, a series of questions. Obviously, he need not reply now, but I just wish to understand how this amendment is meant to work. I will leave the broader points to one side for the moment, although I always want to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, with whom I often disagree, remains proudly unneutered in everything he wants to say, here and elsewhere.
As I understand Amendment 19 and the proposed clause, it seeks to enable a public authority to publish policy criteria. Those policy criteria, as we see in proposed new subsection (4B), relate to
“disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights”.
The public authority’s criteria have to do two things. First, as the noble Lord said, they “must be applied consistently” to all countries and, secondly, they must be consistent with the guidance published by the Secretary of State, although we are not helped at all as to what that guidance would, might or should be. So let us assume—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I interrupt the noble Lord? I was going to do it at the end, but it might help the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that this would create loopholes, and the important point I wanted to make is that there is nothing wrong with public bodies taking ethical investment and procurement decisions. The reason there is nothing wrong in that is that the Government advocate it. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, we have the Government’s current national action plan on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights —and by the way, the Minister says in the introduction that the Government firmly believe that
“the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
So we are being consistent here, in this amendment, with current government policy.
My noble friend read it out; I will quickly repeat that, in current guidance, the recommendation of the Government is to
“continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services, taking into account the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives”—
the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned this—
“and Crown Commercial Service guidance on compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts”.
So I am not reinventing something; it is there. We have good policy; let us make sure it is reflected in this legislation.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for setting that out so clearly. It brings me to the question I hope he might be able to pick up later, so that I can really understand how this works. We have a public authority, which publishes a set of policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights. As he has just set out—and certainly implied by what he just said—it would not be required, for example, to adopt the ECHR in full; it could highlight certain things.
What would happen if a local or public authority decided to say, “We are not going to disinvest or have a policy of disinvesting from countries which do not, for example, allow gay marriage; we will not have a policy of disinvesting from countries that discriminate against women, but we will have a policy, which we will apply consistently throughout the world, of disinvesting from countries that are in control of occupied or disputed territory”? Under the noble Lord’s approach, would that be permitted?
Lord Shipley (LD)
Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? This discussion is extremely important, because I do not interpret Amendment 19 as the noble Lord is interpreting it. He says that there could be a statement, and it would have to be applied consistently to all countries. But the amendment also says that it must be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has not mentioned the fact that guidance to underpin what a local authority was doing would be in place.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Forgive me, but I think I did mention the guidance right at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, I made the point that I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, had identified what that guidance would, should or might contain—so I think we are on the same page.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I did, at the beginning, when I moved the amendment. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did not refer to my opening remarks when I moved it. I made it absolutely clear that there is a difference between a public body having an ethical investment and procurement policy and an organisation which, as some individuals are trying to do, seeks to target Israel alone, and have standards for Israel that are completely different from those for other countries. I made that absolutely clear.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
To be absolutely clear, my question, which I hope the noble Lord will pick up when he responds, is this. My putative public authority has a consistent policy, which it applies consistently to all countries around the world, of not disinvesting merely because a foreign country does not allow gay marriage, or treats women in a discriminatory fashion, but of disinvesting when a foreign country is in control of occupied or disputed territory. Would that be permitted, or not permitted, under the noble Lord’s amendment? I look forward to his answer in due course.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there are a couple of observations, one of which has been rather lost in the debate. The first one has not. I merely make the observation that I am increasingly concerned by the concept that the implementation of legislation could be at the discretion of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—whether it is run by Robin Cook, or the noble Lord, Lord Hain, or the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, or Ernie Bevin.
There are different flavours of Foreign Office, but my observation of the Foreign Office over the years is that it often manages to face two ways at the same time. Indeed, it might well regard that as a key part of the art of diplomacy. One can therefore read into Foreign Office policy almost anything one wants to do at any one time. The Foreign Office often makes quite a virtue of presenting a particular side to one group of people and another side to another group of people. However great those running the Foreign Office of the day might be, they are liable to change in the future. So I question whether that, as a basis for legislation, is sensible.
The key point I want to make is one that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I understood him, at the beginning. Governments come and go. There will be a general election. Who knows who will be in power after that? There will be another one after that, in however many years—perhaps five years. Who knows —and who knows who that Government will be? There will be different flavours of government—but legislation, unless it is altered by Parliament, will remain.
The question of double standards in foreign policy is a fundamental part of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism—a definition that was adopted first by the United Kingdom, in 2017, before any other country, but which has now been adopted by many countries. Pertinent to this debate is the fact that it has been adopted by virtually every political party represented at Westminster, including the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Within it, the concept of double standards against the State of Israel, judging the State of Israel in ways in which one would not judge any other state, is rather fundamental. It is there, I guess, particularly because of what people have said, for example, in the United Nations. I am not talking about the legitimacy or otherwise of any specific United Nations vote or decision, but what one can objectively demonstrate is that there has been a huge number of decisions relating to the State of Israel, far outweighing, usually, every other country in the world put together. That, I think, could rationally be argued as therefore being a double standard in approach—of unduly concentrating on one member state of the United Nations and not being equal handed. The IHRA definition is quite specific that that should not happen, which is not the same as to say that one should not be vehemently critical, if one chooses to be, of the State of Israel, its Government or its policies. Many people are, including many people in the Israeli Knesset. It does not state that that is in any way illegitimate or anti-Semitic, but it does say that double standards should not apply.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, as we speak, the double standards are in operation on many campuses in this country, where there are sit-ins in relation to one country but not, for example, in relation to Russia. As a footnote, I would like to substantiate, in case there is any doubt, what I said earlier in relation to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to Israel. In his article in the Guardian in 1976, when he was a young man, he says it twice. It concludes:
“The present Zionist state is by definition racist and will have to be dismantled”.
I just clarify that that was his article in the Guardian.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Since this has been raised—and I am not sure who I am intervening on—that was a long time ago. I do not withdraw the fact that there are many features of the State of Israel of which I am critical, not least in its dual citizenship law, where certain citizens are regarded as full citizens and others are not. That is a racist thing to be practising—but the noble Baroness suggested that I was questioning the right of Israel to exist. I have not done that, and I do not believe that, and she should not suggest it.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, to bring us back to Amendment 19, I thought it was a probing amendment—but it seems that perhaps it is a serious one, given the endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, so let us think about it. I am querying it only because, if it comes back, it might allow the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to refine and consider it further.
I would add to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. For example, let us assume that there is an egregious gay rights violation in some country, and a local council gets very agitated about it, responds to pressure and announces that it will no longer do business with, or procure works or services from, this country, because it abuses gay rights. Under this amendment, it would then have to apply that to every country that does not fully respect gay rights, so if it wanted to buy product from the Middle East then the only place it could go to would be Israel.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this has been an extremely helpful debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, identified, there is a conundrum in the Bill. The Minister may wish to reflect on the discussion that has taken place. She said after the first group that she valued the expertise of this House and would go away and think about how the Government would respond. I took that to mean that they may make changes on Report, which is theoretically likely to come in about three weeks’ time, but may take longer.
I have concluded, having listened to so many opinions—I am not a signatory to Amendments 19 or 48, though I have huge sympathy with them—from my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, that it would be useful if the Minister would consider trying to bring all those opinions together into one place to talk further. That is the only way in which progress on this Bill will be made.
I think that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, say that you cannot have local authorities setting foreign policy. I do not think local authorities want to do so, are doing so or have any ambition to do so. However, they are concerned about human rights and doing the right thing in their procurement and investment policies. Nevertheless, the issue must be discussed.
I took Amendment 19 to mean simply that a statement of policy relating to human rights would need to be considered by those seeking procurement or making investments, and that the statement may not single out individual nations and would therefore have to be applied consistently, as has been confirmed. However, it would have to be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. I find the concerns we have been hearing against Amendment 19 unfounded. The only solution I can see to this is that the offer made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should be taken up by the Minister. It would be really helpful if that could happen, because otherwise the passage of the Bill on Report will get more and more difficult.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I invite the noble Lord to look at proposed new subsection (4D) because, with the greatest of respect, it is not correct to say that the policy would have to be “in accordance with” the Secretary of State’s guidance. The amendment says only that they must “have regard to” the Secretary of State’s guidance. This is not nitpicking; there is a really important distinction in law between having to follow guidance and merely having to have regard to it. That is one of the reasons why I was asking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, those questions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I understand the noble Lord’s point. I am quoting from the Member’s explanatory statement which is part of Amendment 19 in the Third Marshalled List of Amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships’ Committee after so many questions asked of my noble friend the Minister. But I am the Minister representing His Majesty’s Government on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh for refocusing the House on these two amendments. I will answer as many of the broader questions as I have time for after addressing these myself.
Let me begin with Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of the Bill’s compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within six months of Royal Assent. As my noble friend the Minister has set out, the Bill will apply to public authorities as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In the exercise of their public functions these bodies do not have their own rights under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, including under Article 10. The Bill does not apply to individuals and their private functions; therefore, it will not infringe on any individual’s rights under the ECHR.
As for the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about compatibility, the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Minister has signed a statement of the Bill’s compatibility with ECHR rights. On sharing legal advice, His Majesty’s Government do not share legal advice, but we do act on it.
Nothing in the Bill goes against the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban will apply only to bodies that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998—
Lord Warner (CB)
With due respect to the Minister— I am sorry to interrupt when he is keeping to his script—the point I was making was that the certificate that the Secretary of State or Minister signs on the face of the Bill does not just cover the actions of public bodies, it covers all aspects of that particular piece of legislation. I am arguing that there are parts of that legislation that make it impossible to sign with good heart that compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—and, indeed, the Human Rights Act 1988. It is not just the issues around public bodies, it is about the totality of that piece of legislation being compliant. I gave some examples where it was not compliant. I am very happy to meet the Minister to give him another half a dozen in which it is not compliant. I was asking which legal Minister signed off this as compliant with the Human Rights Act.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My noble friend the Minister has signed the statement of the Bill’s compatibility and is comfortable with that. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to share his specific concerns further to this, I would be happy to look at them.
The Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR. My noble friend the Minister, on bringing this legislation to the House, confirmed that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
Let me now turn to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. His Majesty’s Government appreciate the offer of co-operation and a meeting. We would certainly take him up on that very generous offer to hear out his concerns further. Amendment 19 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of such statements to which public authorities would be required to have regard—a significant word, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Why is British International Investment singled out as a body which is able to operate its own independent human rights impact assessment for where it chooses to invest, while other decision-makers cannot?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will need to write to him on the specific case of BII, as I do not have the details to hand.
In answer to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Bill is fulfilling a manifesto commitment to prevent BDS influencing public authorities in undermining community cohesion, which is why Israel is named in the Bill and why there are currently, as I believe, no exemptions. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are intending to add exemptions under statutory instrument following the passing of the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We are going to address the issue in the next group, so I am reluctant to make this point, but it is not just Israel that is listed in the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I apologise for my error and take the noble Lord’s correction. I have tried to focus my comments on the amendments and the arguments put forward today. I am conscious that there have been a lot of very important points made and a lot of questions asked. I have tried to answer the ones that I can, and I will write to noble Lords where I have not picked them up.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This has been an incredibly useful discussion and debate, but this is not a probing amendment. It is an attempt to bring two sides of the House together. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that we oppose the BDS campaigns we have seen. I do not accept them. They are very damaging. I think I made the point that they have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards, question its right to exist—which is wrong—and equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, in doing so creating the very hate that my noble friend raised.
To be honest, I feel as if I am in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that there are loopholes, but this is not a restrictive, confined piece of legislation, dealing with BDS campaigns specifically. It has much wider implications. Everyone keeps talking about public bodies making foreign policy. No one questions the right of the Government to make foreign policy. The Government’s duty is to speak for the whole country on foreign policy —no one doubts that—but the Government have placed a duty on public bodies to have ethical human rights considerations in their investment and procurement policies.
We will come on to it in other groups, and I know we keep raising these things, but the sad thing is that the Bill damages our foreign policy. It will implicate us in undermining the very resolutions that we have tabled and supported at the United Nations. That is why we are so concerned, and that is why this amendment, far from giving public bodies the responsibility to decide on foreign policy, agrees with this Government when they speak about—I will quote again, because I think it is really important—
“belief that the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
When it comes to the statement that a Secretary of State may produce as guidance, is it that public bodies “will have” or “must have” regard to it? I have had many debates on previous legislation about what that might mean, particularly over codes of practice, as the noble Baroness knows, so I am happy to enter into legal dialogue about what that means. It is not unusual to require public bodies to follow that sort of guidance, and we can come up with words for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked questions about the Occupied Territories. We have an existing policy on the Occupied Territories, so if a public body says it will not invest in the Occupied Territories, that is in accordance with the guidance issued by this Government. If it says it is going to ban any investment in Israel, that would be in breach of the code or whatever guidance, because we are against singling out Israel.
Somebody mentioned gay rights. I have been a campaigner for global gay rights for many years, and one of the things I have resisted doing is advocating blanket boycotts because I know that, where we have investment and contacts, the leverage, guidance and engagement we can have can make a big difference. We have changed people’s attitudes through that. The problem with blanket boycotts is that they have the complete opposite effect.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for, I think, giving an answer to my question. My understanding, therefore, is that the answer to my question is yes. The public authority could make the distinction that I identified. In other words, under this amendment a public authority could refuse to trade with Israel on human rights grounds but could none the less trade with Saudi Arabia. That would, as I understand it, be the consequence of the argument. Have I understood correctly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
No, the noble Lord is not right. That is not what I said. We have guidance about specific investment in the Occupied Territories. That is what the Government issue now. Why is that so confusing?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
What, then, is the effect of proposed new subsection 4B(b) if not a blanket ban?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We currently have guidance on human rights and investment decisions. On other groups of amendments we will discuss the whole question of environmental, social and governance issues. When a public body is taking into account investment decisions, as a private company would, it takes into account those sorts of policies. We will come on to pension schemes in a later group. The problem we have at the moment is that this debate is on BDS but we are actually talking about ethical investment policies. No one is concerned about those issues when we have general debates about procurement and ethical policy. This comes down to specific targeting campaigns that are not to do with human rights.
I strongly defend the right of Israel to exist. I strongly defend the right of Israel to defend itself. Those two things go together. If a campaign of BDS is saying that Israel occupied territories in 1948—many of these campaigns talk not about 1973 but about 1948—I do not agree with that. Israel exists and has a mandate to exist. We must respect that, and I strongly believe in it. But when we come to human rights and investment policy decisions, the Government are more than capable of giving guidance on that, because they do so at the moment through the UN guiding principles, the Modern Slavery Act and all the other things that we have done. The Procurement Act even has paragraphs in it as well. So it is not impossible to have the sort of guidance that we are advocating in this amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I simply say that the noble Lord has criticised the wording and language of the Bill quite specifically. If this amendment is to be presented at a later stage, proposed new subsection 4B(b) does not work because it is a blanket ban.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am more than happy to discuss the wording of this amendment and this proposal. We are not advocating blanket bans. There must be a reason for a ban. The FCDO issues a list of countries that have human rights issues—some, such as North Korea, have very clear issues—but they are not all countries where you would ban engagement or investment, or say, “That’s the end of the road”. An ethical investment policy needs to look at a range of issues—basically, the ESG issues that we will come on to in later groups. I do not want to go through them now.
Lord Warner
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, despite the last debate, this amendment brings us to the heart of what I regard as a misguided Bill: Clause 3(7), which effectively provides the State of Israel with a considerable, unique protection, almost in perpetuity and certainly until new legislation is passed to overturn it. I will make three main points to justify the changes to this provision.
First, the primary justification for this extraordinary legislation is that boycotts, disinvestments and other such campaigns not only undermine UK foreign policy but lead to
“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”,
in the words of the departmental press notice launching this Bill. Yet, many groups in the Jewish diaspora have said that the Bill will not combat anti-Semitism. The Government’s claim that it will has been convincingly challenged by evidence produced for parliamentarians by the organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Its evidence demonstrates that the rise in anti-Semitic incidents is
“correlated closely with spikes of violence in Israel and Palestine, particularly with the major Israeli army attacks on Palestinian areas, not with boycott and divestment advocacy”.
It was that formidable campaigner against anti-Semitism, Dame Margaret Hodge, who said in the Commons that this legislation would increase anti-Semitism.
Secondly, alongside drafting a Bill that is more likely to increase anti-Semitism than reduce it, the Government seem to have used wording in Clause 3(7) that is at odds with the UK’s stated foreign policy, because it includes “the Occupied Palestinian Territories” and “the Occupied Golan Heights” in the protection given to Israel. By treating these two areas as part of Israel, the passage of the Bill would seem to mean that the UK is legitimising Israel permanently retaining two large swathes of territory obtained by acts of war. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is unfortunately not in his place, Amnesty International, and others have pointed out, this would mean that the Bill will violate UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which the UK voted for. The resolution declares Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, as legally invalid and a clear violation of international law.
Thirdly, the Government’s claim for this legislation is that it makes it clear internationally that it is the Government who determine UK foreign policy, not protestors or other levels of government. Most people in this country and overseas would assume, then, that when the Foreign Secretary utters on policy towards Israel he speaks for the Government—therefore, they can rely on him to set out the current policy. With this in mind, I draw the Committee’s attention to a piece in the Times on 22 March with the headline:
“Gaza aid held up by arbitrary Israeli denials, says Cameron”.
In that piece, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is quoted as telling the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that it was,
“‘an enormous frustration’ that aid had been ‘routinely held up waiting for Israeli permissions’”.
To make sure that his views were fully understood, the noble Lord seems to have gone on to say that:
“Israel’s ‘arbitrary denials’ of aid being sent to Gaza is now the ‘main blocker’ to providing humanitarian assistance”.
All this on top of suggesting, in February, that the UK could unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the aftermath of a ceasefire.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has accompanied his words with deeds, by imposing sanctions on extremist settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank who have violently attacked Palestinians. He went on to say:
“This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable … Too often, we see commitments made”—
by Israel—
“and undertakings given, but not followed through”.
I found the noble Lord’s views refreshingly frank, and rather similar to my own. However, I also found it difficult to reconcile them with the wording and timing of the Bill.
We are now in a rather bizarre situation. On the one hand, we have Michael Gove bringing forward a Bill to give unprecedented protection to the Israeli Government —I could, if I were unkind, say that Clause 3(7) could have been drafted by Mr Netanyahu and Likud. On the other hand, there is the Foreign Secretary laying into the same Government for blocking humanitarian aid to a territory in which thousands of women and children have been killed or displaced, and are starving, as a result of Israeli military action.
Any responsible public body decision-maker or international observer would be entitled to be confused about what the UK Government’s policy is toward the current Israeli Government. Should people heed Mr Gove’s Bill or the words and actions of the Foreign Secretary, who has actually seen what is going on in Israel and the occupied territories? What would the Minister’s advice be to any confused citizen? Perhaps she and her colleagues might want to further consider accepting my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his Amendment 20, which, as he set out, would delete Clause 3(7) of the Bill. I do so because what is already a very bad Bill is made worse by this subsection. First, it singles out Israel as the only country which cannot be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, even should a future Government decide that such an exemption should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has set out why that is potentially problematic in relation to the IHRA anti-Semitism definition. Moreover, Ministers have frequently argued that legislation should not single out individual countries but rather should apply common principles. Clause 3(7) goes completely against that approach and, in doing so, sets a dangerous precedent. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I seriously doubt that it will do anything to tackle anti-Semitism; in fact, it is most likely to be counterproductive.
Secondly, as we have heard, Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, contradicting long-standing British-government policy and violating UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was co-authored by the UK, voted for by the UK, and requires member states to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As far as I can see—and we have heard a lot about local government and other public bodies not setting foreign policy—the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is promoting legislation that directly contradicts UK Government policy and the UK-authored Security Council resolution as part of a Bill whose declared objective is to prevent public bodies contradicting government policy.
This contradiction of settled UK foreign policy has serious ramifications which Ministers are trying to avoid by pretending that the Bill is compliant with Resolution 2334. At Second Reading in the other place and in response to Dr Philippa Whitford, who asked why the Bill did not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as required by the resolution, Michael Gove stated that
“they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 592.]
His claim is apparently that the separation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between paragraphs (a) and line (b) of subsection (7) satisfies the requirements of Resolution 2334, but of course that is nonsense. The resolution does not call for the semantic separation of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories; rather, it
“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
It is absolutely clear that the “relevant dealings” of the Bill explicitly do not distinguish between the two, because subsection (7) applies equally to them. I hope the Minister will address this issue, because she seemed herself to stray towards this sort of Govian sophistry at Second Reading in this House.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Warner. It is conceivable that the Government’s objective of exempting the State of Israel—I say that carefully, the State of Israel—from the imposition of BDS, which I do not support, could be achieved with different drafting. However, to have introduced it in the way that it is introduced in Clause 3(7) is a mistake, and the mistake is compounded by mixing up completely different things: the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories, which certainly include the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. They should not be treated in the same way. They are not part of the State of Israel in the view of the British Government, though they are in the view of the present Israeli Government. I repeat, they are not in the view of the British Government part of the State of Israel. Within those Occupied Territories—Golan, east Jerusalem and the West Bank—there are internationally illegal settlements. Illegality is another category on which the British Government’s policy is quite clear—just read the Security Council resolution, which has been quoted. Mixing these things up together is, frankly, a solution of disaster. It will just doom this legislation by including it.
I am not trying to suggest that it would not be possible to do something, though I doubt very much whether specifically mentioning Israel is a wise thing in the first place. I agree with the Government that public bodies should not be making foreign policy, but I am not sure that specifying one country out of 194 where they particularly should not be making foreign policy is a very clever way of setting about that. If you took that away and tried to sort out these unhelpfully mixed-up elements, there might be a better chance of this Bill making progress. So long as they are all mixed up together, we will have a cat’s cradle of contradictions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that this Bill will increase anti-Semitism. That is one view. I prefer to observe what is actually happening. We only have to look at what is happening in universities at the moment; we will come on to universities in a later group.
If we look at what has been happening with the encampments that have been springing up in the UK following what has been happening in the US, they are vocally calling for boycott and divestment in relation to Israel—and, indeed, quite a lot worse. This is a very live issue. It is causing much harm on campuses for Jewish students, who are clear that there has been a significant increase in anti-Semitism since this has started. This is not theory; it is actually happening.
Israel is always the focal point for BDS campaigns. The BDS movement itself came into being to attack Israel. I am glad that we are aligned with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the need to protect Israel from those activities. From my perspective, if the Bill does nothing else, it should try to protect Israel from boycott and divestment activities. That is why we need Clause 3(7): it underlines the importance of Israel and the particular attacks on Israel.
I accept that the Occupied Territories raise much more difficult issues. In line with the international community, the UK recognises the settlements as illegal, but the practicalities are that this will not be settled conclusively until there is a two-state solution. This is something that cannot be imposed; it will have to be agreed, but that is unlikely to happen very soon. Anyone who has been to Israel or has been in touch with people in Israel will know that the attacks by Hamas on 7 October have left a traumatised Israeli people, for whom the possibility of discussing a two-state solution seems almost unthinkable at this point in time. That is not to deny that that is the right solution in the long term but simply to say that it does not appear to be an immediate, practical problem.
The reality on the ground is that, in the meantime, the unsatisfactory nature of the Occupied Territories is likely to continue. Even if we thought that boycotts and divestments in relation to the Occupied Territories would punish Israel, this ignores the simple fact that there is economic activity in those settlements. Anything that harms that will almost certainly harm Palestinians as much as it harms the people of Israel. We only have to look at what happened when SodaStream, an Israeli company, was forced to withdraw from its activities in the occupied West Bank. The people who really lost out were the Palestinians who lost good, well-paid jobs when that facility had to close.
On our last day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed me to the FCDO guidance, which I duly went and read; he has read much of it into the record today. The important thing about that guidance is that, although it highlights the risks involved, it does not prohibit anyone in the UK from investing or dealing with those who are active in the Occupied Territories. I believe that this Bill reflects that pragmatic position—that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life—and that, until there is a two-state solution, trying to eliminate it from the Bill does not reflect the practical politics we are facing.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I did indeed read it into the record. Although it did not prohibit investment, it was saying, “Don’t do it. The risks are great. Be aware of those risks and seek legal opinion on them”. We are now debating a Bill that will say that you cannot make a decision based on the advice that the Government have issued.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the FCDO highlighted the risks and said that businesses involved should seek their own legal advice but it absolutely did not say, “and you mustn’t do it”. It is a fact of life that there will be economic activity in the Occupied Territories and that that may or may not involve businesses from Britain.
The only point I am trying to make is that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life at the moment; there is no easy solution and it is probably not a near-term solution. At the point when it is settled via a two-state solution, they will cease to be Occupied Territories, so that bit of the Bill will cease to have any relevance—but, for the moment, it has relevance. The other point I am trying to make is that anything that deliberately harms that is just as likely to harm Palestinians as it is Israeli citizens.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I am puzzled by the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just made. First of all, I do not know why she feels that she can speak up on behalf of the Palestinians or how much time she has spent on the West Bank. I do not think that most of them would agree for one moment with anything she said about the proposal that we should stop, or that including Israel and the Occupied Territories in the Bill would damage the Palestinians. The Palestinians are concerned about their basic rights both to have their own state and to be able to live in what is now occupied by the Israeli Government and the Israeli Defence Forces in the completely different way that that occupation has created.
I am also very puzzled by what she said about anti-Semitism, which is in complete conflict with what was said by Margaret Hodge MP, who has thought about this very deeply—that the Bill is damaging from the point of view of creating anti-Semitism rather than alleviating it. The noble Baroness does not really respond to that point but has made points about what is happening in universities at the moment, which does not seem terribly relevant to this.
However, the point I really want to make is not to address the rather odd speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I want to ask the Minister: what legal advice have the Government taken about including the Occupied Territories in the Bill in the way that they are? I draw the Committee’s attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said: under international law, which we have accepted, this occupation is illegal and the settlements, which have grown and grown, are also illegal. So how can it be that the Government bring to Parliament a Bill that includes the Occupied Territories and does not differentiate them from the state of Israel? The counsel’s advice that I have seen says that to distinguish them is absolutely essential; it is pure sophistry to say that a distinction is made in the Bill and is an untenable view without any legal merit. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
UK Trade Performance
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State’s facts and figures Statement to the Commons last week said nothing new. It was as if one of her advisers had opened up ChatGPT and asked it to cherry-pick statistics and make reference to the Brexit trade bonus, as if that were anything other than a slogan without substance. In some ways, I am not sure where to start. It was, after all, not aimed at us in Parliament or the wider international trade community; rather, it was aimed internally, at the Conservative Party, and the jostling for post-election leadership positions.
Let us take a look at the detail—a proper look at the statistics that lie beneath the facts and figures Statement. Figures released earlier this year by the Office for National Statistics showed that the volume of goods, imports and exports, last year had fallen by 7.4% since 2018—the single largest five-year decline since comparable records began in 1997. In the words of the OBR:
“Growth in UK goods trade … has fallen well behind the rest of the G7”.
While the rest of the G7 saw an average increase of 5% from 2019 to 2023, in the UK we saw a 10% decrease.
I want to share her optimism but I fail to see the success story that the Secretary of State in the other place assures us of. Ed Conway, the economist and data editor at Sky News, pointed out that the document the Secretary of State referred to in her speech fails to adjust for inflation, so in real terms goods exports remain well below the pre-Brexit levels. British businesses, manufacturers and farmers need consistency and leadership, but all this Government have been consistent about is failing British producers and exporters.
As my honourable friend Gareth Thomas MP pointed out when this was debated in the other place last week, the Government’s own figures show that FDI—foreign direct investment—is down by a third since 2016-17. Under the previous Labour Government, the UK accounted for an average 8% of the world’s FDI, but since the Conservatives entered government in 2010 they have managed to halve that to only 4% of world foreign direct investment. Business investment is now lower in the UK than in any other G7 country, and the UK ranks among the lowest in the OECD for investment as a share of GDP. Does the Minister recognise this decline since 2010? If so, what plan does he have to bring FDI up to the levels last seen under the previous Labour Government?
I also found it bizarre that the Secretary of State chose to mention accession to the CPTPP. In our debates and discussions on the CPTPP, we in this House seemed to conclude that the impact on the UK was minimally positive at best. If that is the most we can hope for from this Government, we really are in need of a new one.
In her speech, the Secretary of State made no mention of the Government’s MoU—memorandums of understanding—programme with individual US states. Do the Government now consider them to be a success—I am sure that the Minister will want to point to some of the US individual state MoUs and outline their wins—or have they accepted that they are not substantive Brexit wins but rather, in the words of the FT’s senior trade writer, Alan Beattie, “pointless pieces of paper”?
In conclusion, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Business investment is lower in the UK than in any other country in the G7, and the UK is among the worst performers in the OECD38 for investment as a share of GDP. What steps do His Majesty’s Government intend to take to increase business investment in the UK?
UK exports have grown at a slower rate than in every other G7 country except Japan, far behind Canada, Germany and the US. Many UK businesses want to know what steps the Government will take to support them to export their goods and services. Given that this House has repeatedly been promised an amazing trade deal with India, usually by Diwali—that is, last Diwali—will the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the state of the free trade agreement negotiations with India?
As the devastating news of south Wales continues to come, we have heard next to nothing from the Government on the damage that has been allowed to be inflicted on the British steel industry. Does the Minister still think that spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant and leave us as the first developed country with no primary steel-making capacity is, in the words of his Secretary of State, “a great deal”?
I agree with the words of the Nissan CEO, referred to by the Secretary of State in the Statement, that the UK has
“both great people and great talent here”.
It is a shame that both are being greatly let down by this Government.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as this month we are likely to see the UK economy moving from recession to stagnation, I can imagine that there were briefings in the department a few weeks ago to show some of the trade figures. There will probably be a collective view from Ministers, saying, “We don’t like those facts and figures; bring us some different ones”, so I am grateful for the alternative facts and figures of the state of British trade to be presented to Parliament.
Unfortunately, as I read the Statement, it had a degree of pathos. It is quite sad that Ministers keep banging on about Brexit, and have not got over some of the grievances they had before and immediately after the referendum. It is rather a pathetic sight to see them making a Statement such as this, with very few people listening.
Many people in some of the key sectors of our economy are looking for action, not rhetoric and Parliamentary Statements. Many of our exporting partners in our key markets are looking for reduced barriers and burdens. I shall come to that in a moment. Primarily our businesses are looking for reduced costs, less bureaucracy and the Government knuckling down to ensure that what has been claimed to be “the world’s best border” actually functions as just a decent one, not one with its processes 20 miles from Dover for likely checks, for whose introduction there has been delay upon delay upon delay.
Any good news about British trade is good news, and I welcome it. I seek the best for our exporting businesses. However, that will not come about through rhetorical Statements such as this. For example, we are told that the UK economy has grown faster than those of Germany, Italy and Japan—without the obvious context that we fell the sharpest and the deepest after Brexit and as a result of Covid. Any recovery at all over that timeframe would be faster. The question is not the speed, but the totality of whether our economy is likely, at the end of this decade, to be bigger than it was before the referendum, or would have been if there had not been a referendum. Every indicator, including the Government admitting this to the OBR, says that on a compound basis, after 4% a year, our economy will be considerably smaller. To say that is not to do down our country; that is just, as the Government might put it, a fact.
The Government have issued a Statement. It would have been useful to have some footnotes with links to the documents. I commend the officials for scouring the UN and UNCTAD, as well as our official government statistics. As the noble Lord said, they have done a grand job of cherry-picking. The UNCTAD trade briefing for the UK shows, for example—this is one indicator—that since 2015 exports are up from £467 billion to £533 billion. That is good, and the Government refer to an increase in exports. What they do not say, however, is that UK imports have gone up much more, from £630 billion to more than £823 billion. The United Kingdom trade deficit in goods has gone up—and not only gone up, but doubled as a percentage of GDP. UNCTAD says that in 2015 it was 1.59% of GDP, whereas in 2022 it was 3.01% of GDP.
The Minister might say that talking about trade deficits is old fashioned, and that our economy is a service-sector economy. However, the trade deficit is very important when we analyse who that deficit is with. It is primarily with China. Yes, that is an indication of the growth in the economy of Asia, but the UK now has the biggest trade deficit with a single country ever in our history. The deficit with China is more than £40 billion. The Minister heard me refer to that.
That puts all the individual references, such as to access to the Mexican market, of £18 million, in perspective. Access to the Mexican market of £18 million is good; I welcome that. But I am more concerned about the fact that the UK has not done a resilience analysis of our key sectors, with an enormous trade deficit of £40 billion—that is £40,000 million—with China. In the context of President Xi visiting Europe, but also Hungary and Serbia, UK trade in the world is now a geopolitical consideration.
The Government have indicated that, as the Statement says:
“We are tearing down the barriers to trade”.
The Minister will probably not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him, and I will not be surprised that he will disagree with me, so we might want to settle with regard to the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, which advises Ministers on this very issue, and its analysis since the period referred to in the Government’s Statement. We can take one example from the 2017-19 Parliament, and I quote directly from the committee. It said:
“For the 2017-2019 Parliament, the relevant government set a … target of a £9 billion reduction in direct costs over the length of the Parliament, however the final position was an increase in costs of £7.8 billion. Similarly, the government has set a holding target of £0 for the current Parliament”—
zero was the holding target for the Parliament we are in—
“but in the first year of the Parliament, there was an increase of £5.7 billion (excluding the very significant impacts of temporary COVID-related measures)”.
This Government have presided over the biggest single increase in business burdens—bigger than any of their predecessors—and the fact that some have been removed, without any reference to the totality of the sum of the 500 referenced in the Statement, is pointless to put in.
My final point concerns what Governments can do to reduce burdens. My noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Randerson have raised repeatedly the increased costs now per British business, of £145 per consignment. This is, I remind the House, “the world’s best border”, and it is a typical cost per business of £100,000 since the new measures have been put in place—but it is also about friction of trade, when it comes to safety and security certificates, customs declarations, evidence of origins of goods, VAT requirements, health certificates and chemical certificates. These are all barriers. I hope the Minister can give an indication now of what the estimated net reduction in British business for trade will be. We have seen that the increase has been £100,000; what is the trajectory down? As I started, British businesses are not looking for boosterism, they are looking for bureaucracy and costs to be reduced and, unfortunately, nothing in this Statement would suggest that they are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their response to the Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place. I am very happy to take the points raised, but I must say that I feel we are living in a slightly parallel universe. Let me try to persuade noble Lords that we are in a very privileged position here in the UK. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world and the fourth largest in the G7. We have just moved to being the fourth-largest exporter in the world, after the US, China and Germany. We are the second-largest exporter of services in the world and we have just moved to be the seventh-largest manufacturer in the world.
Our economy is 80% services and 20% goods. That is where our people work: 80% of our employment is in services; 80% of our exports are in services; 20% of our workers work in manufactured goods, yet 45% of our exports are in manufactured goods. What does that tell you? Our goods are very good. They go around the world and people want to buy British goods. Our manufacturing sector has never been in better health. Everywhere I go, every country I visit, they want to buy British goods. There is a clear understanding now about services, so 55% of our exports are in services and the direction of travel will be that this country will be two-thirds services and one-third goods. What is great about services? We do not need to transport them; they can move digitally. They are usually in sectors that pay higher wages and that is why the workforce in the UK is now skilling up into services and getting higher wages.
Take the OECD numbers that were mentioned and let us just remind ourselves what the OECD said in its 2016 report about Europe, indicating that when we joined what was then the Common Market, Europe accounted for one-third of global trade. In 2019, when we left, it was 16% of global trade and by 2050 it will be 9% of global trade. Therefore, putting aside geography and culture, the British people made a very savvy business decision to tilt to where the trade is. The trade is in the Indo-Pacific. We have just joined this thing called the CPTPP, the trans-Pacific partnership. Last time I looked at the map, the UK was not anywhere near the Pacific Ocean. We could not have got into that deal when we were in the EU: that is 15% of GDP and 40% of the world’s middle-class consumers. It feels like a good place to be.
The OECD report looking forward to 2050 says that the three mega economies will, obviously, be the US, China and India. It sounds as if the CPTPP will be a very interesting fourth bloc to be part of, and we are part of it. Coming out of Brexit, we must remember that that was actually a trade deal. We did a tariff-free trade deal with the EU 27 and now, 41% of our exports go to the EU 27. If we include the Europe 34, it is 49% of our exports. It is still our biggest market, with which we are trading very strongly across both goods and services. The US is 20% of our pie chart, while 30% is the rest of the world, and that is where the growth is. We are tilting to where the growth is, while still being able to trade very successfully with Europe.
Looking at the numbers themselves, our exports are worth £862 billion today. We now have numbers we can actually look at, from 2018 to the end of 2023, so that takes in the most difficult five years we have had in the economy in the post-war era. A number of disruptions happened in that period. We had Brexit, Covid, the war in Ukraine, a massive spike in energy prices, a massive spike in inflation, and massive disruption to supply chains, probably the biggest we have seen since the Second World War.
Let us look into the numbers on an inflation-adjusted basis. From 2018 to 2023 our exports were up 26%, but if we take out inflation, they were up 2%. Basically, that means that we are now just ahead of where we were before this massive five-year disruption happened. Our manufactured goods are down 13%, inflation-adjusted, and our services are up 15%. Thank goodness we are a service economy and that we are able to rely on our services. Manufactured goods are down the world over.
The most interesting stat in the whole pack looks at manufactured goods to the EU 27 versus manufactured goods to the rest of the world. Manufactured goods to the EU 27 in this five-year period were down 13%, inflation-adjusted, and manufactured goods to the rest of the world in the same period were down 13%. There is no difference. There is no difference between our trading of manufactured goods to the EU 27 and to the rest of world. However, our services are up 8% to the EU and up 19% to the non-EU—the rest of the world. We have a pie chart of £860 billion, and 24% of that is manufactured goods to the EU 27. That is the only bit that the Financial Times and the BBC will report on. I am here to tell you that the other 76% is going—we have used the word in this Chamber before—gangbusters, so that must mean that the Government are doing something right to drive the economic agenda forward. Therefore, I can clearly refute the idea that we are in a difficult place. We are actually undergoing a massive recovery post Brexit and post Covid.
We have talked about the trade deals. On our EU exit, we immediately had 65 trade deals that we rolled over from the EU. We have now got that up to 73. What is interesting about the new deals? They are the most progressive in the world. Let us take the Australian trade deal. The EU did not really bother with services; it was fixated on manufactured goods. Now, the Australian trade deal has chapters on services, digital, innovation and digital trade. We have just passed the Electronic Trade Documents Act; we can now send goods around the world without paperwork. We have just sent a bunch of valves from Burnley to Singapore without any paperwork. We are bringing in a single trade window in 2025; instead of filling out 28 forms, you fill one out once and it cascades down through the system. We are putting in place a digital border, which will be the most progressive in the world. It will give us the value of £3 billion over the next five years. Yes, there will be some costs along the way, and yes, we need our borders to be protected, particularly from an SPS point of view. Our farmers think it is an unfair playing field right now and that imports versus exports in agri is not a level playing field. We are putting that in place, and in a very light-touch, careful manner.
Wherever I look in my portfolio, I see good news. If we are talking about world trade, we have these 73 trade deals; that covers 60% of world trade. Our target was 80% of world trade; well, the missing 20% is the USA, which is not doing trade deals with anybody right now, so it is not personal. We are trading very well with the US right now; in fact, our exports to the USA are at record amounts, both services and goods, and it may well be that that is good to continue as is.
Eight MoUs were signed with eight states. If you talk to Andy Burnham, recently re-elected as a Labour mayor, about the MoU with North Carolina and what the northern powerhouse is doing direct with North Carolina, he loves it; he is not talking it down, and he is not complaining about there not being an FTA with the USA. Right now, you can see that what they want in Manchester is a direct link to North Carolina based on mutual recognition of qualifications; it is to do with digital and the direct links he can make between his northern powerhouse and North Carolina. What we are hearing back is, “What a clever thing the UK has done”; we are dealing with individual states rather than getting bogged down in Washington.
If we take that as the missing 20%, we effectively have free trade with 80% of the world’s trade. We are in a very strong position when it comes to business investment; we do not need to go through all the numbers. We know that Alastair Campbell was on record saying that, following Brexit, Nissan will leave. What has it done? It has invested all the more—another £4 billion in its plant in the north-east. Some £2 billion of government investment has been matched by £24 billion from the private sector. Is that not the point of government? The Government are a pump-primer. The Government do not do business; the Government should not be doing business. The Government should be an enabler and facilitator for the private sector to do business. So, £2 billion of pump-priming results in £24 billion of investment; that is a pretty good deal.
India is clearly a big market. Right now, it is only 2% of our exports, but it will be a very big market for us to deal with. We have done 95% of that deal. Guess what? In any negotiation, the last 5% is the most difficult. Right now, India has an election on, so that has stalled at the moment—stalled is the wrong word, so please do not quote me on that; it is awaiting them to come out of purdah. But we have closed 13 rounds and 26 chapters on a whole range of issues with India, which does not really do free trade. What we are doing with India is groundbreaking.
When it comes to steel, we have net zero targets. We all agree on net zero targets, do we not? We must move to the new way of creating steel—electric arc furnaces. We must remind ourselves that we do not have iron ore here in the UK, so in Port Talbot 8,000 jobs are at risk. We have done a deal to save 5,000 and put in place a £500 million package for the other 3,000. I come from Clydeside, where we shut down the shipyards, and we did not have that deal; there was no furlough scheme. Here, a deal is being done with government to work on an industry going through transition—meeting our net zero targets, moving to electric arc furnaces, and saying that we cannot save every job, but we will invest in 5,000 of the 8,000 and work out a plan to help with the 3,000 redundancies. That is a pretty good deal.
I think I have covered most of the points. At the end of the day, the UK economy is the fourth largest in the G7. Our numbers are good, and our forecasts for growth are good. In November 2022, the OBR expected a year-long recession and GDP to fall; in fact, the economy grew in 2023 and inflation has more than halved and is falling fast. That is good for business. We should remind ourselves that, at the end of the day, GDP is a meaningless measure, except for economists. You cannot eat your GDP; GDP is an output. I have yet to meet a business that say when they get up in the morning that they are going to increase their GDP today. I have never met a household that says, “How is your GDP doing today, in terms of your budget?”
We should deal with the fact that, in 2023, people’s real incomes were £1,200 higher than the OBR expected in its March forecast. Real household disposable income per capita is higher today than it was in 2019, when we came out of the EU. In terms of our workforce, 33 million people in our population of 66 million work and produce a tax revenue of over £1 trillion. By increasing the national minimum wage and upskilling our workforce, the number of workers in our economy who are on what was called low hourly pay is now 8.9%. In 2010, that was 21%. Benefits in 2010 were the largest source of income for the poorest working-age households, whereas under the Conservatives their wages are now the highest contribution. Is that not what matters?
What matters is how we put food on the table. We are upskilling our economy. We are a service, modern, post-industrial economy. Where our manufacturing is world-class, it has been protected by this Government and invested in by the private sector. In the meantime, our service economy is going gangbusters, our workers are being upskilled and our SMEs are exporting and becoming exemplars in their local communities. Our economy is doing very well and I commend the Secretary of State’s Statement to the House .
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very robust reply. The main attack from the opposition spokesman last Wednesday was to criticise the Secretary of State because the figures she quoted for exports—£862 billion—were not adjusted to inflation. That is, they were not volume figures but value figures. I put it to my noble friend that that point is a completely false one. It is entirely appropriate to quote value figures rather than volume figures for an economy that is overwhelmingly services, because it is very difficult to measure services and services exports in terms of volume.
Secondly, it is appropriate to measure exports in terms of value because that is what matters to the person who is employed and getting paid. They get paid in pounds, shillings and pence, so measuring them in value terms is perfectly legitimate. Thirdly, everybody laughs as though it were a superficial matter, but this has been disputed. The opposition spokesman was quoting Mr Conway, whose figures have been attacked publicly in the press and by many other commentators. In any case, is his argument very profound, given that the Secretary of State gave figures for exports by volume as well? She gave both—so I do not see how she can be accused of being misleading in any way.
Does my noble friend agree that it is profoundly depressing that, near to an election, hoping to form the next Government and believing that they will, all they can do is talk the economy down? They are determined that everything should be bad news. This is not the proper basis on which a party serious about being in government should be talking about our economy.
I have one question for my noble friend about the motor vehicle industry. I very much applauded the decision to delay the date for battery vehicles being compulsory, but could the Government go further and accord with the request by Stellantis that they should not fine companies that produce good petrol cars before people are ready to buy electric cars? As he will know, there is a lot of sensitivity in the motor industry about this position and quite a lot of motor companies have changed their view, so I would be very grateful if he could comment on that.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution on a subject that he knows well. I will come to his specific question on auto in a moment. I will say that we are in a strong position here, but of course there is more that we can do. One of the focuses of DBT and my portfolio is to try to increase the number of companies that export. At the moment, we have 300,000 companies exporting. My personal ambition is to try to get that up to 500,000, which would be 20% of the 2.5 million registered companies.
The reason why we want these companies to be exporting is that we discover that they share some very interesting characteristics. First, they are well managed; they have ambitious management teams and are quite often owner managed. Secondly, if they are selling goods and services around the world, it is because they are world class and will get high margins for those products and services, so they will be more profitable. And here is the silver bullet—they pay higher wages. If 70% of them are based outside London and the south-east, that is real levelling up. So of course there is more that we can do, but there is a strong recovery going on in our economy right now.
On the specific issue of automotive, obviously we have had a discussion with Stellantis and have talked about Nissan et cetera. Sometimes these discussions are described as U-turns, but I see them as part of a practical journey to net zero. We have to move in a practical way and take the public with us. Right now, we have a direction of travel but we have to be flexible, as we have been with heat pumps and indeed cars, to make sure that we take the public with us. The market itself has not yet landed and has to decide exactly how this will be fulfilled.
I do not see this as in any way reneging on our net-zero commitments. Right now, 75% of our economy is powered by petrochemicals and 25% by renewables. The 2050 target is to flip that on its head and make it 25% hydrocarbons, which would be green and clean hydrocarbons, and 75% renewables. How we get there is to be done over a generation. We have a direction of travel, but we will be flexible about it as we go, as we already demonstrated with heat pumps and cars. I am very clear that we will get there and in a way that continues to make sure that our industries are profitable and that our workers are well paid.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, putting fresh produce on the table might become a challenge, as a result of the customs controls that took effect from 30 April. The Minister referred to the Electronic Trade Documents Act, but that needs a boost, with HMRC accepting that we are now potentially in a paperless environment. Yet I have heard that, in the Port of Dover, although the Act is in place, staff are still asking for paper to support the process—so work clearly needs to be done.
Trade matters. It is the engine room of the economy. The Statement referred to
“exporters firing on all cylinders”,
and went on to say that
“some people seem unaware of the progress that we have made as an independent trading nation”.
Does the Minister accept that much more could be done? I have in my sights the UK’s membership organisations. Does the Minister recognise the role of trade in fostering co-operation and development? Will he convene a meeting of individual chambers of commerce and trade associations, and listen to what they have to say?
Support is required, sharing challenges and solutions to deepen economic co-operation in the UK’s national interest, including making themselves available to engage with opposite numbers globally and away from a rather patchy record—as identified, for example, by the Turkish manufacturers association wishing to sit with Make UK to discuss mutual co-operation in both countries’ best interests. We are just about to start an FTA, but we have to have the trade associations that represent these organisations engaging—they do not even answer the phone.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. On the border target operating model and the new checks coming in, as part of Brexit, which the UK voted for, we need to protect our borders in all respects. As we have said before, we need border checks, especially when it comes to SPS. There will be costs to bear, but they will be outweighed by the benefits and the farming community has been very vocal in support of that measure. Let us remind ourselves of the costs if things go wrong: foot and mouth cost us £13 billion. So it is obvious that we need to do this and do it in a light-touch manner.
On stakeholder associations, I absolutely agree. I have regular dialogue with all the names given. We are in a bit of a transition with these organisations after having 50 years of being very focused on Europe. There is now a need for us to raise our sights, and there is a need for those organisations to go more global—no question about it. I am staggered as I go to our embassies and commissions around the world to find the strength in depth that we have in terms of trade teams in-country. We need to get them more joined up with stakeholder organisations. I will be happy to take that initiative forward in my portfolio.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Statement refers to our exporters “firing on all cylinders”, but according to the CBI and the British Exporters Association, less than 10% of UK businesses export. The Statement also refers to Unilever and Shell choosing London as their corporate headquarters, but Unilever is currently debating whether to list its ice cream business in London or Amsterdam, and Shell has made press comments about having a location that clearly seems to be undervalued, prompting concern that the company may move its listing to the US in future. My noble friend has already answered the question about how the Government will help more of our firms to export, but what will the Government do to assist and maintain UK stock market listings, not just in the FTSE 100 but, equally importantly, in the small cap index?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
When it comes to stock market listings and the operation of stock markets, that is, by definition, capitalism in the private sector, and the Government should not get involved in that particular exchange. However, the previous lord mayor led a very interesting initiative which identified that our pension funds are not investing enough in UK equities, so there is now an interesting scheme going on whereby we can see whether we can get 5% of UK pension funds invested in UK equities, which I think is a very worthwhile initiative.
When it comes to headquarters, et cetera, a number of studies have been put out recently by PwC, EY and Boston Consulting Group which have done surveys with CEOs who indicate that they still believe that the UK is one of the best places to locate their head office in Europe. Therefore, we do not see any diminution in that. Foreign direct investment into the UK now is greater than into France, Germany and Italy combined. The market, the money, talks. The money is coming in—my noble friend Lord Johnson is doing a sterling job on that. We have a strong, good economy. Foreign investment is coming in. There is dislocation of stock markets, but initiatives are being taken to alleviate that concern.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister agrees with the Green Party about GDP growth being an extremely inaccurate measure of progress in a society. The question I want to ask is specifically about the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises exporting to the EU. Importers are having many difficulties. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to florists, and horticulturists are reaching out to me regularly. On exporters, British Chambers of Commerce figures for the fourth quarter of 2023 show that 50% of SMEs have had no change in overseas sales while 24% have seen a decrease and that exports from SMEs to the EU are consistently underperforming domestic sales. The head of trade policy at the BCC has said
“firms continue to express huge frustration with the complexity and cost involved”,
referring to exporting to the EU. Are the Government going to do more to help in what is clearly a deeply damaging situation for SMEs?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I just wish the noble Baroness had been at breakfast this morning at No. 10 Downing Street, where my noble friend Lord Petitgas and I hosted 16 SMEs which are exporters to Europe and elsewhere. They reported on how their businesses are trading up and that they now have the opportunity to trade around the world beyond Europe. I have been through the numbers; they do not lie. The numbers say that in terms of our manufacturing there has been no difference between Europe and the rest of the world. There are of course individual circumstances and individual companies where there have been ups and downs. That is business, but, overall, we are very clear that our SMEs have a great appetite to export. We need to get more of them exporting—as I said, 300,000 out of 2.5 million VAT-registered companies do so; I personally feel that we should push that up to half a million. We can do that, especially with the new digital industries coming through. Certainly, I would be very happy to introduce the noble Baroness to a number of the export champions today. Some of them are actually bringing manufacturing back—onshoring manufacturing —to the UK following Brexit. That is a very pleasing development.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his optimistic and dynamic Statement about the economy and these trade figures. Can he confirm again that the UK’s exports are at an all-time high? The UK is the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Those are surely staggering figures, and all of us ought to make more of them.
Can I ask the Minister to refer again to the new border checks that will be put on animal and plant products, as raised by the Lib Dem spokesman a moment ago? A number of trade associations estimate that these new checks will cost in the region of £2 billion per year. I think we all agree that there needs to be no let-up in the maintenance of standards and that we need consistency across Europe, particularly post-Brexit —farmers and the rural community will demand nothing less. However, is there not an argument for looking at more of a light-touch regime and relying on spot checks based on intelligence-led—perhaps communications intelligence-led—policing of individual consignments rather than imposing this very large potential blanket burden?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
That is exactly the regime being implemented. We might even consider that some of the delays in implementing the regime are precisely for that reason—to make sure that it is light touch and not a blanket position.
We have a very interesting future on the border, largely because of the Northern Ireland situation. We had to solve the problem of how to make a meaningful trade border without recreating a hard border. The only way to do that is digital and through self-certification and pre-checking. Hence, we have ended up with the green lane and red lane and the trusted trader system—which the rest of the world is now going to adopt—where you pre-certify your goods and check them before they go through the border. The CEO of the Channel Tunnel recently said that trade is moving through the tunnel faster than when we were in the EU, because it is all on a QR code on the phone that is pre-checked and pre-certified. You certify where it is going to and what goods need to be checked. The checking being done is therefore on a confirmatory basis—an exceptional basis—and not on a blanket basis. If we include the Electronic Trade Documents Act and the single trade window, the direction of travel in the next five years will be to collapse trade very quickly into, in effect, a digital passport, which will speed things up considerably.
Yes, there will be costs in putting in place a border, but I can see you and raise you on the benefits that will come from a digital border.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the figures that my noble friend the Minister gave us, but our major problem is a trade deficit. This is not something new; it has been the case for the last four decades. In other words, we do not have enough exports to pay for imports. Last year, the deficit was £862 billion. What more can we do to support UK PLC—especially SMEs—to export more? The trade envoy programme supports UK PLC to export more—I am one of the trade envoys, by the way. Is there any plan to enhance this programme and increase the number of trade envoys to support UK PLC to export more?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend, and I am delighted that he is a trade envoy. It has been a very worthwhile initiative. All the embassies and high commissions I go to are delighted with how that is working. Of course, we can do more. Companies themselves feel that they are getting a lot of support and have a direct line to government through the trade envoys.
The balance of trade is something that economists love to talk about. At the end of the day, do not forget that we import to export. The modern British economy is not so much a primary manufacturer as a designer, assembler and manufacturer of added value to goods. For example, with a number of our pharmaceuticals, 80% of the input is imported. Therefore, that balance of trade belies the fact that we enhance, improve and sell back out what we are taking in.
The direction of travel is to increase our exports and, ultimately, that is what our free trade agreements will do. We talk to our companies about the CPTPP and the fact that you can go to Mexico, Canada, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Australia, Japan and New Zealand—then add all the others that want to come in. They now have new markets to go to.
One of the SMEs at breakfast this morning was a manufacturer of women’s sporting apparel. When it was doing its business plan, it was selling only to Europe and could not sell to Australia. Now, since we have done the Australian free trade agreement and taken the tariffs off, margins have improved by 12% to 14%. We passed the Electronic Trade Documents Act, which now means it can get its goods made in the UK into Australia within 48 hours. That business is booming on the back of the Australia free trade agreement. That is the opportunity we have now to boost exports across our economy.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with this country’s current position in terms of its balance of payments? Those of us with longer memories will recall times when Governments fell over the issue of balance of payments, but it appears to be a metric that is not given enough attention now. I think the current figures show a substantial deficit, in the billions. Is the Minister satisfied with that?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I think that takes us into a whole technical area. We will come back to that another time, thank you very much.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Oates, and others want to remove reference to Israel. The question has been raised as to why one country should be singled out. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew attention to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. He did not mention the noble Lord’s other remarks—that part of his deal to recognise Palestine as a state would be that Hamas was expelled and, of course, the release of all hostages, which is an integral part of the jigsaw.
Others have commented that the Bill, which I support, does nothing about anti-Semitism. That is a minority view within the Jewish community. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, which was referenced, has an extremely small minority view. The vast majority of the Jewish population in the UK is represented by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, on which I serve as vice-president. They are both in favour of such a Bill. They would not be in favour of this Bill if they had any worries that it would lead to an increase in anti-Semitism.
Likewise, with reference to the impact on the West Bank, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was asked whether she goes to the West Bank much. I have been to the West Bank. I chair a charity called the Jerusalem Foundation. One of the projects we are doing is building a very large sports centre in east Jerusalem. It includes a swimming pool, and it will be run by the locals for the benefit of the local community. It would be a great shame if this sports centre could not be built by a British contractor in whole or part because of fear of sanctions and thus its inability to win local council contracts.
It is obvious why Israel has to be protected by this Bill: precisely because it is the one country singled out for unparalleled abuse, criticism, misinformation and, sadly, hate. Which other country has people on the streets of the UK calling for its complete destruction? A country controlled by autocrats, or denying the rights of women, gays, minorities or religious groups? No. In fact, it is only one country—the one that achieves the reverse of all that.
This pattern has happened since Israel’s creation, facilitated in 1948 by a body—the United Nations—that has subsequently done all it can to demonise it. So why should special protection be given to Israel as Clause 3(7) suggests? I can answer that if noble Lords can explain to me why, since 2003, the UN has issued 232 resolutions in respect of Israel. Some 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN in that period have been on Israel, six times that of the second-placed country, Sudan. In 2023 alone, the UN General Assembly brought 15 resolutions against Israel and only seven on the multitude of conflicts around the world. Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council has a dedicated, permanent line item—item 7—on Israel, specifically and alone. It has not done this with any other member state.
I argue that special prejudice and discrimination deserve special protection. The UN has had nine meetings of the Security Council to discuss the situation in Gaza, but not one about the hostages. If such a once-distinguished—now, sadly, widely regarded as discredited—organisation can show such bias against Israel, and only Israel, we need to take steps to ensure that this cancer of thought does not spread to UK institutions. Many agitators have run out of causes to address with their ire and prejudice, so their polemics are focused on a country they believe they can, by means fair or foul, destroy by a series of lies and hate- filled allegations.
I take the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at his word and believe him to be keen to find a way to avoid BDS. He is an honourable person and he says what he means. So I am disappointed that those on the Labour Front Bench support this amendment. I thought that they, and indeed all noble Lords, would understand that stopping BDS is right, fair and just, as are steps to protect the State of Israel from abuse by organisations themselves funded by the fair-minded British taxpayer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer Green support for Amendment 20 while stressing our continued opposition to the entire Bill. The argument for Amendment 20—that Clause 3(7) not be in the Bill—has already been powerfully made, but I will make three brief points. The first is about international law. This point has been powerfully made by many noble Lords already, and you do not have to listen to me; you can listen to Alicia Kearns MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who pointed out that, as the Bill is written, it constitutes a departure from British foreign policy that
“puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 604.]
My second point picks up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. We have seen changes, over the months, in the British Government’s rhetoric at least, if not in their policy, when it comes to arms sales to the Israeli state, which will become only more legally, diplomatically and politically pressing. But we are not here talking about policy. We are talking about law: something on the statute book that remains until the law is changed. The convention, of course, is that no Parliament binds its successors, but we know how time-consuming and energy-consuming it is to change past errors as circumstances change.
The third point I want to make is one that no one else has made, but I am afraid that I have to, which is to refer to what is happening as we speak. Hundreds of thousands of people are in desperate fear with nowhere left to run, nowhere to seek safety. The Israeli state has seized the Rafah border crossing. A couple of figures haunt me. One of them is, of course, the death toll, which is approaching 35,000 in Gaza, but another figure I saw last week is that 5% of people in Gaza have been killed or injured. That is a deeply shocking figure.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I should like to add a few points. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, many of them have been made by others but the confusion in this Bill that is causing us a great deal of difficulty is of understanding its benefits. We have heard that the Bill singles out protection for Israel in perpetuity and conflates Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, despite the fact that these are recognised as distinct by UK foreign policy. Primary legislation would be needed if Israel were to be removed from being protected by UK legislation. Also, the Occupied Territories are illegally occupied, as we have already said. How can it be justified and embedded in UK law that such protection in perpetuity for illegal settlements should be given by our own country?
There is more confusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, about Foreign Office guidance. What the advice said, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was:
“There are … clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements”
and other activities
“in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks”.
Presumably, trustees and advisers of pension funds considering such advice may need to take action and not procure or invest in these areas; they would be contravening the provisions of the Bill.
We also know that the ICJ has warned that Israel may be committing genocide and is currently investigating a case brought by South Africa to that effect. Should that be found to be the case, public bodies would be prevented from taking any action against Israel or settlers in illegally occupied territories unless primary legislation were to be enacted. Again, how can this possibly be justified?
The Government’s explanation of the need for such extreme measures is that sanctions and boycotts of Israel cause anti-Semitism in communities. While we have seen no evidence of this, several Jewish organisations believe that the Bill will impede the UK’s ability to combat anti-Semitism. Many organisations are opposing the Bill and saying that the reverse will be the case. The Union of Jewish Students, for example, unanimously decided to oppose the Bill, as have 40 Israeli NGOs, and has called on our Parliament to reject it. Finally, Diaspora Alliance said:
“The rhetoric promoting this bill erroneously conflates efforts to hold Israel accountable with hostility against Jewish people. This kind of rhetoric gives the impression that the most effective solution to combatting antisemitism lies in the protection of the interests of a foreign power, rather than in the policies that protect Jewish citizens of the UK from prejudice, harassment and discrimination—like all other British citizens”.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech, although I respectfully point out that groups such as Diaspora Alliance hold the same sway and weight in the Jewish community as, for example, Gays for Trump would in the homosexual community in America. You can always find a Jew or Jewish group who will say whatever you want; going back to the Talmud, we are a disputatious people. I would gently warn noble Lords against picking people in the Jewish community who happen to agree with what they say. The two main communal bodies, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council have been forthright in support of the Bill.
Let me turn to Clause 3(7), which is what this amendment focuses on. As we know, the way in which the Bill works is that unless a country is added to the Schedule by the Secretary of State, a public body cannot discriminate against it on essentially political grounds—I paraphrase. Clause 3(7) provides more procedural protection to Israel and to the territories listed in it because its effect is that a future Secretary of State cannot add Israel or those territories to the Schedule—that can be done only by way of primary legislation, as the noble Baroness just pointed out.
The purpose of this amendment is obvious although I note that, perhaps wisely, its proposers were neither able nor willing to say so in terms in a Member’s explanatory statement. Its purpose is to strip Israel of that procedural protection to make it easier procedurally, and therefore also politically, for a future Secretary of State to give a green light to a boycott of Israel. That, in terms, is what this amendment is designed to do and what, if it became part of the Bill, it would do.
Two main arguments have been made in support of removing Clause 3(7) from the Bill—let me say a word or two about each. The first is that Clause 3(7) does not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as it is said the UK is required to do. There are two points in relation to that: first, what is the source of this supposed obligation?
I referred in an earlier group to the opinion from Richard Hermer KC. I declare an interest: he is a friend, but the fact that he is will not stop me saying that I think he has got it hopelessly wrong on this point. His opinion says that there is a
“wider international law obligation on all states to ensure that impediments to Palestinian self-determination are brought to an end”.
To support that proposition, he cites the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion on the separation wall. That, of course, is an advisory opinion and, in terms, is limited to the separation wall itself, which the ICJ refers to as an “impediment” to Palestinian self-determination
“resulting from the construction of the wall”.
We could mount a very good argument, and I would, that it is the construction of that wall which advances Palestinian self-determination because without it, there would still be suicide bombings and people blown up on buses and in cafes, but let us put that to one side.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I just want to correct the noble Lord. The judgment did not say that the wall was illegal; it said that it was placed illegally because it was placed in the Occupied Territories, not on the boundary between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
That is not the point I was making, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. My point was whether there is in that judgment some sort of obligation on us not to impede the construction of a Palestinian state. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his characterisation of that part of the advisory opinion.
The only obligation the judgment refers to, therefore, is an obligation not to recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel. That is in the advisory opinion as an obligation. UK government policy does not do so, and this Bill does not do so either.
Then we look at the other supposed source of this obligation: UN Security Council Resolution 2334, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in moving the amendment. That goes no further. That, in paragraph 5, “calls on states”. Let us just be clear: that is not an international law obligation. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who characterised that as a UK commitment, it is not. As other noble Lords will know much better than I do, the use of words such as “requires,” “obliges” and “calls on” are important distinctions—we will come later to what distinctions are—in UN Security Council resolutions. In any event, that only “calls on states” to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and not to lump them together.
Secondly, in so far as there is any legal obligation, which there is not, it would only be one to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Clause 3(7) does that. It does distinguish: you distinguish between things by treating them distinctly. You do not need to treat them differently. Those are two distinct, or different, things. This Bill is therefore entirely consistent with UK government policy and with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. That is a complete answer to the first point.
Let me go to the second point, which is the question about why Israel is treated differently. That is the main question underlying much of the debate on this clause. I have already explained that the differential treatment is procedural and not substantive; so why, asked the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in moving his amendment, is Israel treated differently in this Bill? I answered that question in my speech at Second Reading. The short answer—and I will not repeat it—is that Israel is constantly subjected to differential and discriminatory treatment, both by international bodies such as the UN and its rather unhappily named Human Rights Council, on which sit some of the world’s biggest abusers of human rights, and by some public authorities in this country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has asked the question about why Israel is treated differently, let me answer it by reference to his oral contributions in your Lordships’ House.
Over the past 10 years, the noble Lord has—and I have benefited from them—contributed to many debates on many topics in your Lordships’ House. I thought I would have a look at some of his contributions relating to some of the countries set out in the list from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his Amendment 49. I know he is now no longer going to move that amendment, but it is a useful list because it sets out those countries that have poor, or worse, human rights records.
On the basis of my researches in Hansard, the current position is as follows. I am not going to go through them all, but here are some. The number of times in the last 10 years that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has referred to Saudi Arabia is zero; Yemen, zero; Myanmar, zero; Sudan, zero; the Uighurs, zero; North Korea, zero; Congo, zero; Venezuela, zero; Iran, zero; China, one, in the context of a speech on the West Bank; Syria, one, in the context of a speech on Gaza; Ukraine, one, to ask why we do not treat Israel the same way we treat Russia; Israel and Palestine—nine.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am a great believer in only talking about things you understand and have observed. What I have done is go very often to Gaza and the Occupied Territories and talk to some of the people who have been trying to intervene to help the cause of an independent Palestinian state. That has caused me to actually come back rather horrified as to what I have seen about the way the Israelis have treated some Palestinians. There has been a prolonged occupation of territory by successive Israeli Governments— territory that was won by war and is illegal internationally. There have been untold numbers of allegations of breaches of international law by the occupying forces of Israel, so all I have done in my humble way is to report these to His Majesty’s Government as part of cross-party groups that have been to those countries.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, all I am doing is highlighting that, when it comes to gross breaches of human rights around the world, Israel is treated differently, both in the manner that I have described and, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord in his contributions to this House. When people stop treating Israel differently, Clause 3(7) will not be needed, but until then it is a necessary and essential part of this Bill.
I am disappointed to see His Majesty’s Opposition supporting the amendment. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Leigh about the regard that many of us have—certainly I do personally—for the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. He will understand that, when I say I am disappointed at the Opposition’s stance, I am not making a personal comment, but I am disappointed at the substantive position that they are taking.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord knows that I listen attentively to what he says. Earlier he said that the Occupied Palestinian Territories were being afforded a protection under the Bill. He is aware that existing trading and investment relations are covered by a UK-Palestinian Authority bilateral agreement. Is he aware that the Palestinian Authority has asked for this protection?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am looking at the time. I am happy to continue this conversation elsewhere, but I will say this: I would be happy if Clause 3(7) encompassed not only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but the Palestinian Authority, because I do not want anybody using divestment or boycotts as a lever in the Middle East. We should all be working for peace, and we do not work for peace through BDS. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their position but, in the meantime and with apologies to the House for overstaying my welcome a little, I support the Bill as drafted and therefore oppose the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson. This amendment would be deleterious to the Palestinians themselves. I cite the example of SodaStream, which had to close down its factory in the Occupied Territories at a loss of 600 Palestinian jobs because of the BDS movement; it was a particular factor. I shall quote two people who worked there. Ali Jafar, a shift manager from a West Bank village, said:
“All the people who wanted to close”
it
“are mistaken … They didn’t take into consideration the families”.
Anas Abdul Wadud Ghayth, who had worked there for four years, said, as he wiped tears:
“We were one family. I am sad because I am leaving my friends who have worked here for a long time”.
I am not in favour of settlements. I certainly believe that Israel has offered many times, and would offer again, to get out of territory that is currently occupied in exchange for a genuine peace deal. It has tried and would try again. Currently, there is perhaps a different mindset among those leading the country, but that is not necessarily permanent. At the moment, these territories are part of Israel. They are not necessarily permanently part of Israel, and I believe that they would ultimately be given up or exchanged in return for a genuine peace deal.
Currently, however, it is occupying them and providing jobs for Palestinian people who want them and could not find gainful employment otherwise. That was confirmed when, for example, the SodaStream factory shut down. From a security perspective, if Israel were to give back to the Golan Heights, it would be signing its own death warrant. You will know that if you have been to that area and seen what is there. Equally, with the Occupied Territories on the West Bank, I believe there is potential for a two-state solution that recognises both sides’ right to exist, but Israel needs a partner that is willing to recognise its own right to exist. This Bill is designed to protect, in the meantime, both Israel and the jobs being created in those territories.
However, like my noble friends, I have the most enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I think genuinely wants to find a way to work through this and a wording that will let us deal with this issue in a way that is acceptable to all sides. I have no problem with that, and I hope we might have some meeting of minds, through which we can move forwards and try to achieve the aims of the Bill without offending noble Lords, on all sides. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as well, who I have worked with in the past. Whether or not we agree on this issue, I hope that noble Lords can see the points I am trying to make about the things I believe the Government are trying to achieve.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness paints a very rosy picture of the West Bank. From all my experience of being there, it is totally unlike what she is describing. There may be some factories employing Palestinians that have been closed down, but thousands of Palestinians have lost their livelihoods as a result of the settlements and the Israel Defense Forces promoting violence, and certainly allowing violence, by settlers against ordinary Palestinian farmers, who have lost their olive orchards and the land where they were growing grapes. I just do not believe she can have spoken to many representatives of Palestinian people, who are utterly miserable as a result of the Israeli occupation. To say that it is part of Israel—that is simply, legally, not the case.
Lastly, I want to challenge the noble Baroness on the suggestion that the Israeli Government are in favour of a two-state solution—on the contrary. The noble Baroness said just now that she is in favour of a two-state solution, as are many other people, and that she believes it will happen. If it is to happen, there has to be a complete change in tone and views by the Israeli Government. Successive Israeli Governments have done nothing to promote a two-state solution. On the contrary, they have done many things to make it impossible, through the constant building of settlements. It is not that they happened a long time ago; they continue to be built all the time.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
May I, with all due respect, clarify a few points for the noble Baroness? First, I understand that the current Israeli Government are not in favour, and I have said myself that I am not in favour of the settlements. I am in favour of a two-state solution, and always have been. Past Israeli Governments have offered a two-state solution and offered an exchange of land for peace time and again. I am not sure why the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Israel withdrew from Gaza itself without even an offer of peace from the other side, and this is where we have ended up.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, and one can always hear two sides to any argument, but there are a large number of Palestinians who welcome the employment they have in those territories. There are others who may have a different view, but in the end, the only solution, as far as I am concerned, must be a two-state solution. The noble Baroness is ignoring the fact that the other side, whether it is the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, is intent on wiping Israel off the map. It is not interested in a two-state solution. Israel would offer, and has offered, a two-state solution. As I say, I have spoken to people on both sides, and I hope the noble Baroness might be able to meet some of the others I have met, who have a different view, clearly, from the ones she has spoken to.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure she will agree with me that violence by settlers or Palestinians has to be condemned without reservation, and the full force of the law used against such perpetrators.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I completely agree. I do not agree with the settlements, and I do not agree with the actions of the settlers. But that does not in any way change the situation we are dealing with here, which is that until there is a two-state solution, some partnership for peace and some agreement, the idea of boycotting, whether the Occupied Territories or Israel, will do damage both to Israel and to the Palestinians who are gainfully employed there. That is the point I was trying to make, not to defend the settlers or settlements.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, third time of asking. First, I stand here as somebody who still mourns the death, the assassination, of Yitzhak Rabin, a great statesperson who was on the cusp of finding a solution that has evaded many people. I also mourn the loss of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I was a great student of his; he taught me Hebrew and how to read the Hebrew scriptures. Also, before he died, he planted nine trees in Israel for me, so I have a little plot of land where those nine trees are.
What would he say about Clause 3(7)? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; I am not sure that it is wisdom that, unfortunately, has included Israel in the clause. I know it is differentiated, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has told us; we then have in paragraphs (b) and (c) the Occupied Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights. I just wonder what it is that is being asked of us. Legislation, at the heart of it, is a statement of public policy. What public policy are we doing with subsection (7)? What are we saying? I have never believed that you can use statute as a way to give assurance, because when the law is passed, it is already dated, so it may never actually deliver what you want. I am not so sure that these three paragraphs are a wonderful opportunity; is there not a better way of saying what you want?
I totally agree that, as the noble Lord reminded us, this differentiation is made because Israel comes up more than any other country in the world. What is it that drives that? Of course, being a Christian, I cannot say, but given the Second World War and the Holocaust, you have to have a heart that tells you, “Be very careful that you do not tread on holy ground”.
I am reminded of another great name who influenced me greatly on issues such as this: Rabbi Hugo Gryn, who was asked by a child on the radio, “Where was God in the Holocaust? Why wasn’t he there? Why didn’t he defend them?” Like all good rabbis who know the Torah, he gave the most beautiful answer: “In Auschwitz, God was being blasphemed and violated. The real question is, where was humanity, made in God’s image and likeness?” The question is, will our humanity find itself better in this subsection (7)? I am very doubtful, the way it is drafted, because it conflates two pieces of land, and I am not sure that is a very wise thing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, inevitably this group has raised the wider issues that we have debated within it. A week has not gone by without either Statement repeats or Questions that I have contributed to. Since 7 October, I have visited the region; I have visited the kibbutzim, the hostage families and the illegal outposts and settlements. I say, in the most sincere way I can, to the Minister, that I do not believe that this particular part of the Bill and the Bill as a whole will reduce any of the tensions or make a complex situation any simpler or clearer. For many people, it will make the situation even more complex and divisive at the very time when we need there to be more common ground. So it is with regret that I need to support the amendments in this group.
Paragraph 20 of the impact assessment states:
“The intended outcome of the Bill is to ensure there is a consistent approach to”
UK Government foreign policy. However, it should also be noted that there has been inconsistency in the statements of Ministers over recent months. On 12 March, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, replied to my question on the occupation of Gaza:
“It is our legal position, and has been for some time, that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza”.—[Official Report, 12/3/24; col. 1913.]
However, on 24 April, a Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, replied to my question on Gaza:
“I might dispute the noble Lord’s premise there: I am not sure that I would characterise it as an occupying power”.—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. 1466.]
So there is inconsistency even between government departments.
I would have thought that the definitive position on the topic would be the statement from the Government in their document on the strategic objectives of a UK-Israel free trade agreement, which sets the parameters for UK trade and investment with the State of Israel. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is listening, as it states in very clear terms:
“The UK is clear that it does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including the settlements. The UK is clear that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. As set out in FCDO guidance on overseas business risk, there are clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements”.
This Bill is a very substantial change to government policy that is still extant in the discussions between the UK Government and the Government of Israel over an FTA. I have no opposition to those discussions when it comes to UK free trade—as we said at Second Reading, these Benches do not support the BDS campaign and never have—but we cannot have this Bill and that statement at the same time. Which is the superior element? We know, I think, that when this Bill becomes legislation, it will trump the statement, but there needs to be a change in government policy so that the Bill does not state simply that authorities must adhere to government policy, because the Bill is changing government policy.
Currently, a business choosing to invest or carry out business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will be referred to the business risk and it can make its own judgment as to whether that risk will outweigh the benefit—or it may be liable for legal considerations. This Bill will prohibit it from making that decision, which is wrong and makes no sense for our relationship with either the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the State of Israel.
It is doubly wrong because, as many noble Lords may know, the issue is not just about the settlements. There are also outposts. The fastest growth recently has been in outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For Members of the Committee who may not be aware, outposts—the fastest-growing element—are illegal under Israeli law. This Bill would prohibit anyone making a decision to invest in something which is illegal under Israeli law. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point, because it is a very significant issue.
My noble friend Lord Oates made a very convincing argument about the inclusion in Clause 1(7) of an equivalence in law, notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I am not going to make a semantic argument about whether there is a comma, or an “or” that should have been an “and”. The issue of substance is perfectly clear. It is the argument that the noble Lord said he would reflect on when I asked him about this question.
Why does this Bill provide protections to the Occupied Palestinian Territories when they have not asked for that? Indeed, they have specifically asked not to have it, because it is not a protection; it is an inhibitor for the British authorities to police the current British approach of advising on risk for investments in the illegal settlement areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It removes protection, and the concern about the subsection is that it removes it in perpetuity, because it does not allow Ministers to change the schedules when it comes to singling out the outposts that I referred to before. We might have to rely only on the element of sanctions when we have designated individuals who are settlers. That is the only time there would be the prevention of having an economic relationship with them. So, instead of offering a protection, the Bill singles out a diminishing of the ability of those within the Occupied Palestinian Territories to protect themselves effectively.
I can inform the Committee that this is not an esoteric or theoretical argument; it is active now. Every six months the British consul writes to the Israeli Government seeking compensation for settler violence—compensation which seeks redress through the Israeli courts. The investment risks are real, but the Bill would prohibit any British decision-maker from taking that into consideration. That cannot be right.
Finally, I regret the fact that Ministers have given inconsistent statements on the position of the Occupied Territories. There is confusion about the investments. I ask one final question of the Minister. There may well be—and in fact there are—public-private partnerships that include British investors in enterprises both in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority area. If their partner in Israel or the Palestinian Authority area chose to stop that activity as a result of their own Government’s policy—we know that that is happening, particularly in Tel Aviv—the British partner would be prohibited from ending that agreement. Surely that is a nonsensical position. So my appeal to the Minister is to pause and reflect, even at this late stage, not only the diplomatic consequences of this measure but on its practical implications, which could be considerable.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I echo a number of the noble Lord’s comments. I must admit I find it difficult to understand how, at a moment of crisis in the Middle East, the Government have allowed Michael Gove to proceed with this reckless diplomatic and cavalier approach. How can we be a credible voice for a two-state solution when they legislate at home against their own foreign policy? That is the key issue.
I said repeatedly at Second Reading and in many groups that I recognised that there was a problem. My party recognises that there is a problem. We do not support BDS; we oppose it. How, in this very delicate situation, do we deal with it? You do not deal with it by undermining the very thing that would bring about peace and stability for Israel. Sadly, as we have heard from across the House, the Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts. It will create more uncertainty than it addresses and, worse, it simply fuels yet more division. It will have achieved nothing. In fact, it could make matters worse. That is my position, and my party’s position.
On my previous amendment, we hoped to find a way forward where we could work together without causing those divisions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, too; I have seen his work in action in Israel. I have seen my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s work trying to build intercommunity respect, peace and activity. I applaud that work and want to see it continue.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his comments. I feel a bit left out as the only person who has not been to Palestine or Israel. I was due to go on 7 October. As we have discussed, this amendment would remove Section 37 from the Bill so that Ministers could by secondary legislation allow public authorities to carry out their own boycott campaigns against Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. I am keen to make progress on our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, but I think I should briefly repeat that this legislation has three objectives: first, to uphold the integrity of British foreign policy decided by the Cabinet collectively on advice from the FCDO and others; secondly, to enable public authorities to focus on their core functions when delivering for the public on investment and procurement and to avoid damage to community cohesion; and, thirdly, to prevent the most divisive of these campaigns by public authorities which target Israel in particular and promote anti-Semitism in the UK.
We have seen the disturbing things happening in our universities today, with Jewish students not feeling safe, and what has happened in some local authorities in recent years. Our manifesto commitment and this Bill seek to address one aspect of the current troubles, including divestment campaigns. We need to find a way through. I am grateful for the suggestion of meetings between now and Report.
This amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would allow Ministers to negate by secondary legislation the key objective of our primary legislation. That would not be right. We have heard from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Leigh, about how the BDS campaign singles out the world’s only Jewish state for unique treatment, and we heard in the Public Bill Committee of the distress felt by the Jewish community when Israel is targeted in such a manner by public authorities that, it seems to it, in no other case attempt to pursue foreign policy. These anti-Israel BDS campaigns do very little to promote peace in the Middle East, while sowing division and distrust in the UK.
I want to take the opportunity of our discussion of international issues to return briefly to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He asked whether public authorities would make the judgment of whether a procurement or investment decision risked putting the UK in breach of international law. Public authorities would make that judgment. They would need to do so to the existing legal standard of reasonableness and would be subject to the enforcement powers in the Bill if they did not. I have committed to taking away and considering carefully the points made about international law today, and I look forward to returning to that issue on Report.
Let me return to my overall case. The purpose of Clause 3(7) is to give Parliament the ability to scrutinise a future ministerial decision that would reverse a core objective of this legislation. Such a decision could have a very harmful effect on community cohesion while doing very little to advance peace and security in the Middle East. The amendment would allow Ministers to use secondary legislation to negate the key objectives. That would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Should a future Government wish to allow such campaigns by public authorities, they should go through the same legislative scrutiny that this Government are going through to prevent them. The Government have ensured in the Bill that the scope of delegated powers is appropriately limited and that the core of the Bill cannot be altered by statutory instrument. In addition to this clause, we have limited the ability of the Secretary of State to remove local authorities, UK and devolved government Ministers and local government pension schemes from the scope. I also want to highlight that we have not received any challenge from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with regard to the Bill.
We should be in no doubt that preventing BDS campaigns by public authorities against Israel, the Occupied Territories and the occupied Golan Heights is a core part of the Bill. This is due to the impact that such campaigns can have in contributing to and legitimising anti-Semitism, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
However, it is important to note that nothing in the Bill changes our foreign policy in regard to these areas. We do not recognise—I emphasise this—the settlements as part of Israel. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government’s position is that the Bill is in compliance with that resolution. My noble friend Lord Wolfson explained well why this is the case, and why Israel can, and should, be treated differently, reflecting the way that it is often singled out for unique treatment by many others.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is responding very carefully to this debate. It is the Government’s position that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a separate legal entity that the Government of Israel do not represent. Indeed, the UK has its own direct bilateral relationships with the representatives of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Have they asked for the particular protections under this clause?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, our position on the Middle East peace process, which I am not sure entirely answers the noble Lord’s question, is that we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.
My noble friend Lord Ahmad updated the House earlier on Gaza. The Prime Minister has told Prime Minister Netanyahu and regional leaders that we are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah. The immediate priority must be a humanitarian pause in the fighting, which is the best route to secure the safe release of hostages and significantly step up aid to Gaza.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With respect, she has not answered my question. The Government do not recognise the Government of Israel to represent the Occupied Palestinian Territories in our discussions with their representatives. I ask in clear terms, since we are at the stage in this legislation where it has to be crystal clear, have the representatives of the OPTs requested the protections under the Bill in this clause?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am clear that the Occupied Territories are separate. I think that that three-quarters answers the noble Lord’s question but let me reflect further. I certainly would not want to mislead him on such an important point.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I also ask a question? The Minister mentioned that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on the Bill in a negative way. On the point about the amendment on free speech, I know that we have other clauses to deal with it, but the Constitution Committee was quite clear that Clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would—or even might—make a procurement or investment decision. That committee asked this House to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill, so the Minister’s assertion is not quite true. Regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—the Constitution Committee shares some of his views.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Clearly, I do not think that we will be able to agree on this this evening. I replied to the excellent report by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the Constitution Committee, and I will refresh my memory on that, if the noble Lord will allow.
In the meantime, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked about the Government’s position on Gaza—it is that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza, as advised by the FCDO.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Yes, but does the Minister know why it says that? It is because an occupying power has duties—particularly under international humanitarian law—which is why the Foreign Secretary is monitoring this and has repeatedly said to the House that he will continue to monitor it. Israel has duties as an occupying power.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Indeed, in situations of occupation, international humanitarian law expressly requires the occupier—I think this is the point that the noble Lord is making—to the fullest extent of the means available to it, to ensure food and medical supplies for the population of the occupation territory. We expect Israel to fulfil its obligations, and for all parties to adhere to humanitarian law. I am glad to be able to repeat that.
Nothing in the Bill changes the Government’s support for a two-state solution. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than imposing sanctions or supporting anti-Israeli boycotts, best support our efforts to help progress towards a negotiated solution. This is the position shared by the whole Government. But I continue to believe that it is important to retain for Parliament the ability to scrutinise a decision that would be so detrimental to community cohesion, through primary legislation and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore respectfully ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am glad it was “respectfully”, but I am totally unconvinced by what the Minister has said, just as, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about Clause 4, I was totally unconvinced in the previous discussion about my Amendment 48.
Lord Willetts
“3A Section 1 does not apply to— (a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with Clause 1.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, we have been going for quite a long time. I will try to keep this brisk because there is apparently still a lot of business to get through today. I should declare my interests in the register, particularly my role as a member of the council of the University of Southampton, because I think university councils could be among the bodies covered by this proposed legislation. Although I will draw on my experiences there, these are of course my personal opinions.
In many ways, the purpose of this amendment, which is essentially to remove universities from the scope of this legislation, arises because universities are just the most acute example of the wider problems in this legislation that have already been discussed. I will briefly explain why I think some of these problems are particularly acute in higher education. First, is there actually a problem of boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions in the higher education sector? I have still not come across any actual, real examples of any university ever trying to do what this legislation would forbid.
There are certainly lots of examples of student unions campaigning on this, and earlier we heard some of those cited, but student unions are not—thank heavens—covered by this legislation. All these issues being debated in student unions are part of the process of learning, growing up and political engagement. But it seems rather odd to pass legislation affecting the universities, which do not do anything, and ignoring the student unions where all these debates happen. It is therefore not relevant to the actual decisions that any real university takes. What is the problem that is supposed to be solved?
I am aware of the media coverage today about what is happening in our universities. The Government’s argument is that this helps with community cohesion. We have heard a lot about community cohesion. I have to say that the weight placed on community cohesion in the context of boycotts and disinvestment is the exact opposite of the weight attached to those kinds of arguments when we were debating the freedom of speech legislation. The irony is that one of the arguments then was that there are people who have to run these institutions. They have a set of rival claims to balance. Is it legitimate for them to say, “Of course you want to hold your controversial event, but perhaps not during the same week as exams are happening”? Or, “Of course you want to have your speaker who may be anti-gay, but perhaps not in Gay Pride week”?
In other words, lots of arguments about community cohesion were completely dismissed on the grounds that there is an absolutist right to freedom of speech, and it is just possible that some of the activities that apparently are now concerning No. 10 are protected by the very legislation that the Government passed only a few months back on an absolutist argument: “You must be able to say these kinds of things”. On the very first day on which the legislation was announced, the then Universities Minister said on the radio, “Yes, of course, Holocaust denial would be permitted and protected by this legislation”. It is a bit odd but, anyway, we have now gone from community cohesion being totally irrelevant to community cohesion being the absolute argument that trumps all others. It is a legitimate consideration but does not bear the weight now being placed on it, and it is probably a great pity that it was not given any weight at all when we were considering freedom of speech.
When it comes to freedom of speech, universities are lively, disputatious places, as are councils of universities. When legislation is supposed to apply to universities and tries to conclude that it would be wrong and prohibited if a decision
“was influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
it is hard to imagine a lively debate in a university council that does not involve somebody sounding off about some foreign state or other and how much they disapprove of it and what it is doing for some reason or other. The idea that you can try to forbid consideration of these types of factors in a decision-taking environment such as a university seems to be total fantasy.
It is not only that we all know the life of universities and how disputatious they are but the Government themselves, in other contexts, encourage universities to think about these kinds of factors. Until last year I was on the board of UKRI, which was developing a trusted research agenda that asked universities to consider some of those factors. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has already been praised enough this evening, but he astutely quoted from the advice that the business department gives to businesses. I am sorry to repeat what he said, but it was absolutely to the point. The advice states:
“UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals”.
Businesses are invited to consider that. Will the Minister explain whether it would be illegal for someone in or chairing a meeting of a university council, after a decision has been taken, to cite the advice that the Government themselves have provided in a different context? What if someone said, “We have been influenced on our economic and financial decisions because of possible abuses of the rights of individuals”? Is that legitimate, or is it now to be illegal in universities but advice from government in a different context? It really is quite a muddle.
The Minister may reply to that concern, “But universities are public bodies”. It is not totally clear what makes a university a public body, and we have also heard the expression “public authorities”—I do not know whether that comes charged with some other particular legal meaning. We have also had “hybrid public bodies”. I am increasingly concerned that the bit-by-bit process of adding more regulation and more legal compliance duties on universities pulls them into the public sector, when one of the reasons we have such a well-respected and high-quality university system is precisely the universities’ autonomy. They used to score very highly just for their capacity to run their own affairs. With every step-by-step process in which they appear in more and more of these lists of bodies to be covered by legislation, the greater is the risk that they lose their autonomy and eventually end up as part of the public sector.
Of course, this is just one more step. The ONS is reviewing whether universities should be categorised as in the public sector. This is not necessarily the straw that will break the camel’s back and will determine that they are in the public sector, but every time in this Chamber we find some other cause that we care about and say “Let’s add universities to the list and cover them as well”, the greater the risk that that is where they will end up.
I remember the days when the Government increased taxes on North Sea oil companies. We never knew at what point they would go on investment strike and turn away; it was hard to predict, but at some point they did. At some point, we will have brought universities into the public sector if we are not careful and, when we look back to how it happened, this will be one of the many steps in the process that takes us to that position.
I am more concerned about that when I hear the other doctrine of the single foreign policy. It is quite a new doctrine, this idea that somehow all these public bodies, in some broad sense going beyond the public sector, all have to have one foreign policy. It is true that universities can play a role in foreign policy. I remember when I used to go on missions to India, accompanied on a couple of occasions by the vice-chancellor of Cambridge. I knew my place. I would speak to the Indian Science Minister or the Indian Universities Minister but, because the Prime Minister of India was an alumnus of Cambridge, the vice-chancellor went to see him and occasionally told me what had happened in these conversations. It was quite helpful to have the vice-chancellor’s much higher-level connections than I could possibly muster.
Of course, universities are places where people debate foreign policy issues. They certainly debate all these moral considerations around boycotts. Can we not be a little more relaxed, accepting that, on the very broad definition of public bodies, which is now in this legislation, there will be, in a modern, diverse civil society, a range of views? The Foreign Secretary’s authority to communicate British foreign policy is not weakened by some university having a view on the morality of something happening in the Middle East. The old doctrine was exactly the opposite: “One of the great things about Britain is that we have lively public debate, there’s no central control and we don’t go round giving everybody else instructions about what they should say about these things. That’s just the kind of country we are”. And I think that was great—we were not anxious about the wide range of different views that might be expressed.
I referred to the Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron, and perhaps that is a note on which to end. One of his most effective political slogans was that he wanted to see a small state and a big society. The more we expand this definition of public bodies and public authorities that all have to be guided by the single foreign policy doctrine, the more we grow the state and shrink society. That is not the right direction in which to go and universities should not be part of it.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I come to this from an entirely different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, sharing literally no arguments with him. Therefore, I shall refrain from taking up any time to offer any critique of his pro-university analysis.
I should reference my interest in the register: I am an unpaid, independent government advisor on anti-Semitism. I speak very independently. I suspect that I have been to more universities than any other Member of your Lordships’ House or any member of the Government or any Member of the House of Commons in the last two years. I have spoken with more university vice-chancellors on anti-Semitism than anybody else. I have spoken to virtually all of them over the last three years—some multiple times. I have been in and I have solved specific problems with them, and I think they have been reasonably pleased to have had my assistance in solving them. That is what they have told me. So I know what is going on. I meet with the Union of Jewish Students regularly, as I do with Universities UK. It is fair to say, in the five years that I have been carrying out this role, that I have spent more time on the university sector than on any other single issue.
My approach has been lauded in the Jewish community, and I think it is successful. My—if you like—philosophical, but also strategic and even tactical, approach has been to say to the universities that, in dealing with anti-Semitism—anti-Jewish racism—the critical thing they have to do is listen on a regular basis to their Jewish students, who are organised through Jewish societies. There are about 80 of them across the country. I speak regularly, and have recently done so, to large numbers of students at Jewish societies in universities, and I spend a lot of time listening to them on their perspectives, their fears, their ambitions and how they see themselves as being Jewish both in the country, in the city or town or sometimes rurality that they are based in, and in their university. I feed that back, for better or for worse.
My strategy is, therefore, that when I speak to university vice-chancellors, for example, I tell them that what they have to do is to get their head round what anti-Semitism is, and how Jewish students and staff should have equality of status and what that means, and what the obstacles to that have been and are. The organising strategy is very simple: they should go and speak regularly to their Jewish students because they are organised. If there is a coherent system of organising Jewish staff members—not just academics because there are as many, certainly in some of the bigger cities, non-academic Jewish staff as there are academic staff—and an effective forum for Jewish staff, and there are some, then by all means speak to them as well. But there is no system for that, so that is not a system solution; that is something that should be done, something that is encouraged and something that more could be done to develop.
If the university leadership speaks to the Jewish student leadership, they will have a perspective on what is going on. If they do it every year, there will be a turnover of Jewish student leaders—that is inevitable in a student environment—and they will have a bit of a time series of what the issues are and how well they are doing in dealing with them.
What has been remarkable since 7 October is not how much anti-Semitism there has been in our universities but how little there has been compared with what has gone on in the United States, for example, or in Canada or Australia, as relevant comparable countries. That is because the universities are listening and talking to their Jewish students and responding, initiating and thinking through. Having a working definition of anti-Semitism as a benchmark has been invaluable in doing that and in understanding the issues. That is working.
However, there are problems; I deal with them. The biggest problem—I repeat what I said at Second Reading—is the ostracisation; the isolation when your so-called friends do not speak to you and the micro- aggressions that go with that. That is the worst problem that Jewish students face, and it has dramatically increased. Students are uncomfortable where they live because their flatmates are not including them in things any more because they are “Zionist” or “pro-Israel”, whatever that means—it can mean many different things.
That is the big problem, so I am looking at the Bill and asking: what does it do, if it applies to universities, to assist those students and staff? The answer is: it does nothing—zero, zilch. I do not mean a little bit; I mean nothing. It does nothing about the academic boycotts, which is a problem. It does nothing about the isolation if, for example, someone wants to work with, say, an Israeli university but is blocked by the rest of the department from doing so. If someone wants to research in a particular way, on a thesis or in a postgraduate setting, they are discouraged from doing so. These are the real problems that come to me. It is insidious and dangerous racism.
I come back to the question, because in making law we have to look at it: what does the Bill do about that in the context of universities? The answer is nothing; there have been no successful BDS campaigns in our universities—none. I have been around long enough to have seen and experienced the origins of the campaign, not just in the last three or five years in my current role, or the 20 years I have been around Parliament, but the 40 years in which I have been in some kind of public life. For all those 40 years, there have been zero successful BDS campaigns and therefore it is not a big problem. They are unsuccessful campaigns.
I fully understand. I know the people who organise them and I know how they do so. I am on the receiving end of the abuse. I have had people jailed for targeting me and my family. I could take noble Lords back to when I was stopped from speaking in universities because I dared to visit Israel in 1984. When I was in the West Bank, I met a man called Sinwar—noble Lords may have heard of him. He was the student leader at Birzeit University at the time. It is probably a good job I was not photographed with him. But after I went on that visit to Israel, I was banned from speaking in universities.
I have been through all that, and I am telling noble Lords that there is nothing in this Bill that assists Jewish students. Frankly, it does not matter whether you listen to me, because if you go back to the principle that universities should listen to Jewish students, the Jewish students say that they do not want the Bill to cover universities. What are we doing if we allow that to happen? Jewish students are clear; they do not want it. It does not help them. Is it some kind of political game—I am not sure who it is aimed at—to put it in? There is no case in tackling anti-Semitism for universities to be included in this Bill. By definition, when the Union of Jewish Students says: “No, thank you”, they are the arbiters, the front line—the people impacted and affected. It does nothing on academic staff and academic boycotts.
Before I am, no doubt, sacked by government—as I am not paid, that is kind of an arbitrary thing— I intend to offer to every single political party, for we do not know who will be in power afterwards, a proper set of proposals on the changes that are needed to improve what is going on for students with anti-Semitism. This Bill is not it. This amendment is right and appropriate; it would be outrageous, when the Union of Jewish Students says: “No, thank you”, for us to ignore it. I recommend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and that from my noble friend Lord Willetts just now. I should declare an interest; I am on the council of the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, and I am a visiting professor at King’s College London. I want to be sure that is on the record.
I also want to be clear at the outset that I appreciate the good intentions of the drafters of this Bill. Of course, as it is a manifesto commitment, when it comes to later stages, I will certainly support it; I hope my noble friend Lord Leigh will take note of that. However, I think there are real problems with it, which have been brilliantly clarified by the two excellent speeches that preceded mine. I will be brief, because they have made many of the points that I wanted to make and much better than I will be able to. I will ask the Minister just to clarify a couple of things on which I need some reassurance.
The first relates to the points that my noble friend Lord Willetts made about the ONS’s review of the status of universities, and the likelihood that this measure will inadvertently tip them towards being reclassified as part of the public sector. It would be good to understand what assessment the Government have made of that likelihood and of the impact it would have on universities’ ability to borrow and make investment decisions of their own without the kind of Treasury oversight they would have if they were drawn further into the public sector.
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, I would like a better understanding of how the provisions in this Bill can be squared with all the provisions that were enacted in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act that we passed just last year. The Office for Students is meant to stand for the widest possible definition of freedom of speech; anything within the law should be permissible on our campuses. The Bill will considerably narrow what is lawful speech. My concern is that that is a very heavy-handed approach, and one that does not sit easily with the Government’s intentions in passing the freedom of speech Act last year.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will return to a question that I raised on the first day in Committee: the way in which the Bill will impact on academic collaborations. Out of abundant caution, I also refer to the register of interests: I am a professor of international law at King’s, although, as far as I know, if my understanding of the Bill is correct, I do not think I am involved in investment or procurement decisions.
I raise this issue because paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes states:
“The ban in clause 1 is not intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom”.
Can the Minister say whether it follows from that that the ban is intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate, or not to initiate, a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct?
Academic collaborations can come about in a wide range of ways. Sometimes it is just the initiative of a single academic, who will get in contact with academics they know and have worked with in another institution. If they are to be caught by the Bill, it is important to have clarity, because that is the sort of activity a lot of academics would be involved in. It appears to be an example of serious overreach of the scope of the Bill, which the amendments proposed would take good care of. However, I would like to understand a bit better from the Government how they think the Bill as it stands would impact academic collaborations.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to add my support to that already given to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.
I should declare a past interest, if not a present one. I worked for many years as an academic and led two higher education institutions, where I was very much involved in international collaborations. Indeed, as a Minister, I led the then Labour Government’s campaign, known as the Prime Minister’s initiative, to include a number of international collaborations and international students. To pick up on the last speaker’s questions, if this Bill were to damage that in any way, it would be extremely deleterious and affect the long-term reputation and quality of British higher education.
The main problem I have with this has been reflected in what others have said. This Bill creates a problem that does not exist. We should never legislate to create problems that do not exist; it is a crazy way of going about things. I was very much affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, was, by the excellent and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. This will not help Jewish students one iota. There are many things we should be doing to ensure the safety and freedom of Jewish students in our universities, but this is of no help whatsoever. The other point I will pick up on is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts: this will not do anything to help community cohesion, either, which is of course extremely important.
On freedom of speech, which is at the centre of this, one of the things that defines universities—it is part of the nature of the academy—is that argument takes place. It is part of their lifeblood. Indeed, universities have a duty to promote freedom of speech and argument, and in that I would include argument about foreign policy. There is no single foreign policy, as I was trying to say earlier, if in not a very coherent way. Foreign policy is diverse, and changes. It is a reflection of world movements of all kinds, and of economic matters as well as political ones. The idea of a top-down foreign policy is, to me, utterly ludicrous.
Perhaps one of the worst things about this Bill is its gagging nature. To suggest that you cannot discuss and debate the issues that lie behind the Bill is horrendous. It is not what mature democracies do; it is what tyrannies do. I am sure the Minister is not in favour of tyranny— I know her well enough to be fully aware of that—but what she is doing this evening is presiding over something that is somewhat tyrannical.
Universities are not in the public sector. They are subject to regular ONS reviews regarding their status; there is one going on at the moment. The Bill is, in a sense, jumping over this review by suggesting that they are public bodies. The next thing that will happen is that a review of this sort will be effected by the Bill, and we will have universities in the public sector. That will be hugely damaging to their autonomy, which has been central to British universities since the war and, indeed, before. This would lead to all sort of practical disadvantages, such as the loss of autonomy, including in respect of borrowing and investment, which would become a matter for the Treasury. At one time, the Treasury ran the UGC, and that was not a terribly sensible approach. The Department for Education would be the body that decides what universities could do in this area. That would make it very difficult for them to access commercial borrowing. Is that what we want? Surely not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, it is extremely heavy-handed, overkill and, in any case, unnecessary. Can the Minister tell the Committee where the pressure has come from to introduce universities into the Bill? Is this from the imagination of Michael Gove, who invented the Bill? I cannot see it coming from anywhere else. Have the Government had any sensible consultation with UUK and other representatives of the higher education sector about whether universities should be in the Bill?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken previously on the Bill and apologise to the Committee that I could not be here at Second Reading, but I have listened to the debates through the last several weeks. I will make just three points.
First, to pick up directly the point about foreign policy from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, United Kingdom universities are privileged among European countries to host some of the finest international relations departments in the world. The only international relations departments that perhaps rank as superior to those of some of our universities—including my alma mater, the London School of Economics—are those at the American universities. To say to your international relations scholars that they will suddenly have thought control through legislation, and will be unable to teach with the rigour of academic freedom that has made these departments as good as they are, would be astonishing. It would be beyond an own goal. Leaving aside the pertinent points made by noble Lords across the Chamber on the duties of the Office for Students—including the powerful points by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—the idea that foreign policy should be subject to some kind of legislative parameters is extraordinary and will stop us producing the calibre of diplomats that we have been lucky to have over many decades.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about to what extent universities are public bodies. This is extraordinary. For at least the last 10 years, I have asked several questions in this Chamber about one or two aspects of the autonomy of universities, generally about student fees or the catastrophe that affected the universities superannuation pension scheme some years ago when the wrong calculations were made, which really disadvantaged junior academics. Every time, I was told from the Dispatch Box: “Universities are autonomous; we can’t possibly look into what’s happening to interest rates on student fees or the pension fund”. Suddenly, we now discover that they are more and more in the public sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said.
I should have declared an interest—everybody knows it—as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I am speaking in a personal capacity. The public sector equality duty of course applies to universities, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is also a human rights commission and has to look to Article 10 rights. It has worked closely with the Office for Students on some of these areas since it was established. I wonder what consideration the Government have given in what they have been saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, powerfully said, about on the one hand wanting absolute freedom of expression while on the other, within months, seeking to curtail it. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
Before concluding, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on making such a powerful speech. He is absolutely right. The reports I get, when speaking to Jewish organisations about anti-Semitic incidents, are that individual students are now finding themselves friendless, when university life is meant to be the exact opposite of that. I share his despair in that regard.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to ask the Minister a question relating to academic freedom. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes gives a quite qualified exposition of how academic freedom will not be affected by this scheme. It refers only to ending existing contracts and to a break because of the provisions under a particular statutory provision. It is a very narrow qualifying expression; we all hope that this Bill, were it to be passed, would not affect academic freedom.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Willetts and others have queried whether there is any evidence of a problem. It may be true that there is not much evidence of actual BDS activities by universities to date, but it is certainly true that there is a problem of anti-Semitism on campuses. It may also be true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, that it is less acute than in the United States—most things are less acute here than in the United States—but I do not think that means we should ignore it. It is clear that the accelerating protests on campuses are having a deleterious effect on Jewish students on campuses. Indeed, the Union of Jewish Students said only last week:
“Jewish students are angry, they are tired, and they are hurt by the continuous torrent of antisemitic hatred on campus since October 7th”.
I am not sure that gives the Union of Jewish Students a veto on whether the Bill should go through, but it indicates that there is still a very real problem.
The current round of student protests—the encampments and related demands—do seem, as I have seen reported, to include BDS demands on the universities. As far as I am aware, none of the universities has yet succumbed and changed its policies on BDS, but at least one has given in to some other demands, such as renaming buildings and changing some other organisational arrangements, and we cannot be sure what universities will do in the longer run. The Bill would close the option of them ever implementing BDS policies and would therefore be one small step to closing that route off and helping to create an environment for Jewish students, who would be even more oppressed if the universities publicly announced BDS policies against them. I do not think it is a very big item, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the Bill does nothing. I think it does something towards closing off an avenue that universities might be tempted to go down in order to see off the undoubted nuisance of all these student protests.
I would just like to briefly say something about the ONS as well. The ONS reviews all sets of bodies that are on the borderline between the public and private sectors at regular intervals, and it does it in a careful way in accordance with international definitions. These are all careful considerations. It is clear that universities are in a grey area: they are public authorities for the Human Rights Act, are included in the Freedom of Information Act and were included in the Procurement Act that we considered last year. They are already subject to a lot of the public sector laws, and nothing is going to change that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Willetts that this Bill will not be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it is always legitimate to ask on which side of the line these bodies that exist half in and half out fall.
Just being classified by the ONS does not of itself lead to other consequences. There may well be further considerations down the line, but we certainly cannot stop the ONS doing the job that it is set up to do, which is to consider classifications in accordance with international guidelines,
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me to be fundamental to this Bill that universities and other relevant bodies are included. We are not talking about individual academics having their right to free speech being affected at all. We are talking about institutional behaviour. Yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has pointed out, what happens in universities really matters. I also went on a trade trip to China with the vice-chancellors. I remember, because they were the ones sitting in business class. They are a very important part of the fabric of our society—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Possibly first class. No one can forget that academia is not immune to bigotry. Let us recall that Heidelberg University in Germany was no less prestigious than any UK university in its day. In the 1920s, it was the centre of liberal thinking. A decade later, a mob of Heidelberg students burned Jewish and other so-called “corrupt” books in the Universitätsplatz. Jewish students and Jewish academics were banned, its faculty developed pseudo-academic fields such as race theory, eugenics and forced euthanasia. Heidelberg was led by administrators who lacked moral leadership—and we all know how this ended.
It cannot be right that students at universities around the world feel unprotected and threatened. Most ironically, only a few years ago, children of Jewish friends of mine were telling their parents they did not feel comfortable going to a UK university, so they applied to go to one in the United States. The appalling lack of leadership in some US universities has quite rightly led to the removal of their leadership in some famous cases. We are all watching Columbia University, apparently led by the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, most carefully to see whether it can exhibit proper leadership against the vile intimidation and abuse.
In the UK, we have seen many universities fail to take proper action. I will cite some alarming incidents indicative of this unsafe environment. For example, in Leeds there was the attack on a Jewish chaplain, a rabbi, the sit-in at the Parkinson building, the daubing of the Jewish student centre and the encampment outside of the student union. Apart from the absurdity of the protesters protesting against an occupation by occupying university buildings, the demonstrations themselves are misplaced—and, as at other universities, such as King’s College, Cambridge, are causing huge distress to Jewish students, as has been noted.
Despite very sterling work by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, it is endemic. In Birmingham, students called for “Zionists off our campus”. We know what they mean, “No Jews here”—as they did in Heidelberg. A while ago, in December 2021, City University students, among others, demanded a BDS ban. It was stopped only because the Charity Commission ruled that this was in breach of its charitable status. Interestingly, the leader of the call for BDS there, Shaima Dallali, was subsequently elected president of the National Union of Students before she was suspended for anti-Semitism. The connection between the call for BDS and anti-Semitism is staring us in the face
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Today, it has been reported that she has been compensated for unfair dismissal—so I do not think the point quite works as the noble Lord intends.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for telling us that. I had not heard that and I will check it out. None the less, she was dismissed for anti-Semitic behaviour, so it is suggested. We know what lies behind much of BDS. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Johnson, the BDS movement, as he said, has taken credit and claimed it scored a victory in respect of divestments by Manchester and procurement by King’s College Cambridge and Southampton. It is true that the UJS’s previous president raised objections to the Bill, but that was before 7 October and before the heat turned up so dramatically. It certainly voted unanimously against BDS.
Most recently, we have seen student demands that Goldsmiths College rename a hall after a Palestinian, give scholarships to Palestinian students and participate in BDS. It looks like the college has agreed to all these demands without carefully considering the impact this might have—again showing absolute failure of leadership. Where does this lead? I am told today by people at Goldsmiths that there is now a movement to prohibit students entering the library unless they sign up to supporting BDS.
In my opinion, this Bill will help those in leadership positions in the above examples and at other universities. It will help them stand up to these outrageous demands by making it clear that intimidation is no longer allowed, and they have no choice but to refuse to enact BDS because the law now demands this. Universities cannot hide from their responsibilities. They should of course be focusing on their core public duty of providing quality higher education and undertaking excellent research while protecting those on campus who are currently threatened by the proponents of BDS with intimidatory anti-Semitic behaviour.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will have listened very carefully and I hope concluded that she has heard several notable contributions on this group, to which the only conclusion, in my view, is that this amendment should be accepted by the Government. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. In the case of the noble Baroness, I think her argument was that the problem of anti-Semitism on campus is too high, and one would agree. The problem I have with her conclusion is that this Bill would actually make it worse. It would make community cohesion more difficult. It would be worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, talked about institutional behaviour and said that the institutional behaviour in universities would be improved by this Bill. He gave a number of examples, and one has to take those seriously and look at them. I will just say that it is a very dangerous policy to generalise from the particular and to say that across all our universities and higher education institutions, that pattern of behaviour is being followed, because I do not actually believe it is true.
I take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. I think he made an extremely important contribution. He basically said that the Bill does nothing in the context of universities. There has been no successful BDS campaign, he said. The Union of Jewish Students does not want the Bill, I recall him saying.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful discussion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for tabling his amendment, and I was very glad to be able to add my name on behalf of these Benches. There seem to be two parts to this case. One is that this simply will not work. The other is that universities are not public bodies and that this in some way is another penny on the scale towards making them public bodies, which is something I think that any us who are in any way involved in universities would seek to resist at every opportunity. I should declare my interest as chancellor of the University of Teesside.
When you have two Tory former Universities Ministers and the Government’s anti-Semitism adviser saying in the strongest terms that they fundamentally disagree with this legislation’s approach to this issue and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, it is a wise Minister who reflects on that and perhaps takes it away and considers it a little bit further.
I can see why, when the Government conceived this Bill, they included universities because, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, quite rightly reminded us, there is a problem on some campuses for Jewish students and Jewish members of staff, and the atmosphere has deteriorated since October 7, in particular. There should be nobody in this Committee or anywhere else who dismisses that and thinks that there is no problem that we ought to set our minds to try to resolve because it is not right that in the name of free speech or anything else we allow that to continue. That must be tackled. My point to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is that the calls that he mentioned, such as about the naming of lecture theatres and the awarding of scholarships to Palestinian students, are made by those doing the protests, the sit-ins and all the other activities that he talked about. He mentioned Goldsmiths specifically. I have a copy of the agreement that was reached between the senior management team at Goldsmiths and the students’ organisation that I think is called Goldsmiths for Palestine. It is seven items long. Many things have been discussed, but only one section looks in any way at investment, divestment or boycotts. The rest are things that would never be within the scope of the Bill.
I am afraid that when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says that the Bill will not do anything about these protests, he is probably right. I have not spent a lot of my life sitting on protests or going on marches, but I have done a bit, and the fact that what you are asking for, or demanding, is unlikely to happen—or is perhaps even legally impossible—at the point at which you are making the demand does nothing to stop you making it. That is the way protest works—we can like it or not; it is just a fact of life.
Many of the demands being made are nothing to do with BDS any more. BDS has been around for a very long time, as we all know, but taking away universities’ ability to succumb to these campaigns—not that any of them have—will do nothing to improve safety on campuses; it could make things worse. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is shaking his head. I hope that he will recognise that I am being genuine about this; I want to see this resolved as much as he does. However, I do not think that telling protesters that we are preventing universities taking the decision they wish them to take will mean that they stop making their demands, or that the temperature goes down. Protesters feel that they are right and are acting in the interests of humanity. We can agree or disagree on how they do that and the language and methods they use. We can have a discussion about that, and perhaps we should, but the Bill will not improve the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and others have said, there is a risk that it could make it worse. I do not want us to take another step down a path that could end up making this worse when there is still an opportunity to work together and find an alternative means of making improvements that we all wish to see.
I do not think that the theory that the Government have put forward—that if you remove a university’s ability to adopt BDS, the protests somehow diminish, and that life becomes more tolerable and safer—is realistic. That is my main reason for wanting universities to be removed from the Bill.
I also support the arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson, about the independence of universities; they are very important. Our universities are feeling somewhat beleaguered and got at by this Government. There does not seem to be a lot of understanding or support, and they would argue that many of the challenges they are now facing have been made worse by the actions of this Government and the attitude that they seem to take towards universities—wanting to plant them front and centre of a culture war. Our universities are wonderful institutions. They bring huge investment into our country. I am sure that we are all immensely proud of them. They employ a great number of people. They bring jobs and prosperity to parts of the country that desperately need them. They are inspiring and educating the next generation of engineers, pharmacists and doctors, and we thank them for all that they do.
I say to the Minister that to go further down this path, without pause, would be a mistake. A far better approach to tackling this problem, which we all accept needs to be addressed, is to work alongside universities —my party would be part of this if that would be helpful—to work out the most effective way of dealing with this. The Bill will not work, and there is a risk that it could make the situation worse for Jewish students.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I heard what the noble Baroness said very clearly, but does she agree that Goldsmiths has now agreed to take on a policy of BDS, and that if the Bill had passed, it would not have been able to succumb to intimidatory pressure so to do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have the agreement that Goldsmiths made in front of me, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is right. One of the six issues concerns BDS, but I suggest that he read the wording very carefully. It says that the senior management team will raise concerns with the college’s ethical investment fund manager; it is not saying that it will enact any divestment at this stage. I read the agreement very carefully, not least because I thought that it may have made a decision that undermined my case this evening. I would be very happy to meet with the noble Lord and discuss this further, because it leaves the door open, perhaps, to Goldsmiths taking the decisions that he fears it might. It does not look as if it has done so far, but even if it does not and were prevented from even discussing that, there would still be the other six elements that were driving the campaigns, the sit-ins and the activities on campus which were so problematic.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who has sat patiently throughout today for her contribution.
I do not think that sufficient weight has been given to the pressure on universities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns at this time. I am disturbed, as I am sure we all are, by the violence we have seen in the US over the past week, and the threat that that poses for the safety of students and their ability even to complete their exams. We cannot risk this in the UK and the associated intimidation of Jewish students. Sadly, we have begun to see a fresh wave of student demonstrations at our UK universities, including protest camps set up in Oxford and Cambridge, a deterioration that the noble Baroness acknowledged. These protesters have, I understand, been demanding that their universities cut financial ties with Israeli companies.
My noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson asked about examples of BDS activity in universities, and I have answered questions on this, as has been said. But another example was highlighted this evening by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, that of Goldsmith University, which has agreed to demands made by one of its student-led groups, Goldsmiths for Palestine, to review its ethical investment policy. I am glad that further discussions might take place, and I would be interested to see the document.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, there is a problem of anti-Semitism in universities, and we need to take this small step to head off BDS, which is a manifesto commitment, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We are clear that universities should be in scope of the Bill, despite the oratory and expertise of my noble friend Lord Willetts. We have worked together on good government for many decades, and his contribution is welcome.
No noble Lord wants to inhibit the freedom of students and individual academics to express their views on the conflict in the Middle East, or, indeed, on any other difficult conflict, in a civil manner. Universities have always been the natural home for open debate, and that will continue. There is no thought control—we are talking about public authorities’ investment and procurement decisions when focused on a particular country or territory. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, would not herself be affected and university pensions are not in fact within scope.
However, it is the case that universities are part of public life. They have a responsibility to deliver education for their students, and in this context the Bill strikes a reasonable balance. It bans universities from carrying out their own boycott and sanction campaigns when they are exercising their public functions of investment and procurement. It does not deal with the private acts of individual academics, nor does it interfere with the private commercial activity of university bodies. However, it is a sad fact that in 2023, the Community Security Trust recorded 182 anti-Semitic incidents in the context of the higher education sector, an increase of 203%.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, particularly for his fervent advocacy regarding anti-Semitism. The Education Secretary is hosting a round table at No. 10 on 9 May with a number of vice-chancellors to discuss how we can prevent and crack down on anti-Semitism on campus.
Where student unions and pressure groups demand that universities engage in BDS campaigns, this Bill will help universities remain focused on their core public duties, rather than becoming agents for a pressure group. Indeed, the Bill will discourage these campaigners’ demands in the first place by removing the chance of success.
I hope this provides some context on why the Bill should apply to universities. It is supported by representatives of the Jewish community in the UK, including the Jewish Leadership Council.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with the points that have been made. I will certainly want to look at some of her observations carefully; the business investment guidelines, for example, are potentially a very important concession and piece of advice.
However, I think the mood on all sides of the Committee is one of deep scepticism about whether these provisions really will help and have any significant effect when it comes to higher education. We have heard powerful interventions from my noble friend Lord Johnson, and a particularly powerful point from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, with his long history of engagement and challenges in fighting anti-Semitism.
Perhaps I may briefly pick up on two points. The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on where this comes from goes to the heart of this legislation. This is American legislation. This is an American culture war brought to the UK. Universities are involved in this because in the US they have massive endowments. The politics of BDS is about D, above all: investment. What has happened is that the provisions go from the highly charged American debate about the investment of over $800 billion, the size of American endowments—that is why the American neocons go for BDS provisions in universities—and have been incorporated into this Bill, which now comes over here and those provisions are replicated.
This cuts both ways. It is not a straightforward point. The reality is that British university endowments in total are probably 1% of American endowments. So all the charged politics and the significant financial decisions, as one tries to argue politically about investing $800 billion, is not quite so charged if it is perhaps $8 billion in total. However, it is also the case that one can predict, and you can see it happening, that some universities have endowments and this matter will be increasingly raised in those tent cities on some of our campuses. “Will you promise that you won’t invest in companies doing business with Israel?” I can see that happening as a cause.
This is where the inclusion of the Occupied Territories gets very complicated. I may say so, it was a strategic blunder in the formulation of this legislation because, by including the Occupied Territories, where there is explicit government guidance already, “Be very careful about investing in them”, that totally muddles up the issue. So I suspect that the way all this will go is that the government concession will be on removing the Occupied Territories from the provisions. It would be great if the Government would also consider more widely what they are doing on universities. This is an area where, again, the British debate is so different from the American debate.
On the ONS issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a fair point. This is absolutely not automatic, but we are aware of what happened with further education colleges. That is why this is such a highly charged issue for higher education; it is because FE colleges have already been through this twice. The issue is control. At what point do things look controlling? Normally the ONS gives the Government time to correct and reverse the measures that might pull a body into the public sector. If this were to happen with universities, one very much hopes that the Government would try to pull them out and then they would probably bring before the House a long list of control measures that were being rescinded in order to get those bodies healthily out of the public sector. I have a modest bet that this would be one of the many pieces of legislation on the chopping block in order to reverse the danger.
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, but we may find ourselves returning to it at a later stage.