House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Automated Vehicles Act 2024
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
Last month, the Prime Minister confirmed that this Government are committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, with a fully funded plan. Obviously, the public want to know that we will deliver value for money. That is why, in parallel, we are delivering a fundamental reform of acquisition through our new integrated procurement model.
Jerome Mayhew
Last week, we heard an announcement about the development of a radio wave drone killer. How is the integrated procurement model encouraging and accelerating the development of that novel technology?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend highlights the fantastic news, confirmed last week, that we are developing a new radio frequency directed energy weapon. It is an extraordinary capability that with one strike can inflict hard kill on multiple drones, at a cost of about 10p a shot. As for how that exemplifies the new approach, it is about the close relationship between industry, our scientists, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. It is through the strength of the industry that we drive innovation and get the best kit into the hands of our armed forces.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
We are pleased that there was an announcement from the Prime Minister, and that the Department has plans, but what we actually need is industrial capacity. When the Department is handing out orders for fleet solid support ships to Spain; when it has taken 18 months to order munitions; when The Times today shows a significant drop in the number of apprenticeships; and when the Department admits that it still will not take past performance into account when awarding future contracts, what confidence can we have that there will be the industrial capacity, and the real orders, to enable our defence industry to be competitive and supply our forces?
James Cartlidge
We are massively ramping up defence capacity. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about 155 mm shells; that issue is precisely why we have reached a contractual agreement with BAE Systems, and it will be ramping up production in Wales and north-east England. We are doing the same with ships, complex weapons and, as I said earlier, novel weapons and our science base. This is all about giving our armed forces the capability that will give them the cutting edge.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The global combat air programme will be a terrific boost to our defence and aerospace industries. To maximise success, we must keep the Typhoon production lines going until it comes on board, so what are Ministers doing to ensure that we maintain exports?
James Cartlidge
The Chair of the Select Committee asks an excellent question, and I assure him that there is an effort across Government to promote key defence exports, not least the Typhoon. A key factor in our new integrated procurement model is the need to drive exportability. That will not only ensure industrial resilience, but give us protection against overly exquisite requirements from the domestic side, which can result in delayed procurement. It is a good question, and we are focused on delivering greater defence exports.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Somerset is home to several organisations in the defence sector, such as Thales and Leonardo. However, companies in defence are concerned about the shortage in science, technology, engineering and maths skills in the UK; 48% of defence employers report a shortage of workers with engineering skills. What steps is the Minister taking, alongside Cabinet colleagues, to remedy those shortages and ensure that the UK defence sector remains competitive?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady asks a good question. There was a previous question about defence capacity; a key part of that is not just industrial capacity and buildings, but people. She is absolutely right. I visited Yeovilton in Somerset, where I met apprentices who are involved in the programme for our helicopters. We saw a demo of artificial intelligence that is helping us to improve the availability of our helicopters. Work is happening across defence and across Government, but we want to do more to ensure that we have the necessary apprentices and key skills in our defence sector.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Since the new shipbuilding strategy was launched two years ago, Ministers have given new build defence contracts to the Netherlands, Spain and, last week, France—just two days after the Defence Secretary declared that he was “determined” that new Navy vessels would be built “here in the UK.” He is the Government’s shipbuilding tsar; why will he not back UK shipbuilding?
James Cartlidge
I point out that a shipbuilding strategy costs money, and that is why we are committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. On his key point about the shipbuilding strategy, I have been to Scotland and seen the amazing yards where we are building the Type 26 and the Type 31. I have been to Appledore, which is contributing to fleet solid support. We are committed to a UK shipbuilding sector. As the Secretary of State confirmed in his speech last week, by value of the future order book, this country is now No. 1 for naval exports.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
We are making excellent progress on implementing the defence drone strategy, which I launched back in February. Our priority was to learn the lessons from Ukraine in order to build a sovereign industrial ecosystem that would enable uncrewed procurement at scale for the British armed forces. As for platform production, our immediate priority remains delivering drones to Ukraine, and I confirm that we have delivered 4,000 drones, with many more on their way in the coming months.
Mr Hollobone
Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the drone threat, a key priority has to be counter-drone technology, to defend our forces? Does he agree that directed energy weapons will have a key role in that regard?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend raises two excellent points. First, he is absolutely right: our drone strategy must include a focus on how we defend our armed forces against the threats that are out there. He is also right that a key part of the solution is directed energy weapons. In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), I spoke about radio frequency directed energy weapons, but we have also announced our procurement of the laser weapon DragonFire. Using our new procurement system, we want to get that into the hands of our armed forces as fast as possible. That means having it on naval ships by 2027, using our new minimum deployable capability approach.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The skills of Northern Ireland’s workforce are renowned across the world. Northern Ireland would very much like to be part of the UK defence drone strategy, so I ask the Minister this simple question: what is being been done to ensure that the skills of Northern Ireland’s workforce are used for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
James Cartlidge
What a fantastic question. I can answer the hon. Gentleman simply. Just a few weeks ago, I was in Belfast at the Thales factory, which is manufacturing some of the best weapons available. It will be a key part of defence exports, and fundamentally a key part of future orders for the British Army. Northern Ireland is very much part of our defence industry.
Mr Speaker
I call Chris Stephens. He is not here. Can the Front Bencher answer the question as though it had been asked?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Mr Speaker, I will by all means answer the question. In 2023, 262 service complaints relating to bullying, harassment and discrimination were ruled admissible, compared with 227 in 2022. I am pleased to say that changes to the service complaints system in June 2022 have been encouraging people to come forward with their complaints. The “My Complaint” app, which launched in October, will make the system easier and more accessible.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The defence anti-bullying hotline is a great step forward in ensuring that members of the armed forces have the support that they need, any time of day or night. Can the Minister tell me what training advisers have had, not only on how to help our armed forces, but on ensuring that everything is completely anonymised, so that people can go forward with their life and get the support and help that they need?
Dr Murrison
Obviously a hotline is no good if the individuals at the other end of it are not trained. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The most important thing is to ensure that people have confidence that if they come forward with complaints, they will be listened to and taken seriously.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for Defence People and Families for inviting me to visit the defence serious crime unit, which I did last Thursday. The people there are obviously doing good work focused on tackling serious sexual and violent crimes in the armed forces. Given the doubling of reports of bullying, discrimination and harassment in the Ministry of Defence since 2019, and some cases remaining unresolved for up to three years, what is the Minister doing to address the toxic culture in his Department? Why is it that such things seem to be worsening on this Government’s watch?
Dr Murrison
I think the right hon. Lady would have to admit that a lot has been done over the past two or three years, including the setting up of the defence serious crime unit and the defence victim witness care unit. They are important. The general message has been that we have a zero-tolerance approach. It has been, “Come forward. You will be listened to and taken seriously.” It is reasonable to assume that some of the figures are the result of people now having the confidence to come forward, because their complaints will be investigated independently. Previously, that was not the case.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
Defence remains committed to detecting biological threats. We continue to work closely with the Cabinet Office on this matter and are the lead Department for the “detect” pillar of the biological security strategy. We have prioritised funding to create the UK Microbial Forensics Consortium, which will strengthen our ability to detect biosecurity threats, now and into the future.
Matt Hancock
Over the past few years, the cost and impact of security failures relating to biosecurity has been much greater than that of those relating to physical security. As the funding for the defence of this country rises to 2.5% of GDP, will the Minister ensure that he works with the Cabinet Office, the UK Health Security Agency, the Department of Health and Social Care and others to ensure that biosecurity, including protection from synthetic new threats, is at the top of the agenda?
Leo Docherty
We certainly will. Through the biological security strategy and the associated governance structure, we are working closely with the UK Health Security Agency to co-ordinate our response to the biodefence risk, and we are investing £5 million a year in our international biosecurity programme, so we are on the same page.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that there are real concerns in the light of recent reports about the increasing recklessness with which Russian operatives may interfere in our economy, directly and indirectly, and every other aspect of British lives? Are we prepared for that kind of mischievousness?
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
An agreement for UK-Israel military co-operation was signed in December 2020. There are no current plans for the agreement to be updated, but we continually review it to ensure that it remains relevant.
Kenny MacAskill
The rector of Glasgow University, who is an eminent Palestinian surgeon, has been narrating the horrors of the requirement to operate, and even perform amputations, on children—often without morphine—in Gaza. He has also detailed the horrors of the use of white phosphorus munitions. White phosphorus ignites during surgery when exposed to the atmosphere and requires dousing, including during complicated operations. Why are we in a military pact with military forces that carry out such actions? If the Minister will not repudiate the pact entirely, will he ensure that the use of white phosphorus munitions in our name is not acceptable?
Leo Docherty
Of course it is not. We have no role in that, and we see no evidence of the prospect of that being used. We should focus on our confidence that Israel is an important ally, which means that we can make the point that the protection of civilians is of the utmost importance. We should also remember that at the heart of this conflict is the fact that if peace is to be achieved, Hamas need to lay down their arms and release the hostages.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
If a person calls for an intifada and chants genocidal chants, they are a supporter of Hamas. People can also be inadvertent supporters of Hamas, and can aid and abet them. One way in which that could happen is through having an arms embargo on Israel while Iran continues to arm Hamas, so that they can repeat the 7 October attacks, as they have said they wish to. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government have no interest in changing their policy on defence agreements with Israel?
Leo Docherty
Indeed. We are assured that the strength of our relationship with Israel allows us to make representations about the protection of civilians, and about the increase in the flow of humanitarian aid. We do that in the context of it being an extremely important ally, while being cognisant of the broader threat from the terrorist group Hamas and Iran, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The F-35 programme has not only given world-leading capability to our Air Force and Navy, but provided jobs and technological advancement in the UK defence industry. Could the Minister give an assurance that any review of our relationship with Israel will not jeopardise that programme?
Leo Docherty
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. We are immensely proud of the F-35 project, which delivers devastatingly effective fighting power for us and our allies, and 20,000 UK jobs.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Following on from the 2020 agreement, in November 2021, Britain and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding, elevating the UK-Israel bilateral relationship to a strategic partnership. The partnership is underpinned by extensive security and defence co-operation, but it also states that we will co-operate to improve Palestinian livelihoods and economic development. What future does my hon. Friend see for the memorandum, in the light of the war in Gaza?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend asks a relevant question. Our commitment to a two-state solution in which Palestinians achieve statehood is at the heart of our diplomacy and defence posture throughout the region, and it is unchanged.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s accommodation budget has not yet been finalised for the financial year 2024-25. The Government continue to invest significant sums to improve the quality of UK service family accommodation. The spend for 2023-24 on SFA maintenance and improvement was £384 million. An additional £400 million of funding over financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 was announced as part of the defence Command Paper refresh last July.
Helen Morgan
The new head of infrastructure at the DIO, Commodore Leah Griffin, has written in her monthly newsletter to military families that the financial situation is “more challenging than ever”, and only urgent repairs will be considered. We can see that on the ground in my constituency. A service person’s partner who has had abdominal surgery has been unable to climb in and out of their bath to have a shower, and has been refused any kind of modification to assist them. That kind of financial challenge has a real impact on servicemen and women’s lives. Could the Minister look at the problem, and commit to ensuring a decent standard of accommodation for those people who put their life on the line for us?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady is consistent in raising accommodation issues. As ever, if she has a specific case, she is more than welcome to write to me about it, if she has not already done so. On funding, I gently remind her that we committed an additional £400 million, and because of our commitment to 2.5%, we can confirm that we are able to put another £4 billion into SFA over the next 10 years—a significant investment.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that our service accommodation be of high quality, but we should also support members of our armed forces in buying a home for themselves and their families. What support is there in the modernised accommodation offer to help soldiers, sailors and pilots get on the housing ladder?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which speaks to my previous career, running a small business that helped first-time buyers. Forces Help to Buy has been a great success, but we also recently confirmed support with conveyancing costs, because the cost of getting on the property ladder includes not just the purchase but all the ancillary costs. We are committed to supporting our armed forces personnel, whether that means investing in the accommodation of those in SFA or single living accommodation, or helping those who want to get on to the property ladder.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Everyone who serves our country should live in a decent home, but last month, the independent Kerslake commission’s report on armed forces housing found that the majority of service personnel are dissatisfied with housing conditions, and very dissatisfied with the maintenance and repair service. One in three service personnel still lives in the lowest-grade service accommodation. The Government’s words simply do not match their action. Can the Minister honestly look service families in the eye and say that military housing under this Government is good enough?
James Cartlidge
The debate we have been having is about investment. We put in an additional £400 million, which means that we have been able to overhaul thousands of properties, performing upgrades to deal with damp and mould and putting in new heating systems. That costs money. Our commitment to 2.5% means that we will get an extra £4 billion over the next decade. Armed forces personnel know that Labour cannot possibly deliver that, because it will not match our commitment to 2.5%.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
Protecting the United Kingdom and responding to threats in our territorial waters is core business. In conjunction with our allies and partners, we constantly monitor activity in UK waters and deter threats. Our warships patrol the North sea frequently to achieve that deterrence.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for his answer. In the north Atlantic, Russian submarine activity has approached the most significant level since the cold war. Operations such as Dynamic Mongoose are a welcome commitment to both NATO and North sea security. How much of the new tranche of defence spending will be directed at the North sea and Arctic security?
Leo Docherty
Of course, we do not comment on our magnificent continuous at-sea deterrence. What I can say is that it is a matter of public record that we are committed to a magnificent new generation of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates, which will achieve the competitive edge that keeps us all safe.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that the seismic array situated at Eskdalemuir in my constituency plays an important part in our defences not just in the North sea but elsewhere? Does he agree it is essential that its capability is not in any way diminished by excessive wind farm development in the immediate vicinity of the facility?
Leo Docherty
I agree with my right hon. Friend; he is absolutely right in his analysis. The broader point is that this is another example of why, undoubtedly, England and Scotland, through the Union, are safer and better together.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
The UK and Israel have a long-standing defence relationship, as we have discussed already this morning. Israel is a partner in the region, and a UK-Israel defence co-operation agreement was signed in December 2020.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for that answer. The problem of unconditional UK military support for Israel is that while the majority of this House and of the British public rightly support our intervention to help protect Israel from missile attacks from third countries, it is a different story when it comes to its intervention and aggression in Gaza. How will His Majesty’s Government’s policy aim to sort out that conundrum?
Leo Docherty
Nothing is unconditional. The point I have made this morning is that we are supporting our ally overcome a devastating terrorist attack. We do that because it is the honourable thing to do. Simultaneously, we make the point to our ally that the protection of civilian lives must be at the top of the operational agenda. Furthermore, we use our military capability to ensure that humanitarian aid can flow into Gaza as quickly as possible.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
In the light of the damning International Criminal Court statement today, how concerned is the Minister about the potential impact on the UK’s military relationship with Israel?
Leo Docherty
It has no bearing. We will make our judgments about the legality of our actions on our own terms, and we are confident in that legality.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
Our armed forces, through Operation Shader, which is focused really on the Daesh threat in Iraq, continue to support the development of the Iraqi Government in terms of their security. We commend and thank the men and women involved in Operation Shader throughout the region. We do that in the knowledge that Iran is indeed a threat that is undermining regional stability.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, the brave resistance fighters in Iran will be celebrating the demise of the Butcher of Tehran today. Iran controls Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations. Given the attack by Iran on Israel, what further assessment has my hon. Friend made of the potential for Iran to launch another attack?
Leo Docherty
We take the threat Iran poses very seriously. We note that it uses its malign influence to continue to destabilise the middle east through its pernicious use of proxies. Our judgment is that that capability and intent remains. Our role in deterrence regionally is hugely important. I was very pleased recently to visit the magnificent sailors of the Royal Navy stationed in Bahrain. I reiterated that point about the fantastic deterrent effect they were having when I had a highly productive interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service. You will know, Mr Speaker, if you listen to BFBS as I do, that that point cannot be over-made. We are grateful for the magnificent activities of our Royal Navy in the Gulf, which are keeping us all safe.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
As the Minister has said, Operation Shader was originally put together in 2014 to defeat the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the way in which the Royal Air Force was used last month to help to intercept the Iranian bombardment of Israel, but the last parliamentary vote on Operation Shader was held in 2014, when Members were approving resources and deployments of UK armed forces to defeat ISIL. Will the Minister subject any operation that is designed to deter Iranian attacks to a debate and a vote?
Leo Docherty
It seems to me to be the settled view that Operation Shader is a good thing, and I do not sense any appetite for a parliamentary debate among colleagues across the Benches in this House. I should put it on record that I was very pleased to meet the men and women of the Expeditionary Air Wing in Romania, who have contributed so bravely over recent months to magnificent military effect through that operation.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
As we have discussed today, there is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support for Gaza. We—especially in the MOD—are working alongside partners and international organisations to enable the Cypriot maritime aid corridor initiative.
Gill Furniss
Over the past few months, we have seen shocking levels of suffering in Gaza. The only sustainable way in which to end this humanitarian disaster is an immediate ceasefire and the return of all hostages, but in the meantime aid must be provided to save the lives of innocent civilians. Can the Minister explain why there has been only one shipment of UK aid in more than six months, and none so far this year?
Leo Docherty
On the contrary, we have been hugely active. We have had 11 airdrops delivering more than 110 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and that is in concert with our friends in Jordan. We commend the magnificent men and women of the Royal Air Force, who have been instrumental in delivering that much-needed aid.
Andrew Gwynne
I echo the commendation that the Minister has just given our air service personnel. However, no one can be unmoved by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with scenes of children dying of hunger—it is utterly intolerable. I welcome the Government’s efforts to deploy UK aid flights and airdrops into Gaza, but the mounting scale of this disaster is showing that that is simply not enough. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to increase the number of UK aid shipments and access to Ashdod port?
Leo Docherty
We are seeking to ensure an increased flow not just through the air but by road and sea, which is why we have been instrumental in the setting up of the humanitarian pier. We commend and thank the captain and crew of the RFA Cardigan Bay, which is providing life support for those involved in the pier’s delivery. We hope that this is the first of a sequence of increased deliveries via all three routes.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Our commitment to NATO is unwavering. In response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we have committed almost all our forces to NATO. We contribute to every single NATO mission and declare our nuclear deterrent to NATO. We show our commitment not least through our increase in defence spending to 2.5%.
Mrs Hamilton
The Public Accounts Committee has warned that
“deterrence can only be effective if our Armed Forces are credible.”
However, that has been “undermined” by recruitment issues, with more people leaving the forces than being recruited. What message does the Secretary of State think that sends to our NATO allies?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady and the House that we are now seeing a very high level of applications. Last week, the First Sea Lord told me that HMS Raleigh, where the training takes place, is the fullest it has been for more than eight years. We have seen a big increase in applications to all three services, and long may it continue.
Mr Sharma
I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that the UK plays an outsize role in NATO as a crucial bridge between the United States and Europe. Does he agree that the UK should be contributing its huge industrial expertise to EU defence and security programmes, offering NATO additional resilience and choice while securing sovereign capability through home-grown intellectual property?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: our missions do indeed play an outsized role in NATO. We are the second biggest spender in NATO and the largest spender in Europe by a country mile, as Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General, said to me the other week. As I said in my original answer, we are contributors to every single NATO mission, plus we declare our nuclear deterrent to NATO—other than France, we are the only country in Europe to do that. We will always look at ways to do more with NATO. Committing to 2.5% of GDP sends a very clear signal that we are on the side of doing that.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Maintaining freedom of passage through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap is an essential task for NATO, particularly for the resupply of Europe in times of war. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is an equally big threat from half the Russian fleet being in the Arctic? Will he join us on Thursday 8 July at a symposium that we and NATO are holding jointly in Portcullis House to discuss defence in the Arctic?
Grant Shapps
That is a very important point, and questions have already been raised today about the size of the Russian fleet, what it is doing and where it is active. I will have to check the date, rather than answer my hon. Friend from the Dispatch Box, but I am much predisposed to attend the symposium.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
We are warned by the Secretary of State that we are in a “pre-war world”, yet we do not have sufficient training and resources to undertake high-intensity warfighting, and we do not have the equipment and stockpiles for our forces to survive a prolonged campaign. It has been 14 years; when will this be put right?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we have just provided the largest number of personnel to the largest NATO exercise in Europe since the cold war—Steadfast Defender, which is the largest exercise for 40 years. The United Kingdom can be very proud of the number of people we supplied on land, in the air and at sea. I have to make a fundamental point to those on the Opposition Front Bench: we cannot just wish ourselves to security; we have to spend 2.5% of GDP, and we have to set out the trajectory to get there. That is exactly what the Government have done.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Trident programme, but I am unclear about whether he means the Dreadnought submarine part of that. Of course, different parts of a programme often combine together, but the Dreadnoughts themselves will enter service in the early 2030s.
Owen Thompson
That was an interesting answer from the Secretary of State. The Government and the loyal Opposition have both pledged to commit to Trident renewal, investing obscene amounts of money that would be better used to improve our NHS, to help households with the cost of living and to support personnel or, indeed, veterans. According to the House of Commons Library briefing, Trident renewal is expected to cost £21 billion in 2022-23 prices, while one in three children is currently living in poverty. When will the Secretary of State agree that Trident renewal is an obscene waste of money, which could be put to much better uses?
Grant Shapps
I was recently at Faslane in Scotland, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not what the people employed in the defence sector think about Trident. I can tell him something else: having stood at the Dispatch Box and been Defence Secretary, I know that the defence of this country is vastly supported by having our nuclear deterrent. In my view, every other issue that we face comes after the defence of this realm.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Although the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) is a valued member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I think the Secretary of State would agree that the SNP is very much on its own on the idea of scrapping the nuclear deterrent. I am put in mind of a quotation from the late Denis Healey, who said that
“once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
Is that endorsement of deterrence not as true today as it was when he gave it 55 years ago?
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
Currently, around 96% of service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard. Only these properties should be allocated to our families.
Selaine Saxby
As a base primarily for our Royal Marines, Chivenor in North Devon sees personnel stationed there for shorter periods of time than many other military bases. Will my hon. Friend consider additional support for high turnaround bases, perhaps including access to dental services for forces families where there are problems registering with local providers?
James Cartlidge
I very much enjoyed visiting RM Chivenor last summer and I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a consistent champion of the armed forces in her constituency. MOD dental healthcare provides dentistry for our armed forces personnel, ensuring that they are dentally fit and ready to deploy in the UK and overseas. The NHS provides dental care for civilians, which includes the families of armed forces personnel. I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and MOD dental healthcare if she so wishes.
Sarah Edwards
As the Department continues to sell off service accommodation for armed forces personnel, including at Whittington in my constituency, and has abandoned plans to allocate based on family size, does the Minister accept that this can contribute to lower recruitment and retention levels for the armed forces?
James Cartlidge
That is entirely why we are investing in our estate. I have mentioned the importance of the additional £400 million, and that is not abstract. It has enabled us to make a real difference to the accommodation of our armed forces by putting in thousands of treatments for damp and mould, and lots of homes are getting new doors, new boilers and so on. That is the difference the funding makes, and that is why our commitment to 2.5% is so important. It is not just about capability; it is about the homes of our armed forces personnel.
Rachel Hopkins
Last month, the landmark report into armed forces housing found that poor quality military accommodation had become
“a tax on the goodwill of service personnel and their families”.
Does the Minister agree?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady is welcome to send me a copy of that report, although I am not sure it is entirely impartial. I look forward to reading the conclusions—[Interruption.] Presumably it recognises that if we want better accommodation, we need to put the funding in, so I assume that its conclusions recommend that Labour commit to 2.5%.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
We have considerably strengthened the UK’s defence in recent years and the Prime Minister’s announcement to increase defence spending to 2.5% signals our intent to invest further to ensure that our armed forces are equipped to deal with the threats we face. We are embracing innovation, investing in warfighting capability and bolstering the UK’s industrial base by reforming procurement.
Theresa Villiers
The war in Ukraine shows that drones will play a crucial part in future conflicts, so what are the Government learning from what is happening on the battlefield to ensure that our armed forces have the equipment they need to defend us from drone attacks?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend, and I am pleased that so many colleagues on this side of the House are asking about drones. At the heart of our defence drone strategy is the commitment to learn from Ukraine and from the frontline, and we are well placed to do that because we have joint leadership of both the drone capability coalition in respect of Ukraine with Latvia, and the maritime coalition—where uncrewed systems have been so important—jointly with Norway. There are two key steps we are taking. One is to improve governance, to cohere that learning across defence and into our armed forces. The other is to have a strong relationship with industry, and I can confirm that next month we will be holding an industry day in the MOD with drone companies from across the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
We take the risk of hostile cyber-activity very seriously. Our Department contributes to the national security risk assessment and the national risk register, and of course plays a key role in delivering the national cyber strategy to respond to hostile cyber-activity against the UK.
Chi Onwurah
British cyber-security is among the best in the world, as the sector has innovative companies employing 58,000 people and revenues of £10 billion or more. Under this Government, though, the Ministry of Defence’s record on cyber-security only gets worse, with breaches tripling over the last five years. What steps is the Minister taking to work with British cyber-security innovators to overcome his Government’s lax record on cyber-security, to support British innovation and, crucially, to keep our armed forces safe?
Leo Docherty
We are doing all those things at pace and, of course, the scale of the challenge is very significant. We are injecting a huge amount of money and institutional energy into ensuring that our cyber-defences are up to scratch. We are at the point of the spear when it comes to defensive cyber, as illustrated by the brilliant men and women who are part of our National Cyber Force, and we commend them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
Of course, the force protection of UK service personnel and our bases across the middle east is kept under constant review. Having been in Bahrain and Qatar in recent days, I can report that the morale and conditions of those posted to the middle east tend to be very high—they are a very purposeful set of people—but, for operational security reasons, I would not make any comment on the security readiness action plan.
Henry Smith
I pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the British armed forces personnel in the middle east who have kept us safe from terrorism and other hostile threats over many decades. Will my hon. Friend consider relooking at recognising all people who served historically in Aden for a service medal?
Leo Docherty
That was a very important campaign, and I am very happy to engage with my hon. Friend. I imagine that he might be asking about a specific constituency case, and I am very happy to sit down together to consider that.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I am committed to ensuring that the defence uplift to 2.5% means that we spend the money as efficiently as possible. The tremendous work by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on the integrated procurement model is very important to the outcome of that spending.
James Daly
I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend commit to the efficient use of defence spending, which we may not have seen in the past. Will he comment on the excellent example of his recent announcement on saving Royal Marine warships and the fact that this Government have committed to building up to six more for the commandos?
Grant Shapps
That is absolutely right. It is very important that our Royal Marines are able to continue their activities, so not only will we keep the existing ships running but we have announced that we will build up to six new multi-role ships, which is all part of our programme to build 28 ships. That is why our shipyards are so very busy.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Because of Government plans to mothball HMS Albion, key artefacts from the ship, including the sword of peace, were given to Chester town hall for safekeeping, and then, on 14 May, the Secretary of State announced that HMS Albion will not be mothballed. When would he like the artefacts back? Exactly when is HMS Albion going to be put to sea again?
Grant Shapps
We never announced that she was being mothballed, so I am very interested to hear about these artefacts. I was on HMS Albion the other week, so I will be very interested to engage on what has been removed.
Once again, I can clarify that both those ships—both used by our Royal Marines—will remain in active service. It is the case that more modern ships are being procured, which is possible only because we are prepared to put a date to spending 2.5% on defence.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Increased defence spending is obviously only a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. The Treasury rightly takes a jaundiced view of the MOD’s ability to spend money wisely so, to that end, can the Secretary of State advise the House on how much taxpayers’ money and defence budget was spent refitting HMS Argyll, only for her to be paid off immediately after she came out of refit?
Grant Shapps
There is no way that the Treasury, given its very tight hold on the fiscal regime, would approve spending 2.5% of GDP on defence if it did not have confidence in how we will spend it. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the excellent work of the integrated procurement model, which will make all the difference. I am very happy to engage with him on individual defence decisions, but the fact of the matter is that if we do not commit to spending the money, we cannot put the pipeline in place to build things like the new ships and submarines we need.
Dave Doogan
I am unsurprised that I got no answer to my question because I never got an answer to that question on 8 January or to my point of order on 24 March. I was only informed by the Minister for Defence Procurement, who is whispering a response, I hope, into the Secretary of State’s ear, of the fate of HMS Argyll after I read about it in the media. Will the Secretary of State tell me a different answer, then: did BAE Systems approach the MOD to buy HMS Argyll, or did the MOD approach BAE Systems?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has written to him on the subject, and I have no doubt that he will wish to engage with the hon. Gentleman further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
We are very mindful of the situation in Ukraine, particularly in Kharkiv where Russia is making, or trying to make, inroads. This is an existential battle for all civilised countries that believe in democracy and freedom, and it is the case that we must ensure that the world continues to keep up the efforts. It is not right for there to be pauses in our support and, when there are, the sort of losses we have seen on—I hope and believe—a temporary basis in Kharkiv around the villages to the north are an inevitable consequence of inaction.
Mr Hollobone
Lieutenant General Pavliuk, Ukraine’s commander of ground forces, recently confirmed that medium and short-range strike drones now kill more soldiers on both sides of the conflict than any other weapon. Is that not both a grim milestone in the history of warfare and the strongest possible signal that His Majesty’s armed forces must master that developing technology if they are to preserve and enhance their combat effectiveness?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one reason why this country has been at the forefront of providing drones. Indeed, we have made an enormous £325 million contribution to the drones coalition and provided 4,000 drones in the latest package, and there is a lot more to come for Ukraine. This bloody war is now killing, or causing casualties to, up to 1,000 Russians a day, and it needs to come to a stop.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Government’s increase in military aid to Ukraine for this year and the years ahead has Labour’s fullest support. Weekend newspapers reported that D-day celebrations are at risk from RAF cuts, and the latest MOD figures confirm that nearly 50,000 full-time forces personnel have been cut since 2010. The Defence Secretary’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), admitted that this Government have “hollowed out and underfunded” the forces. He is right, isn’t he?
Grant Shapps
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s support for the ongoing support to Ukraine of £3 billion a year. I gently say to him that it is not possible to provide that support without a route to getting there, with the 2.5%; otherwise, it will come out of the rest of the budget. I, too, read the story over the weekend, and it is simply not the case. We will have, in fact, 181 parachuters—exactly the same number as those who jumped in that location on D-day.
John Healey
We will also raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP to meet increasing threats, but this is not the magic wand that will fix 14 years of Tory failure: the Army, cut; the Navy, cut; the RAF, cut. Even defence spending—at 2.5% under Labour in 2010—has been cut by £80 billion since. Is it not clear that the armed forces cannot afford another five years of Conservative Government?
Grant Shapps
The armed forces cannot afford a Labour Government if Labour cannot answer one simple question: when?
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Following meetings with colleagues and veterans, having personally reviewed the files at the National Archives, and in the interests of transparency, I am placing copies of two recently reviewed extracts from the 1982 board of inquiry report on the loss of RFA Sir Galahad in the Library of the House. Those extracts are drawn from different sections of the inquiry and have been returned to the National Archives within the main report, which will be publicly available.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
As the grandson of an RFA officer, I defer to nobody in my admiration for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I commend the RFA for maintaining its operational commitments, in particular in relation to Gaza. Clearly, we listen to what Nautilus has to say with a great deal of interest and I hope the dispute will be ended as soon as possible.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
I very much enjoyed my visit to RAF Valley in February. I can confirm that the RAF has already started its standard capability investigation process into the future of combat aircrew training. The comprehensive review will include the procurement of the replacement of the current advanced jet trainer capability. The investigation will consider options for aircraft, simulators and associated combined live and virtual training, such that we can continue to deliver world-class training capability for UK armed forces. It will provide evidence on likely cost and timing of the replacement training solution to the Hawk T2.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman asks about the supply of shells. I am delighted to tell to him that we previously confirmed the provision of 300,000 artillery shells to Ukraine. The latest figure is that this country has procured 400,000 artillery shells directly into Ukraine.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
James Cartlidge
As the Secretary of State confirmed, we will have two A400M aircraft available for D-Day 80 on 5 June. The number of people who will be dropped will be 181, for the very good reason that that is the number of paratroopers who, at sixteen minutes past midnight on D-Day itself, landed and took the bridge that we named Pegasus.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to point that out, because some assumptions have been a little misplaced in this House until now. We will ensure that we can do a whole range of things that will help to make this country stronger and more secure. On that, he has my word.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Defence People and Families on behalf of Falklands veterans and their families, including Mike Hermanis, who brought the issue to me, for releasing the documents relating to the bombing of the Sir Galahad in 1982, which exonerate the Welsh Guards. I know that the campaign, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), will continue to seek the full truth, but does the Minister agree that instead of being blamed the Welsh Guards are owed our thanks for their service?
Dr Murrison
I agree with the hon. Lady. As the Government have made clear consistently throughout, no blame is attached in particular to the Welsh Guards. They committed themselves heroically on that day, and I join her in saluting them, in particular those who died.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is of huge strategic interest to Britain and the west that Israel prevails against Hamas and their funders in Iran. The Foreign Secretary was right to state last week that ending military exports to Israel would embolden Hamas and Iran. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a move would both harm UK defence interests and disadvantage our own armed forces, who rely on Israeli-made battlefield equipment?
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
My hon. Friend is correct in her analysis. We are particularly focused on ensuring that our assets in the region contribute to the release of the hostages.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
What is the policy of His Majesty’s Government on defence deals and arms sales to countries whose head of armed forces is under arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Grant Shapps
As the Minister for Armed Forces pointed out, the licensing regime is entirely independent of that. We support the country. We support the only democracy in that part of the world. We do not support the individuals in that Government; we support the country itself.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
In Fareham, we are rightly proud of our world-class aircraft carriers docked in nearby Portsmouth, providing thousands of jobs and being a huge credit to our Royal Navy. However, we all know that neither the Queen Elizabeth nor the Prince of Wales has as many jets, small warships or submarines as originally planned. Will the Minister please tell me how further defence spending will be used to bring online the full complement of F-35 jets, for example, so that our carrier strike group has the full capability to meet the modern threats of today?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. and learned Friend asks an excellent question. She is right about the importance of the carrier strike group. On the key point about the F-35s, we have confirmed 48 aircraft by 2025 and a further 27 by 2033, but in addition to that it is about working with our allies so that our carriers are at the heart of NATO operations, and ensuring that we have the maintenance and crews in place. As we saw recently, when we needed to get the second ship active, she was ready in eight days. That was a phenomenal achievement. It shows how effective we are at getting our carriers in place when we need them.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
I say to the hon. Lady, who has been consistent in that line of questioning, that one person homeless is one person too many. It is important to emphasise that most people leave the armed forces in a very good position, with skills that will advance their careers in civilian life. I do not want her giving the impression that people are damaged as a result of the service that they have given; the very reverse of that is the case. We will of course continue to support veterans, charities and initiatives to ensure that, particularly in places such as naval base port areas and garrison towns, we house everybody who needs accommodation.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Britain’s world-leading motor sports industry is worth at least £10 billion annually to the UK economy. The sport’s governing body, Motorsport UK, has proudly sponsored access to military venues for many years, but despite recently signing the armed forces covenant, that access appears to be diminishing. Will the Minister please agree to meet me, and perhaps the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, to discuss better third-party revenue-generating opportunities for the MOD estate?
James Cartlidge
I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. On the subject of motorsport, I stress to him and the House that the MOD has a brilliant partnership with McLaren, jointly innovating to look at, for example, technology relating to electronic vehicles. I am more than happy to meet him and look into the matter further.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
A constituent of mine who rents his home from the Ministry of Defence has recently been given notice to quit within two months, without any reason. He has never missed any rent payments and he has been unable to contact his landlord with a query on the instruction. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation?
Dr Murrison
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that; I have seen several cases of people having to leave their service accommodation. In general, the DIO and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that people have more than the minimum allowed by legislation, and we bend over backwards to ensure that people leaving service accommodation have somewhere to go to.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend will appreciate the huge importance of what the UK defence industry is doing to help Ukraine get the equipment it needs. Can he update the House on what his Department is doing to increase the amount of ammunition getting to the front line in Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend, who has Defence Equipment & Support in his constituency, has been a consistent champion of supporting Ukraine and he comes to every questions session to make that point. We are working hard to get more munitions in there; I mentioned 400,000 artillery shells, but I could list an enormous amount of ordnance. I can tell him and the House that we are not just doing everything possible ourselves, but cohering our allies and learning the lessons for our own armed forces. We have to be in this for the long haul, and the fight for Ukraine’s freedom is the right one.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement may have—inadvertently, I am sure—just misled the House of Commons. Pegasus bridge was captured in a glider-borne assault by the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, not a parachute assault. I know that because I was at the D-day 70 with the then Prime Minister David Cameron at 12.16 am to commemorate the assault. I am sure it was an error by my hon. Friend; no one will want to believe that an MOD Minister tried to change the history of D-day because the aircraft did not work.
Mr Speaker
The good news is that that is a point of clarification, which have been resolved.
South West Water: Brixham Contamination
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the urgent question. I will run this short: the question for the water company is about those who are affected, not other parts of the UK—so just for clarification, it is a tight UQ.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on South West Water and Brixham’s contamination.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
On Monday 13 May, South West Water was notified by the UK Health Security Agency of cryptosporidium cases in the Brixham area. South West Water undertook monitoring from Monday evening into Tuesday, with the results on Wednesday morning identifying crypto in the Hillhead distribution area. A boil notice was issued for customers on Wednesday 15 May to cover both the Hillhead area and the Alston area. I know that has caused considerable concern and disruption to the local community.
To date, UKHSA has identified at least 46 confirmed cases of cryptosporidium but, given that symptoms may take up to 10 days to emerge, obviously that number may continue to rise. Two people have been hospitalised. Two bottled water stations were initially opened on Thursday 16 May, and in my call with the chief executive on Friday, I requested that a third be opened and the hours extended, both of which then happened effective from Saturday.
I also raised concerns with the chief executive, including those shared with me by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about inadequate compensation. That was raised to £150 for residents in the Alston supply area and has now gone up to £215 for those continuing to be affected in the Alston area. A helpline has been established for businesses and I requested that it work with local MPs to streamline the process. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries visited the community on Friday.
Some 16,000 properties were initially subject to the boil notice, but 85% of them—32,000 residents in 14,500 properties that receive their water from the Alston reservoir—have now had the boil notice lifted. Not only have all the tests on the Alston reservoir been clear, but South West Water says that the positive test of the valve supports its contention that the most likely cause is downstream of that reservoir. If that is the case, those 85% of residents were never subject to any water issues and the boil notice was applied on a precautionary basis. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that there will be ongoing concern, so daily testing of that water will continue for the foreseeable future.
The Hillhead reservoir has now been drained, cleaned and refilled. A flush of the network, which aims to remove traces of cryptosporidium detected in the system, was started this morning. We are working with South West Water and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, recognising the ongoing disruption to the remaining 15% of residents. I know that South West Water will want to comply fully and in a timely fashion with the investigation of the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Anthony Mangnall
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for rivers, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for their extraordinary co-operation over the past week. I have wanted for nothing from them, and they have done an extraordinary job. I thank them and their team for being on hand at a moment’s notice to liaise with me and with the local organisations in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).
In Brixham the anger is palpable, the frustration is apparent and the sheer inconvenience that has been put on residents by South West Water is absolutely abhorrent. I have spent the past week and weekend delivering leaflets that South West Water should have been delivering —it has failed to update residents on the situation before them. I have spoken with residents and businesses about compensation and the reputational damage suffered by Brixham, one of this country’s finest coastal communities.
Last week, South West Water was accused of making people ill, not by an organisation, but by Tanya Matthews in a Facebook post. That post received 1,200 responses in which people identified common symptoms, yet South West Water did nothing. For 24 hours, people were still able to drink the water and South West Water continued to say that there was no problem. The reason 46 people are ill—and that is most certainly an underestimation—is the time period in which they were able to go on drinking the water.
Of course, it is welcome news that the Alstom reservoir has been cleared and independent monitoring and verification has been undertaken by the UK Health Security Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, but it is still wholly unacceptable that the 8,000 residents in the Hillhead reservoir area are still dependent on bottled water and cannot trust their water systems. In the 21st century, that is a totally unacceptable position for us to be in. South West Water and its management carry the responsibility for it.
I welcome the fact that we have three drinking water stations in Churston, Broadsands and Freshwater Quarry, and that 500,000 bottles have distributed—the teams on the ground have done an extraordinary job, and we should applaud them—but I have four questions for the Secretary of State. Can UKHSA and the DWI continue to provide independent monitoring over the coming weeks and months to ensure that there is confidence in the drinking water supply? Will there be an investigation into South West Water’s handling of this matter? Why, when the compensation is being upgraded, are people still paying their water bills? Finally, the damaged reputation suffered by businesses and the community of Brixham needs to be addressed, so will the Secretary of State hold South West Water to account?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is quite right to express the huge local concerns. He and I have spoken multiple times a day since this issue arose, and he has been extremely effective in raising the concerns of those he represents.
There is recognition that the initial comms, the mishap with some of the leaflets and the comms about compensation are all areas that South West Water will address moving forward, having sought to take his feedback. He is right about the urgency in addressing the Hillhead reservoir for the remaining 15% of the population. That is certainly uppermost in my conversations with the relevant stakeholders.
With regard to an investigation, issues with drinking water are treated with the utmost seriousness within Government, so I can assure my hon. Friend that these issues will be looked at extremely closely. I spoke with the chief executive of the Drinking Water Inspectorate at the weekend, and I had a meeting with one of its senior leaders just before this UQ. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a thorough investigation, as there always is with these kinds of issues, and I urge all parties, including South West Water, to co-operate fully and in a timely fashion.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Another day, another example of the depths of failure to which this Government have taken us. I cannot believe that I am about to say this, but after 14 long years of Conservative rule, in 21st-century Britain, our water is no longer safe to drink. Of course, the Government will be flailing around, desperate to clasp on to somebody else to blame, but this crisis is theirs, and it is this Government who must show some leadership and take responsibility for it. They were the ones who weakened regulation, leaving our Victorian-era sewerage system starved of investment. They turned a blind eye and left water companies to illegally pump a tidal wave of raw sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. Only last month, the Labour party warned that our nation’s health is at risk because hospital admissions for waterborne diseases have skyrocketed by two thirds since 2020. Is this an example of the Government’s plan working? Is this what they think success looks like?
And now this, as the icing on the cake of failure: a parasite outbreak in Brixham with South West Water. Some 16,000 homes and businesses have been advised to boil water before drinking it; over 46 cases of cryptosporidiosis have been reported; more than 100 people have reported symptoms; and a 13-year-old boy has been admitted to hospital. That is appalling.
Enough is enough, so today we are calling on the Government to urgently adopt Labour’s plan to put the water companies into special measures in order to clean up their water. As a matter of utmost urgency, the Government must strengthen regulations so that law-breaking bosses face criminal charges, and go further by giving the regulator new powers to block the payment of bonuses until water bosses have cleaned up their filth. With Labour, the polluter will pay, not the public.
I have one question for the Secretary of State. With contaminated water hospitalising children and record levels of toxic filth in our water systems, how much worse does the situation have to get before the Government adopt Labour’s plan to put the water industry into special measures?
Steve Barclay
Members on the Labour Front Bench like to claim that their party wants to be taken seriously as a potential party of Government, yet once again we see shadow Ministers pre-empting the investigation and trying to shift the issue to that of raw sewage. Obviously, it is for the Drinking Water Inspectorate to fully investigate this incident and the water company, but the initial information shared with me suggests that the concern is about farm contamination, not raw sewage. Of course, we need to wait for the results of that investigation, but the Labour party is just jumping to a conclusion that fits a narrative; it is not interested in what the facts suggest.
If the hon. Lady had actually listened to my statement, as opposed to pre-empting it with a question that she did not then change, she would have heard that 85% of those who were subject to the boil notice were upstream of this incident. From the information I currently have, they were not subject to any issue with their water. Because of the seriousness with which we take these issues, a precautionary notice was quite rightly issued to those residents, but the evidence presented so far suggests that there was no issue for those residents because the contamination happened downstream.
As for the wider point-scoring and political narrative, in this House there is usually a distinction between serious issues such as this one and the usual party knockabout. What the community want to hear is reassurance that all the investigations have been done, that we are getting the compensation right, and that we are getting the remaining 15% onstream—all of which, incidentally, the hon. Lady did not even ask about. She did not seem interested in those things, as opposed to the natural knockabout that she was trying to do.
However, let me divert to the topic she wanted to talk about. We have a fourfold increase in the number of investigators, so the water companies cannot mark their own homework. In this instance, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is conducting a full investigation; phase 1 has been completed, and it is now on phase 2. I have quite a list, Mr Speaker, but since you are signalling to me, I will close with the fact that the largest criminal investigation launched by the Environment Agency and Ofwat is currently ongoing.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
First, I commend my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for the very effective action he has taken on this issue over the past few days. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in an incident of this kind, speed is of the essence in diagnosing the problem, taking steps to remedy it, communicating with and reassuring customers and, if appropriate, compensating them? Does he believe that South West Water has shown the necessary urgency in dealing with this problem, and if not, what remedies do local people have?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend that speed is absolutely critical, first for the detection of the issue itself and the remediation of any health risk, and then in speed of communication so that there is no vacuum in which misleading information can arise. On the wider point about the speed of comms, I think this is an ongoing issue, because one of the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) have raised with me is the impact that negative publicity might have on tourism in the area. That is exactly the sort of area I have been pushing South West Water to think about proactively, so that it can get ahead with support for comms and advertising. It should be working with the business groups on which there has been a significant impact, so that it can demonstrate that it gets it, support the business community and create processes that are simplified, streamlined and easy to access.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The belated and pitiful offer of compensation by South West Water is somehow symbolic of the complete disconnect that the very wealthy people who run our privatised water industry seem to be suffering from, and I am afraid the Secretary of State is suffering from the same disconnect. He has given the impression that he is not responsible for the water industry and its failings over recent years. He is responsible, so please can he answer the perfectly reasonable questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy): why will he not make the bosses of the water industry criminally liable, why will he not put the industry into special measures, and why will he not stop these outrageous bonuses being paid to their CEOs?
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Member seems to have missed what we have done. First, as I touched on in my response to the urgent question, I personally have been chairing calls with the chief executive and key stakeholders —for example, on Friday and Saturday. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, who has responsibility for agriculture, visited the community on Friday morning and has had daily contact with the chief executive. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and I have been speaking multiple times a day on these issues, so the right hon. Member’s suggestion that we have not been involved just does not cut the mustard.
On bonuses, we have already taken action. We have a consultation with Ofwat on restricting bonuses, because I actually agree with the right hon. Member that, where there is serious criminal wrongdoing by a water company, bonuses should not be paid to executives. We actually agree on that point, and we are taking action.
On the right hon. Member’s third point, about prosecution, as I touched on in my answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), we currently have the largest criminal prosecution by the Environment Agency of water firms. Much to my frustration, I am restricted in some of the things I am allowed to know about that investigation, because it is a matter for an independent body—the Environment Agency. However, that investigation is ongoing and it is the largest in the EA’s history. It shows that we are prepared to get tough with the water companies.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this urgent question, and I applaud all his efforts over the past week. South West Water’s response to this crisis has left a lot to be desired. Many people in Brixham have fallen seriously ill, while hospitality and tourism businesses across Devon have seen their takings slashed and bookings cancelled. They all deserve compensation. Can my right hon. Friend outline the timescales for the ongoing investigation and when the results of this investigation will become public?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend makes extremely pertinent points both on compensation and on speed, which was the point made previously by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I think both apply. The point about compensation applies particularly to businesses because different businesses are impacted in different ways. The point about speed also applies to the investigation itself, which is why I said earlier that it is really important that South West Water—this is the signal that he and the House are sending it—co-operates fully with the investigation and in a timely manner. I know that local Members of Parliament want to be able to explain to their constituents exactly what the cause was, what the monitoring was and what action was taken, and I am sure that South West Water will have heard my hon. Friend’s points.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In 2022, the Liberal Democrats called for a ban on bonuses for water company bosses if a company has committed criminal breaches. Last year, 10 water bosses received bonuses totalling £2.5 million, and the CEO of South West Water forwent her £450,000 bonus. The Secretary of State said that Ofwat should carry out a consultation to define criteria for a ban on bonuses, but what size bonus does he think the CEO of South West Water ought to receive later this month?
Steve Barclay
As a Minister, one has to follow the correct legal process, and the legal process for an independent arm’s-length body requires it to have a consultation. As I have said, we are already moving on that; we have already said that we want to ensure that bonuses are not paid where there is serious criminal wrongdoing. What would be more refreshing from the Liberal Democrats is an explanation for why their MPs opposed Thames Tideway, the £4.5 billion scheme that will make such a difference to cleaning up the Thames and has been in place for the past eight years. Not once has the hon. Gentleman come to this Chamber to explain why, having asked so many questions on water, his MPs opposed Thames Tideway and that £4.5 billion of investment, which will do so much to clean up the Thames.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Although I am in the north of the county, I have been contacted this past weekend by concerned constituents. What more can be done to reassure them that this issue cannot be repeated in the north of the county, which is very proud of its farming and cattle? If this is found to be the result of a safety valve in a field, what more will be done to reassure other customers who fortunately were not affected this time but might be in future?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is not just those residents directly affected who are concerned; so too will be those in the surrounding areas. Indeed, some of the initial media reports referred to “south Devon”, which led many residents in the wider catchment to think that they might be directly affected. That is why the speed of the investigation and the work that the Drinking Water Inspectorate is doing is so critical, so that the facts can be quickly established. As I said, I spoke to the chief executive at the weekend. It has completed phase 1 of its investigation, and that work is ongoing.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a crisis of confidence in South West Water. Its response has been hopeless, frankly. It has had poor communications, poor initial compensation, as every extra pound seems to be dragged out of it, and it has a record of failure on sewage. What will the Government do to help restore confidence that South West Water is not only competent and able to manage our water supply, but that the water that comes through our taps is safe for everyone to drink? How can we encourage people to have faith in the outstanding and brilliant tourist offer that we have in the south-west, which has been battered yet again by bad news because of South West Water?
Steve Barclay
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the brilliant tourist offer, and there is work to do to support businesses, particularly in the hospitality trade, which will have been impacted by the reputational damage that the area has had as a consequence. I assure him that I made those points to South West Water. As I said in my statement, I have also spoken to it about compensation, which has moved, although there is further work to do, particularly with the business community. That is also why the investigation is so important, so that we get to the bottom of exactly what happened. That is important for residents who have had the disruption of the boil water notice, and for residents further afield.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
This has been a devastating event. Although constituents in Newton Abbot were not directly affected, this is an issue of trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said. It is about trust in South West Water as an organisation—there is a long way to go before that trust is restored—but also about trust in the quality of our water, and in our regulators to hold organisations such as South West Water to account. What do Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate do to challenge the water plans that these water companies put out to test what could go wrong? What risk analysis and assessment is there? What contingency plans are put in place? Trust can be rebuilt not just through the inquiry, but by making absolutely sure that the regulators—in all their guises—have in place the appropriate testing to ensure that this sort of thing cannot happen again.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend talks about the huge importance of the quality of drinking water. That is why we have the Drinking Water Inspectorate there, and it will be fully investigating, and it is why a precautionary approach was taken with Alston. As I have said, on the information that I have, the tests suggest it was upstream of any problem, but a precautionary approach was taken. That indicates how seriously we take these issues. It is important we get to the bottom of exactly what has happened and what has caused this incident, and the DWI is working actively to do that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2022, the Drinking Water Inspectorate found South West Water guilty, saying that the company
“did not follow best practice”
to avoid and shorten events where customers report problems about the taste and quality of their drinking water. It was fined a quarter of a million pounds. It was found guilty the year after for a six-year period of illegal discharges of sewage. The CEO awarded themselves almost £2 million in bonuses and awarded £112 million in dividends. Is it not time that all bonuses, all dividends and all bill rises are suspended until our water companies sort themselves out? If they do not, they need special administration.
Mr Speaker
May I remind Members that when they are asking a question or speaking, they are meant to look at the Chair, not at somebody down at the bottom of the Chamber, because we might be unable to hear what is being said?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is because of the good work of the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) that I was able to ask that question.
Mr Speaker
In the end, the good work of the hon. Member for Totnes was only allowed by the Chair—think that way first!
Steve Barclay
I will take that steer, Mr Speaker, and direct my remarks your way. First, there is agreement on bonuses that where there is criminal wrongdoing, they should not be paid. On dividends, there is a debate with Treasury colleagues on the balance between attracting investment into the sector and taking further measures. I have also touched on the largest ever criminal prosecution currently under way with the Environment Agency. It is important that we do not pre-empt the investigation. We need to get to the bottom of exactly what has happened and who is at fault, where there is fault. I am sure that as part of that, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and Members of the House will look at what monitoring was in place, what different parties did and whether any lessons from previous incidents were sufficiently learned. Those are issues that should rightly be explored through the investigation, and that is what the DWI is doing.
Israel and Gaza
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Gaza.
Over seven months since the horrors of 7 October, there is no end to the current conflict in sight. This Government want to bring the conflict to a sustainable end as soon as possible, but as so often with conflicts of this nature, the question is not about our desire for peace, but rather about the best means of achieving it. We continue to believe that 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 would then have to work with our international partners to turn that pause into a sustainable permanent ceasefire.
Building momentum towards a lasting peace will require a number of elements, including removing Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel. It was a deal of that kind that secured a pause in the fighting before Christmas—the only such pause since Hamas’s horrific attack. It was that approach that the United Nations Security Council endorsed just last month, following some effective British diplomacy.
A deal with Hamas for a pause in the fighting would involve exchanging hundreds of Palestinian prisoners charged with serious acts of terrorism in return for the hostages’ release. I do not underestimate how difficult that must be for the Israeli Government, but it is the best way forward that we see right now.
We continue to work closely with the United States and partners in the region to support such a deal. We do not believe that the International Criminal Court prosecutor seeking warrants will help in that regard. As we have said from the outset, we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.
A deal as I have described offers the best prospects of reuniting more hostages with their families; the anguish for them is unbearable. I am sure that the whole House joins me in holding the family of Nadav Popplewell in our thoughts at this deeply distressing time. We are still working intensively to establish the facts after the awful video that his Hamas kidnappers released last week. The Foreign Secretary met the family last week to hear more about their ordeal at first hand. Likewise, we send our condolences to those families whose loved ones the Israeli authorities stated last week had died.
At the same time, the toll on civilians in Gaza continues to rise. Images from the strip give us some sense of what they endure: civilians piling belongings on to a cart led by a donkey, or seeking to scrape together a meal in a makeshift shelter. We have seen appalling attacks on aid convoys and UN offices by Israeli extremists, and the tragic deaths of UN and other humanitarian personnel in Gaza.
We keep in close contact with Sigrid Kaag, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator, and we condemn all attacks on aid workers and support the United Nations’ call for an independent investigation. The Government of Israel have previously set out publicly their commitment to increase the flow of aid into Gaza significantly, but we need to see far more. The Prime Minister impressed the urgency of that on 30 April. In the past 10 days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Israeli Ministers Ron Dermer and Israel Katz. He has called on them to implement in full Israel’s aid commitments. We want to see: humanitarian aid allowed to enter through all relevant crossing points, including in Rafah; critically needed goods flowing in, particularly fuel and medical supplies; effective deconfliction processes to ensure that aid can be distributed safely and effectively; critical infrastructure restored and protected; evacuations for all those eligible; concrete action to protect civilians and minimise casualties; and, as Israeli Minister Benny Gantz said over the weekend, more planning for reconstruction and a return to Palestinian civilian governance of Gaza once the fighting has ceased.
We remain absolutely committed to getting aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering, and we are working with a wide variety of other Governments and aid agencies to deliver aid by land, sea and air. I am delighted to confirm to the House that we have now successfully delivered British aid on to Gaza’s shore using the Cyprus maritime corridor, which we and our partners—notably, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus—made operational just last week. We have committed almost £10 million in funding. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay is acting as a logistics hub for the operation.
We have now delivered more than 8,000 shelter coverage kits alongside aid from the US and UAE, with more aid to follow in the coming weeks including hygiene kits and forklift trucks. Work to develop other effective partnerships for the delivery of aid continues. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is in Qatar today, discussing a health partnership for Palestinians so that a British medical training agency can support doctors and health practitioners treating Palestinian patients.
We know that much, much more aid is required, but that delivery by land remains the quickest and most effective option, so we continue to work closely with Oman to maximise the aid delivered via the Jordan land corridor. I pay tribute to all those aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and medical professionals who are involved in Britain’s efforts to save lives and alleviate the suffering of civilians in Gaza. I confirm to the House that, last week, intense efforts by the Foreign Office led to the departure from Gaza of three British aid workers who were at risk from an outbreak of fighting.
As the fighting continues, we estimate that around 800,000 Palestinian civilians have fled from where they were seeking shelter in Rafah to other parts of the southern strip. The extent of this displacement is why we have been clear that we would not support a major Israeli military operation in Rafah, unless there was a very clear plan for how to protect people and save lives. We have not seen that plan. We and 13 of our partners, including France, Germany, Italy and Australia, set out our concerns in a detailed letter to the Israeli Government.
After more than seven months of fighting, it is becoming difficult to imagine the realisation of a lasting peace, but Britain continues to try to build momentum towards that goal. That will require not only the release of all the hostages and an end to the current fighting, but the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge in Gaza; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza; and a political horizon for the Palestinians, providing a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. That is what we continue to strive towards: peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The conflict has now gone on for 226 days. That is 226 days of destruction; 226 days of Israeli hostages still in chains; 226 days that have led to 35,000 Palestinian deaths; and 226 days where the risk of further regional escalation worsens every day. We will keep repeating our call until it happens: there must be an immediate ceasefire, as this House supported through Labour’s motion and as demanded by the United Nations Security Council resolution. Diplomatic pressure must now go into overdrive to bring the fighting to an end.
Labour has been opposed to an Israeli offensive in Rafah for months. The UK Government should now work with the United States to try to prevent a full-scale Rafah offensive, by being clear that they will assess UK exports and, if it goes ahead, join our American allies in suspending weapons or components that could be used in that offensive.
When we last met on this subject, I asked the Deputy Foreign Secretary to confirm whether he or the Foreign Secretary had received from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials any assessment or policy advice—not legal advice—that the threshold had already been met. He dodged the question, and did not answer. I repeat that question to him today. The whole House will be interested in his response.
Last November in this House, the Deputy Foreign Secretary appeared to row back on Boris Johnson’s shameful abandonment of the International Criminal Court when he said:
“It is not for Ministers to seek to state where the ICC has jurisdiction”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 513.]
The Prime Minister followed up in December when he said:
“we are a strong and long-standing supporter of the International Criminal Court.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 336.]
But in today’s statement, the Government have backtracked, U-turning on one of the Britain’s most fundamental principles: respect for the rule of law. Labour has been clear throughout this conflict that international law must be upheld, the independence of international courts must be respected, and all sides must be accountable for their actions. I ask the Minister very simply: does he agree?
Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt, but they do reflect the evidence, and the judgment of the prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal responsibility. Labour’s position is that the ICC chief prosecutor’s decision to apply for arrest warrants is an independent matter for the Court and the prosecutor. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes that the ICC’s independence must be upheld and respected, and that it is right that the conduct of all parties is addressed by the Court. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes that the focus of politicians should be on achieving an immediate ceasefire, in order to end the war in Gaza, free the hostages, alleviate the humanitarian crisis and create a pathway towards a lasting political solution. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes the UK and all parties to the Rome statute have a legal obligation to comply with orders and warrants issued by the ICC. Democracies that believe in the rule of law must submit themselves to it. Does the Minister agree?
Labour supports the ICC as a cornerstone of the international legal system. That support applies regardless of the Court’s focus, whether it is in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria or Gaza. Does the Minister agree? This gets to the heart of a simple question. Does the Conservative party —the party of Churchill, who was one of the founders of our international legal framework—believe in the international rule of law or not?
Mr Mitchell
I start by assuring the shadow Foreign Secretary that the Government’s answer to his final question is, as he would expect, yes. It is worth stating that if one looks carefully at his high-flown oratory this afternoon, we do not see very much distinction between the positions of His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government, as I will set out.
The right hon. Gentleman starts off by saying that this is day 226 of the incarceration of the hostages, of the destruction that has taken place, and of the risks of escalation. I completely agree with what he says. He says that the diplomatic pressure must rise. I can tell him that the diplomatic pressure is intense on all counts and in all places. He says that we must work closely with the United States of America. Let me assure him that we are working intensively and closely with the United States.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the advice we receive, and suggests that I dodged the question on the earlier occasion. I certainly had no intention of doing so. I can tell him that we receive all sorts of advice from all sorts of places, but we do not—as is the custom and practice, as he knows well—disclose our legal advice. We are always careful to follow it meticulously; that is my answer to his question.
The right hon. Gentleman asks: is this a matter on which the International Criminal Court should act independently? My answer is that of course it is, but we do not necessarily have to stay silent on what the court is doing, and we certainly are not doing so. On his question about the letter from a former Prime Minister, as we have said from the outset, we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case. The UK has not recognised Palestine as a state, and Israel is not a state party to the Rome statute.
As I say, if we split away some of what the right hon. Gentleman said today from the oratory that he customarily displays in this place, we see that the positions of the Opposition Front Bench and the Government remain very closely aligned.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
My condolences go to all the families who, over the last few days, have received the most devastating news—news that their loved ones have been murdered—and also to the Popplewell family, who have received heinous treatment from Hamas, including the publication of that outrageous video. Last week the Select Committee pushed the Minister for the middle east to do more to secure proof of life of those who are being held hostage, and that remains our call.
I welcome the effort on the maritime port—it is good that that is now in place—but it will be unable to function come September owing to the changes in the tide, so this is a short-term solution. Since 6 May, when the Rafah offensive started, only 40 trucks have gone through the Kerem Shalom crossing. In Rafah no fuel has gone in, no medical evacuations have taken place and aid agencies have started to suspend the sending in of their own people, which is extremely concerning. When will the Rafah crossing reopen, and will the Erez West crossing finally accept aid, not just through Jordan but also through Ramallah, because otherwise the amount of aid that is needed will simply not get in?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. She has made the point about proof of life before, and as she knows, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad has been pursuing that issue—in direct response, I think, to her Committee. She made the very good point that the maritime option will continue only as long as the sea conditions are satisfactory, and that emphasises the importance of getting aid in by road; the ability to do that is one of Britain’s specific demands of the Israeli Government. She also pointed out that Rafah has effectively been closed for the last few weeks, and drew attention to the great difficulties that that causes. We hope very much that there will soon be a deal between Egypt and Israel to put that right.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We are on a very dangerous road if we believe that the rule of law is something from which a Government can pick and choose. Unlike the Government, we very much welcome the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for the arrest of the Hamas leaders Sinwar, al-Masri and Haniyeh for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on, and subsequent to, 7 October. We have always unreservedly condemned the appalling Hamas attacks, the murders and the hostage-taking, and we repeat our call for the immediate release of the hostages.
Given the ferociously disproportionate Israeli response, which has seen 35,000 dead, 100,000 injured, tens of thousands of children orphaned, civilian infrastructure in ruins and the cutting off of food, water, electricity and medical supplies, we also welcome the ICC’s filing of applications for warrants for the arrest of both the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC says that it has evidence, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, that shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population of Gaza of what they need to survive. It has referred specifically to Israel using starvation as a weapon of war, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population. All these are acts that constitute a crime against humanity. The ICC has also confirmed everything that we have said about the crimes of 7 October, and Israel’s use of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing in response to those crimes.
For eight months, this Government have told us that they cannot make an assessment of breaches of international humanitarian law, but they have today—because it suits them—made an immediate assessment of the decision of the International Criminal Court, whose panel of experts consists predominantly of UK lawyers, simply because they do not agree with it. It is shameful and unforgivable that for eight months this Government have chosen to deny the evidence of their own eyes, and have given political cover and munitions to Israel. We have to assume, sadly, that if today does not put an end to the UK licensing of arms exports to Israel, absolutely nothing will.
Mr Mitchell
The position in respect of the ICC is simply not as the hon. Gentleman set out. The ICC has not done what he suggested; it has done nothing of the sort. He suggested that it had already found the answer to these allegations, but the truth is that the pre-trial chamber needs to consider the evidence, and to then reach a judgment. Let us not jump through all these hoops at once when they are simply not there to be jumped through.
Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are playing fast and loose with the rule of law. We are certainly not, and I hope that he will attend the main debate today, when he will see exactly what the Government think about the rule of law in all cases. Just because someone supports the role of the ICC, it does not mean that they have to be devoid of a view on what it is saying, and the Government are giving their view. As I said, we do not believe that seeking warrants will get the hostages out, get aid in or deliver a sustainable ceasefire, which remains the UK’s priority.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I ask this question in my personal capacity, not as Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In general, I am a strong supporter of the work of the ICC. The terrorist attack was undoubtedly designed to provoke an overreaction by the Israelis and to polarise societies, and it has succeeded in both those aims. May I ask the Minister to encourage the House to read the ICC’s statement in full? Helpfully, it is available online. May I urge people with a partisan view on either side of this atrocious issue to seriously take on board what the ICC is saying about the activities of the side they support, as well as those of the side they oppose?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that the debate is informed by facts, not rhetoric.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I am a little bit confused. The Government have previously said that they will not endorse any military operation in Rafah because it would be against international law. The Minister has said today that that would be the case unless there was a very clear plan on how to protect people and save lives. What has changed?
Mr Mitchell
Nothing has changed at all. We have repeatedly made it clear that we cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed plan. Clearly, that means a constructive plan that abides by IHL on all counts.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a grotesque overreach by the ICC? Courts, too, must act within the rule of law, and the jurisdiction of a court is not for itself to judge. The statute of Rome, which set up the International Criminal Court, clearly delineated the powers of the Court. The US and the UK have both previously said that the ICC does not have jurisdiction. Under its founding charter, it can only act against a sovereign state that is a signatory. The US, Israel and dozens of other countries are not signatories, and Gaza is not a sovereign state. Putting aside any purported evidence for a moment, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and like any other court, such as a traffic court or a magistrates court, it has to act within its powers—the powers set up for it by the international community. Is it not true that the ICC is acting outwith its powers and, sadly, setting itself up as a political court?
Mr Mitchell
I have made clear our position on the ICC. On what my right hon. and learned Friend says, many people will agree with what Benny Gantz said this morning:
“Placing the leaders of a country that went into battle to protect its civilians in the same line with bloodthirsty terrorists is moral blindness”.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Many of us, from all parts of this House, have supported the right of Israel to exist and, consequently, its right to defend itself over many years, and we have also condemned as appalling the atrocities that were carried out by Hamas on 7 October, but as the Minister said in his statement, after seven months of fighting, it is becoming difficult to imagine the realisation of a lasting peace; I agree with him on that. Does he not agree that until Israel realises that it has to listen to its friends, in this House and around the world, and take responsibility for its own actions, our support for it will decline rapidly?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman accepts that Israel has the right to self-defence, but says that it must exercise it within international humanitarian law. He makes the important point that we have to lift people’s eyes to what a future settlement based on a two-state solution will look like when this appalling catastrophe is over. A great deal of work is going on behind the scenes with regional partners, with great powers and through the United Nations to ensure that we can lift people’s eyes and that there is a deal to be done that will, at long last, draw the poison from this terrible situation.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Facts are important, and the facts have not changed since 7 October. It is Hamas who embed themselves in civilian areas, use civilian institutions and put their own people at risk in this conflict. It is Hamas who have committed rapes as a weapon of war. It is Hamas who are still holding innocent civilians hostage. And it is Hamas who went into Israeli communities on 7 October and butchered 1,200 people, including slicing the breasts off women and the limbs off children. On the other side, we have the democratic, liberal state of Israel with an independent judicial process and a Supreme Court that is respected internationally and that the ICC is supposed to respect. Yet there are people in here who, from day one, have done very little to call out some of the other behaviour and everything to hold Israel to a standard they do not hold others to. That is why the Czech Prime Minister and the—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please can everybody focus on a question? I am not quite sure that I heard a question there—[Interruption.] I think the Minister has heard enough to respond.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and feeling on this subject, and I think he might be one of those who agree with what Benny Gantz said this morning. I have read into the record exactly what he said, and I think there will be large numbers of people, both in this place and outside, who will think that what Benny Gantz said made a lot of sense.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Cyprus maritime corridor is welcome, but it risks acting as a fig leaf for the fact that there is not enough aid getting into Gaza. The Colonna report found that the Israeli authorities had yet to provide proof of their claims that UN staff in Gaza were involved in terrorist organisations. The UN Relief and Works Agency is the only serious organisation capable of supplying aid to those Palestinians in Gaza who are innocent. Why will the British Government not follow the lead of our Australian, Canadian and European allies and reinstate funding to UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
As far as maritime access is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the best solution has always, from the beginning of this, been access by road. That is by far the easiest, quickest and least expensive way of getting aid to desperate people. He is entirely correct about that.
In respect of the Colonna report, we are still waiting for the Office of Internal Oversight Services report from the United Nations, and I am advised that there has been good co-operation between the United Nations and the Israeli authorities on that. On UNRWA, as I have said, we are waiting for that report. The House should expect that we will be restoring funding to ensure that humanitarian support is available through that mechanism, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the appalling events that were revealed in connection with UNRWA staff, and we must complete the process that I set out.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Israeli war Cabinet looks divided. The chief of staff is pressing for a “day after” strategy, the Defence Minister has outlined his concerns, and the former Defence Minister and chief of staff, Benny Gantz, has asked to see the Government’s post-war plan for the Gaza strip and wants it to include six strategic goals, all of which look very similar to our own goals, as my right hon. Friend has outlined. Perhaps he would care to comment. The former Defence Minister has threatened to resign if the plan is not announced by 8 June. Will he have to resign, or is there a chance that there will be a plan on which both he and we can agree?
Mr Mitchell
I very much hope that my hon. Friend is correct in saying—and, indeed, hoping—that there will be a plan. His perceptive question shows that there are many voices in Israel, and the fact that he quotes two such senior figures—one seeking to know the “day after” strategy, and the other wanting to see a post-war plan—underlines the response I gave a moment ago to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). We have to lift people’s eyes to the fact that this dreadful conflict will come to an end, and we will then need to have a plan to ensure that the future is very different from the past. I remind the House that the tremendous progress made in the Oslo accords took place on the back of the intifada. Out of great darkness, we must ensure that a proper plan comes forth.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain how his Government can possibly justify continuing to support a military campaign that has involved the denial of electricity and basic services to civilians; the starving of civilians and the blocking of aid; the bombing of civilian infrastructure; the forced displacement of millions; the killing of journalists and aid workers; and the killing of civilians, including large numbers of children, on an unprecedented scale?
Mr Mitchell
We do not support that. What we support is Israel’s right of self-defence, but it must be carried out within international humanitarian law.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
There is a danger that the scope and timing of the ICC’s arrest warrants might somehow imply moral equivalence, but it is quite clear that the fighting should stop. What does the Minister think will be the impact of those warrants?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point. This smacks of an unworthy, indeed ludicrous, sense of moral equivalence between a murderous, proscribed terrorist organisation and the democratically elected Government of Israel, who are seeking to protect their citizens and recover their 124 remaining hostages.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
When we talk about the role of the ICC, it is not about whether it is moral but about making sure that a democratic state falls within the rule of international law. An estimated 35,000 people have been killed and 132 hostages are still being held. The Arab League has now called for an immediate ceasefire and the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in the west bank until a two-state solution is negotiated. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which he failed to answer, on the offensive in Rafah? Will we join our American allies in responding to that by stopping the sale of all war components?
Mr Mitchell
That is not what the American Government have done. They suspended one shipment, but they have not stopped any other supply. To answer the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, the Government continue to seek a pause in the fighting, which could lead to a sustained ceasefire, as well as to getting the hostages out and aid in.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary speaks about a ceasefire, getting the hostages out, getting the aid in and resuming the talks, but will he address the bigger picture? Behind Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas sits Iran, which is arming and training these extremist non-state actors. As much as we debate the possible long-term governance and security solutions for Gaza, they are unlikely to stand the test of time until the challenge of Iran’s disruptive proxy influence across the middle east is challenged.
Iran’s destabilising foreign policy is determined by the President, the Supreme Leader and the Foreign Minister, two of whom were killed in a helicopter crash at the weekend. It is clearly for Iran to determine who replaces them, but will we advance our own robust policy in standing up to Iran’s proxy influence? Otherwise, we will never secure lasting peace in Gaza.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend the former Chairman of the Defence Committee is right about the malign influence of Iran through its proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—on the situation in the middle east. We hope that Iran will cease to disrupt in the way that it does through its proxies. It may well be that the events of the weekend offer an opportunity for a reset.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As I understand the Government’s position on the International Criminal Court, it is because Israel was not a signatory to the original treaty and because Palestine is not a sovereign state that the Government do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction. That leads us to a place where anyone can opt out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at any time. That is a terrible place for the Government and for us as a country to be. If the Minister does not agree with that, will he at least agree that the letter from the 12 United States Senators to the ICC, where they said,
“Target Israel and we will target you”
and that they would ensure that
“all American support for the ICC”
is withdrawn, is not a place that this Government will ever be in?
Mr Mitchell
Of course, the Americans are not a member of the Court, whereas the United Kingdom is. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is an important one because, in this debate about these terrible events and the appalling consequences resulting from them, it is important that everyone chooses their language with care.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary rightly draws attention to the false moral equivalence inherent in the ICC’s statement between the actions of sovereign, democratic Israel and the most brutal activities of a terrorist organisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such false moral equivalence is always drawn by the enemies of Israel as a way to delegitimise the Jewish state? Does he share my concern with this move by the ICC not just because of the succour it gives terrorist groups elsewhere around the world, but because of the risks within it for ourselves and our troops as they go about defending our interests around the world?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend expresses himself, as always, with great lucidity. It is important that that message is not sent. That is why I repeated what Benny Gantz said and why I said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is no longer in his place, that I think the sense of moral equivalence is repugnant.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On 5 April, the Foreign Secretary called for an independent inquiry into Israel’s killing of seven aid workers, including three Britons. I have repeatedly raised Israel’s, and particularly the Israel Defence Forces’, lack of accountability and examples of misconduct with the Minister. It is clear that here, as in other areas, the Government are backtracking on the limited assurances given, despite investigations by the BBC, among others, showing that IDF misconduct continues, despite pledges and commitments to the contrary from Israel. Does the Minister believe that Israel should investigate itself, regardless of the horrors committed—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, Israel has the rule of law and the ability to investigate those matters, but she is entirely correct to say that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we expect a detailed independent investigation. Israel has taken a number of steps. She will have seen the acts that were taken against those who were responsible for the decisions made in those attacks, and she will be pleased to know that we are considering, with our allies, the best way to inject further independence into that investigation.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
My constituents in Bolton are livid today, because they have seen through the International Criminal Court that there is evidence that
“acts were committed…to use starvation as a method of war”,
along with violence; evidence of the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza; and evidence that
“Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.”
Never mind being on the right side of history; will we ensure that we are on the right side of the present?
Mr Mitchell
The fact that the prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants to be issued does not directly impact UK licensing decisions, for example, but we will continue to monitor developments as part of our assessment process. Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acting as such a brilliant conduit between his constituents and the Government, and for his work on the issue.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In the face of disgraceful attacks on aid trucks at the Gaza border, the Israeli Security Minister is reported to have said that he believes it is not protesters who should be stopping the trucks, because
“it’s the cabinet that should be stopping the trucks.”
That view cannot be allowed to stand. Will the British Government sanction the violent protesters who are destroying aid, and their supporters within the Israeli Government?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, we have not been shy about sanctioning some of the settlers who have been involved. We do not talk about future sanctions across the Floor of the House, but she may rest assured that we are very alert to the opportunity for doing more on that. She repeated what had been said by one senior Israeli official about the position in Rafah; she will know that is not the position of most of the senior Israeli members of the Cabinet and it is certainly not the position of the British Government.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
No organisation, international or otherwise, is beyond reproach and always gets things right, so of course we can question what the ICC has come out with. What I find disturbing is the ICC report talking about an almost exact equivalence between the leaders of Hamas, who carried out the most disgusting, brutal and deliberately targeted attacks on 7 October, and the leaders of—not a few rogue elements within—Israel. Does the Minister agree that it is important to have solid, accurate data? We keep hearing data from the Hamas-led health authority, but over the weekend we have had very different data. Does the Minister agree that it would help the debate if we had accurate data as soon as possible?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will have seen, as I have, comments over the weekend about the accuracy of figures, particularly the very great likelihood that figures about women and children who have died during the conflict are not accurate at all. His point about moral equivalence, which has been made during the statement, is one that will be widely shared, both inside and outside the House.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The International Criminal Court—the highest criminal court in the world—has applied for arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for the war crimes of murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians, crimes against humanity, and deliberate starvation as a weapon of war against the people of Gaza. It is unequivocal. Do the UK Government accept that they must now do three key things: first, they must reconsider their unequivocal support of Israel by immediately suspending arms sales; secondly, they must call for an immediate ceasefire; and finally, they must restore funding to UNRWA so that it can deliver emergency humanitarian aid?
Mr Mitchell
On his first point, I simply do not think now is the time to make those decisions about what we have heard from the ICC. It would be premature. A pre-trial chamber now needs to consider the evidence and then reach a judgment, so I cannot go with the hon. Gentleman on that point. On UNRWA, I have made very clear where we stand. I hope the aid that was delivered by UNRWA with British support will be delivered in the future. I hope that UNRWA will be able to accept all the reforms that we are requesting that would enable us to do that. As I have said, we are not in the position that we are withholding funding at the moment because we have fully funded our commitment to UNRWA up to the start of this month. The hon. Gentleman says that we should cease our support for Israel. We have been very clear that Israel must abide within international humanitarian law, but equally that we understand that Israel has the right of self-defence.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In March, the Foreign Affairs Committee visited a number of aid distribution centres in the Egypt-Gaza border area, and we heard accounts of how some of the aid going into Gaza would be stopped because of the potential dual use of equipment for not just humanitarian reasons but potentially, by Hamas, military and terror reasons. Will the Minister update the House on the percentage of those trucks that are now getting through to deliver that aid?
Mr Mitchell
The number of trucks getting through is wholly inadequate. That is one reason why we have made 12 air drops—11 by the Royal Air Force—and it is why we now have the maritime corridor. Restrictions on what can be transported by truck into Gaza were a significant problem to begin with. That particular aspect has eased as both sides have understood each other’s position on what is being taken into Gaza, but I am afraid that the amount of humanitarian support getting in by truck is still woefully inadequate.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
New polling by YouGov shows that 73% of the British public support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and 55% support the UK suspending arms sales to Israel for the duration of the conflict. Does the Minister recognise that his Government are elected to represent the people of Britain, and will they finally represent the majority of the people in Britain by calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and suspending all arms sales to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
On arms sales, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the whim of a politician at the Dispatch Box to decide for or against; there is a proper process to be followed based on legal advice, and he would not expect Ministers to deviate from that entirely proper way of judging these things. We all want a ceasefire, but we want a sustainable ceasefire. That is why the Government have consistently pressed, as endorsed by a United Nations resolution, for a pause in the fighting to get the hostages out and allow aid in. That would be the way to lead to a sustainable ceasefire, as a precursor to a longer-term deal. The British Government will continue, I hope with his support and that of others on the Labour Benches, to prosecute that endeavour.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
How can the Minister argue that his Government respect international law when he denies the jurisdiction of the ICC in this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
I have not denied the position of the ICC; what I said is that we are at an early stage in the process, and cannot reach those judgments at this point.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
We must not forget that civilians and their children are the innocent victims of this war. The UN says that 800,000 people have been forced to flee Rafah since 6 May. In Gaza, there is clearly nowhere left that is safe, so will the Minister explain what he thinks the consequences should be for any all-out attack on Rafah and any forced displacement of civilians?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is correct that about 800,000 people have now left Rafah. Through the pier, we managed over the weekend to get in 8,000 shelter kits, enough for around 40,000 people, but we are part of a growing consensus that is trying to provide support. The Israeli defence force warned 400,000 people to leave. Almost double that have left, and we are doing everything that we can to support them in their new locations. As I have repeatedly made clear, we will not and cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed plan, and we have not seen a detailed plan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could the Deputy Foreign Secretary tell us in specific terms what military flights are taking off from Akrotiri to Israel? Are the Israel Defence Forces using Akrotiri? Are the US forces using Akrotiri? What is the nature of the overflying of Gaza by the RAF? Is surveillance information being sent to the IDF in response to that? In short, what is the military relationship between Britain and Israel at the present time?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely senior Member of this House, a former leader of the Labour party, and he well knows that we do not comment on security information across the Floor of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I ask Members again to focus on the question please? Please also remember that you have to have been here for the entirety of the statement to ask a question—I am taking your word on that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Other countries have now suspended arms sales. Other countries have restored the funding going forward to UNRWA. Why are we now leading from behind rather than leading from the front on this? Should we not now do the right thing, suspend arms sales and refund UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
I think I am right in saying that no country has suspended existing arms sales arrangements and agreements, but the fact remains that we have our own regime in that respect. We act in accordance with legal advice and we will continue to do so. In respect of UNRWA, I have set out for the House the processes that we are going through and the hon. Gentleman, like me, will hope that those processes are successful.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary enjoyed referencing Mr Gantz a number of times. Mr Gantz has set out his conditions for the end of the war and a “day after”. In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s spokesperson said:
“The conditions set by Benny Gantz are empty words whose meaning is clear: an end to the war and…establishing a Palestinian state.”
It is very clear now that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a forever war and is opposed to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. What are the UK Government saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that he understands where we and the international community stand on this issue—as do many Israelis, including members of his own Government? What action is being taken against Ben Gvir, Smotrich and the Prime Minister of Israel, who are clearly trying to prolong the war in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
What the hon. Gentleman says underlines the fact that Israel is a pluralist democratic society where there are different views. He asked me what the British Government are saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I can assure him that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have frank, open and detailed exchanges on those matters.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is the position of the Liberal Democrats that the UK Government should give their backing to the ICC. If the Conservative Government do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction, which international institution or legal mechanism do they intend to look to in order to ensure that any breaches of the law of war on the frontline can be prosecuted?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady knows, we make our own judgments on international humanitarian law. We are quick to come to the House if anything changes, but nothing has changed since the Foreign Secretary made his comments in Washington, I think, in early April. On the subject of the ICC’s announcement today, I hope the House will accept that it is premature to respond further before the pre-trial chamber has considered the application for warrants.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which has today applied for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Hamas leader and others, must be respected. Contrary to what the Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier, I must correct the record for him: he said that
“we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.”
The Israeli Government have ignored, for the past three months, the motion passed by the UK Parliament, as proposed by the Labour Party, for an immediate ceasefire and are instead planning a full-scale offensive on Rafah, which would be a humanitarian catastrophe. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm whether, if that planned assault does go ahead, the UK Government will suspend arms or component sales to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to seek to correct the record, but his repetition of what I said was absolutely correct, and we have said it since the outset, so he should not be particularly surprised by it. I cannot foretell what the consequences will be in respect of Israeli actions, but I can tell him the position of the British Government on an operation in Rafah: that does not respect international humanitarian law, which is why we have said that we cannot support it unless we see a detailed plan.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Labour believes that international law must be observed. As such, we want the sale of arms and components to be suspended, and we want the perpetrators of violence against innocent civilians, whether Israeli or Palestinian, to be held to account. I am still unclear on what the Deputy Foreign Secretary and his Government believe. Do they believe in upholding international law?
Mr Mitchell
It should come as no surprise to the House that of course the Government not only believe in international humanitarian law but seek to uphold it. I have set out clearly in the House on a number of occasions exactly how we carry out our duties in that respect, and I hope that that will give the hon. Lady confidence. In respect of the International Criminal Court, she is jumping too far ahead. We have set out the limited decision that has been made and announced today, and we should not jump ahead of it.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier that
“The House should expect that we will be restoring funding”
to UNRWA. It sounds like the Government have made up their mind. If that decision has been made, and given the absolutely horrendous humanitarian situation in Gaza, why do we not just get on with it? If there is any chance that funding will not be restored, what are the Government doing as an alternative plan to get humanitarian aid in?
Mr Mitchell
The Government operate through other agencies as well as UNRWA. We have been very close indeed to the World Food Programme, through which an enormous amount of humanitarian aid is distributed. On UNRWA, we will go through the stages that I have set out clearly to the House. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, from my discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York just over a week ago, UNRWA is funded for the moment, and we hope that our own funding, subject to the results of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services inquiry and the implementation of the Colonna report, will be restored.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Government’s statement is out of step not just with the prosecutor but with the impartial independent panel of experts on international law from whom he sought advice. That panel consisted largely of lawyers from this jurisdiction—by which I mean England and Wales, and not my own in Scotland. Here is what they said, and I want the Deputy Foreign Secretary to tell me what part of it is wrong:
“The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor’s assessment that the ICC has jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed on the territory of Palestine, including Gaza…under article 12(2)(a) of the ICC Statute. It also agrees that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Palestinian nationals inside or outside Palestinian territory under article 12(2)(b) of the Statute. The ICC therefore has jurisdiction over Israeli, Palestinian or other nationals who committed crimes in Gaza or the West Bank. It also has jurisdiction over Palestinian nationals who committed crimes on the territory of Israel, even though Israel is not an ICC State Party.
The basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is that Palestine, including Gaza, is a State for the purpose of the ICC Statute. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber has already ruled that the Court’s jurisdiction extends to Palestine, as a State Party to the ICC Statute, on this basis.”
That is the opinion of an illustrious list of mainly English lawyers, with the exception of my dear colleague Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is of course a Scot, although she is at the English Bar. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who I see has one of the Law Officers sitting beside him, tell me which part of that opinion is wrong?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. and learned Lady is an immensely distinguished advocate and lawyer. She will have read the letter signed by no fewer than 600 lawyers that broadly agrees with what she has said, but she may also have read the letter from—I think—1,000 lawyers that disagrees with it. That shows that there are many different interpretations of this matter; hers is one, and as I have set out, the view of the Government is another.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not recognise the damage that is being done to the UK’s standing around the world, and to the rules-based international order and international humanitarian law, by his Government’s refusal to accept first the ICJ ruling and now that of the ICC? He has said that he does not believe that the ICC prosecutor seeking warrants will help, but at what point will he accept that the situation could not get any worse?
Mr Mitchell
The point we have always made is that we do not think it is helpful for the Court to intervene in that way at this point, because the main purpose is to get the hostages out and food and humanitarian resources in. That is the position that the British Government take; of course we respect the Court, but that does not mean that we cannot give our view on what the Court does.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I rather agreed with the comments made about the ICC by the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but I would gently point out that I do not think there is a single Member of this House who supports the actions of Hamas on 7 October—in fact, every single one of us has rightly condemned them. For that matter, even very long-standing friends of Israel have offered criticisms of the actions of the Israeli Government over these past few months, as have many Israelis.
Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary clarify something for me? He has suggested that 800,000 Palestinians have had to move out of Rafah in the past week or so. He has also suggested that not enough humanitarian aid is getting through, which is because the Israeli Government are refusing to let it through. He has also said that the Israeli Government have a right to defend themselves—we all agree with that—but within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Who is to judge that international humanitarian law if it is not an international court? Surely it cannot just be a set of politicians sitting in the Foreign Office making it up in their own minds.
Mr Mitchell
To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, that is absolutely not the case: Ministers take legal advice, including on international humanitarian law, and act within it. We have been very clear about where we stand; the Foreign Secretary made the point in April, I think, in Washington. If anything changes, of course we will tell the House, but we cannot act on the whim of politicians or Ministers in the House: we act in accordance with the law, and that is what we will continue to do.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that the Government condemn all attacks on aid workers, and that they support the UN’s call for an independent investigation into the killing of aid workers in Gaza. Is the Minister of the same view when it comes to the more than 100 journalists who have been killed during the conflict?
Mr Mitchell
Of course. We are appalled by the scale of the death and destruction that has taken place, and what we say about protecting journalists—which this House has always championed, never more so than when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) was Foreign Secretary—applies equally well.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I have listened very carefully to the Deputy Foreign Secretary, and I have to say that I find his arguments wanting. It matters that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the actions of senior Hamas officials amount to war crimes; it matters that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the operations authorised by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister also amount to war crimes. Given that the ICC prosecutor believes he has acted within the Rome statute and that the UK is a state party to the ICC, will the United Kingdom uphold any application in this territory if requested by the office of the prosecutor?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is premature in seeking to ask the Government to exercise any such judgment. As I said earlier in this statement, now is not the time to make these decisions. We need to wait for the pre-trial chamber to consider the evidence and then reach a judgment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Any loss of innocent life is truly horrific and is to be avoided if at all possible. The latest UN reports indicate that Hamas—who are murdering terrorists, as we all know—have inflated the statistics for deaths in their areas; they have been proven to be massively overstated. What steps can be taken to ensure that we are all working with independently verified information, not propaganda, given the fact that Israel has taken greater steps than any other democracy in history to give warnings and circumvent the loss of life as far as possible in this war?
Mr Mitchell
We do think that Israel must do more on deconfliction, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the use of Israeli lawyers in targeting and in the planning of military activity—not dissimilar from what we do in the United Kingdom—is very important. I am grateful to him for the balance that he has expressed, as he always does.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This country used not only to respect but to champion international law. The Minister’s dismissal of ICC procedures today confirms how far the Government have fallen from their adherence to the rule of law. Why are the Government undermining the Court and its British chief prosecutor as he attempts to call those to account for war crimes, including extermination, murder, hostage taking, starvation, targeting civilians and persecution as a crime against humanity?
Mr Mitchell
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman putting it that way. He is an extremely distinguished lawyer, and I hope he will recognise that the point I am making is that the House is rushing to conclusions that are not merited at this stage in the process.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Whatever opinion the Minister has on the subject of jurisdiction, the arbiters on that as a point of law will be the judges of the ICC. In the event that any or all of the warrants being sought by the chief prosecutor, as announced today, are granted, can the Minister confirm that the UK Government will render any assistance necessary for their execution? Is that not what a Government who respect the rule of law would do?
Mr Mitchell
Of course. What I can confirm is that the British Government will always act in accordance with the law.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
There is now a perception that the level of evidence the United Kingdom Government require to make a determination on whether war crimes have taken place and to act on them seems to vary with their attitude towards the country alleged to have committed those war crimes. Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not understand the irreparable damage being done to the reputation of the United Kingdom internationally as a defender of international humanitarian law by this inconsistency?
Mr Mitchell
I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of what the British Government are doing. The British Government are absolutely consistent: we always act in accordance with the rule of law and will always continue to do so.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
For the avoidance of any doubt among Government Members, I have opposed Hamas since 2007. I opposed their atrocities on 7 October and continue to do that, so there are no sides as far as I am concerned; I think the actions taken by the IDF need to be criticised as well, and it needs to be held to account.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that the ICC does not have jurisdiction. He said to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), that the pre-trial chamber has not reached a decision. He said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) from the SNP that we have to wait and that this is not the right moment. Does he believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this issue? Will he give a straight answer—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s condemnation, over many years, of Hamas. He has repeated what I have said to other Members of the House this afternoon and, if I have understood correctly, he is noting that I have been entirely consistent in all those responses.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
What steps are the Government taking with our international allies to help create the conditions needed for an immediate ceasefire that can be observed by both sides?
Mr Mitchell
Britain was able, through some skilful and deft diplomacy, to get everyone onside on the United Nations resolution that was recently passed, which talked about a sustainable ceasefire. The position that Britain has always held is that we need to get that pause to enable us to get the hostages out and humanitarian supplies in, in the hope that that pause would lead to a sustainable ceasefire.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Neither the USA nor China nor Russia are party to the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister therefore recognise that, as permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and France have a special responsibility to support the ICC and uphold international law?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I have been careful to be very clear about our support for the ICC, but equally to urge the House not to rush to judgment in a process that has a number of stages.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I apologise to those Members who did not get in today. We will take a note of your names and get you in at another time. We must now move on.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after statements—those are the rules of the House.
The Prime Minister has requested to make a short statement on today’s publication of the final report of the infected blood inquiry. On this occasion, given the nature of the statement, I have agreed that there will be only a few limited and brief responses today, as there will be a further major statement tomorrow, when all hon. Members will have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Office Minister at length.
Infected Blood Inquiry Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, Sir Brian Langstaff has today published the final report of the infected blood inquiry. This is a day of shame for the British state. Today’s report shows a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. From the national health service to the civil service, to Ministers in successive Governments, at every level the people and institutions in which we place our trust failed in the most harrowing and devastating way. They failed the victims and their families, and they failed this country.
Sir Brian finds a “catalogue” of systemic, collective, and individual failures, each on its own serious, and taken together amounting to “a calamity”. The result of this inquiry should shake our nation to its core. This should have been avoided. It was known that these treatments were contaminated. Warnings were ignored, repeatedly. Time and again, people in positions of power and trust had the chance to stop the transmission of those infections. Time and again, they failed to do so.
Sir Brian finds “an attitude of denial” towards the risks of treatment. Worse, to our eternal shame, and in a way that is hard even to comprehend, they allowed victims to become “objects for research”. Many, including children at Lord Mayor Treloar College, were part of trials, conducted without their or their parents’ knowledge or consent. Those with haemophilia or bleeding disorders were infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B through NHS treatment, through blood clotting products such as factor 8, including those who had been misdiagnosed and did not even require treatment. Many were infected through whole blood transfusions. Others were infected through their partners and loved ones, often after diagnoses had been deliberately withheld for months or even years, meaning that these infections should easily have been prevented.
I find it almost impossible to comprehend how it must have felt to be told that you had been infected, through no fault of your own, with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C; or to face the grief of losing a child; or to be a young child and lose your mum or dad. Many of those infected went on to develop horrific conditions, including cirrhosis, liver cancer, pneumonia, TB and AIDS, and to endure debilitating treatments, such as interferon, for these illnesses —illnesses the NHS had given them.
Many were treated disdainfully by healthcare professionals, who made appalling assumptions about the origin of their infections. Worse still, they were made to think that they were imagining it. They were made to feel stupid. They felt abandoned by the NHS that had infected them. Those who acquired HIV endured social rejection, vilification and abuse at a time when society understood so little about the emerging epidemic of AIDS. With illness came the indignity of financial hardship, including for carers, those widowed and other bereaved family members.
Throughout it all, victims and their loved ones have had to fight for justice, fight to be heard, fight to be believed and fight to uncover the full truth. Some had their medical records withheld or even destroyed. The inquiry finds that some Government papers were destroyed in
“a deliberate attempt to make the truth more difficult to reveal.”
Sir Brian explicitly asks the question: “Was there a cover-up?” Let me directly quote his answer for the House: “there has been”. He continues:
“Not in the sense of a handful of people plotting in an orchestrated conspiracy to mislead, but in a way that was more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling in its implications. To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth.”
More than 3,000 people died without that truth. They died without an apology. They died without knowing how and why this was allowed to happen. And they died without seeing anyone held to account.
Today, I want to speak directly to the victims and their families, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. I want to make a wholehearted and unequivocal apology for this terrible injustice. First, I want to apologise for the failure in blood policy and blood products, and the devastating—and so often fatal—impact that had on so many lives, including the impact of treatments that were known or proved to be contaminated; the failure to respond to the risk of imported concentrates; the failure to prioritise self-sufficiency in blood; the failure to introduce screening services sooner; and the mismanagement of the response to the emergence of AIDS and hepatitis viruses among infected blood victims.
Secondly, I want to apologise for the repeated failure of the state and our medical professionals to recognise the harm caused. That includes the failure of previous payments schemes, the inadequate levels of funding made available, and the failure to recognise hepatitis B victims.
Thirdly, I want to apologise for the institutional refusal to face up to these failings—and worse, the denial and even the attempt to cover them up—the dismissing of reports and campaigners’ detailed representations; the loss and destruction of key documents, including ministerial advice and medical records; and the appalling length of time it took to secure the public inquiry that has delivered the full truth today.
There is layer upon layer of hurt, endured across decades. This is an apology from the state to every single person impacted by this scandal. It did not have to be this way. It should never have been this way. On behalf of this and every Government stretching back to the 1970s, I am truly sorry.
Today is a day for the victims and their families to hear the full truth acknowledged by all and, in the full presence of that truth, to remember the many, many lost loved ones. But justice also demands action and accountability, so I make two solemn promises. First, we will pay comprehensive compensation to those infected and those affected by this scandal, accepting the principles recommended by the inquiry, which builds on the work of Sir Robert Francis. Whatever it costs to deliver the scheme, we will pay it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will set out the details tomorrow.
Secondly, it is not enough to say sorry, pay long-overdue compensation and then attempt to move on. There can be no moving on from a report that is so devastating in its criticisms. Of course, in some areas medical practice has long since evolved, and no one is questioning that every day our NHS provides amazing and lifesaving care to the British people. But Sir Brian and his team have made wide-ranging recommendations. We will study them in detail before returning to the House with a full response. We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern, so familiar from other inquiries such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.
The whole House will join me in thanking Sir Brian and his team, especially for keeping the infected blood community at the heart of their work. We would not be here today without those who tirelessly fought for justice for so many years. I include journalists and parliamentarians in both Houses, especially the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but most of all, the victims and their families. Many of them have dedicated their lives to leading charities and campaign groups, pouring their own money into decades of running helplines, archiving, researching and pursuing legal cases, often in the face of appalling prejudice. It is impossible to capture the full pain and injustice that they have faced. Their sorrow has been unimaginable. They have watched loved ones die, cared for them as they suffered excruciating treatments, or provided their palliative care. Many families were broken up by the strain. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been knocked off course; dreams and
potential unfulfilled.
But today, their voices have finally been heard. The full truth stands for all to see. We will work together across Government, our health services and civil society to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen in our country again. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This response can begin in only one place, because this is an injustice that has spanned across Governments on an unprecedented scale, and collectively we failed to protect some of the most vulnerable in our country. So as well as paying tribute to the courage and determination of the victims—the infected and the affected—some of whom are in the Gallery today, I want to acknowledge to every single person who has suffered that, in addition to all the other failings, politics itself failed you. That failure applies to all parties, including my own. There is only one word: sorry.
By that apology, I acknowledge that that suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure across the board, compounded by institutional defensiveness. As Sir Brian Langstaff makes clear in his report, any apology today must be accompanied by action, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that compensation will now be paid. He should be under do doubt whatsoever that we will work with him to get that done swiftly, because—make no mistake—the victims in this scandal have suffered unspeakably. Thousands of people have died; they continue to die every week. Lives completely shattered; evidence wilfully destroyed; victims marginalised; people watching their loved ones die; children used as objects of research—on and on it goes. The pain is barely conceivable. As well as an apology, I want to make clear that we commit to shine a harsh light upon the lessons that must be learned to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
Passing through the doors of a hospital is a moment of profound vulnerability; you entrust your life into the hands of perfect strangers. We go to hospital for care. That is what many of the people affected find so hard to accept—the betrayal of that trust by people and institutions that were meant to protect them. People like my constituent Mark Stewart, who was given factor VIII in the 1980s as part of a clinical trial, as were his father and his brother. All three subsequently contracted hepatitis C, but only Mark remains with us today.
Over the decades as Mark and so many like him searched for truth and justice, the British state ignored them. The truth, as Sir Brian says today, was hidden from them for decades. That is why this is one of the gravest injustices this country has seen. Yet, we have to be honest: this scandal is not unique. The institutional defensiveness identified by Sir Brian is a pattern of behaviour that we must address. Mark may never get his brother, his father or his health back, but for all the families affected we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice, particularly when carried out by institutes of the state. That is our job today, this week and beyond. Frankly, it is the very least that we owe.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the collegiate tone in which he has responded to today’s report, and for his sincerity. He is right that it is irrefutably clear that an unconscionable injustice has been done—the result of a consistent and systemic failure by the state time and again, decade after decade. That is why I apologise wholeheartedly and unequivocally to every single person impacted by the scandal. The anger and sorrow felt across this House is the right response. It is right that we now act on behalf of the victims, their loved ones and the whole community, who expect us to put right this historic wrong.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The thousands of people at Central Hall thanked Sir Brian Langstaff, and he thanked them. As has been said, we should acknowledge the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her leadership of the all-party group.
Permanent secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries need to say to everyone throughout their chain, “Are we doing something that is right? Are we doing something that is necessary? Are we doing something that will work?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those questions had been asked more effectively, the number of tragedies would have been not five for every MP—and five times again for everyone injured or affected—but greatly reduced, and that we would have learned the truth earlier?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend for his dedicated work co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I assure him that Sir Brian’s report is highly detailed and sets out a number of recommendations, and that we will respond to it in full as quickly as possible.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I wish to begin by stating something I think we all now agree is self-evidently the case, which is that this scandal represents the very worst of Westminster: decades of deflection, decades of denial and, of course, decades of deceit; children used as research; parents watching their children die; children watching their parents die; and tens of thousands of people impacted, many of whom are not here to see this day. For those who imposed this tragedy upon them, no consequences have yet been felt. But today is not about them.
Today is about the victims, and I say to them, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party on these Benches: I wish to offer you three things. The first is an apology. I am incredibly sorry that this happened to you. The second is to say, quite openly, thank you; thank you for your determination and your desire—for being able to pry open the doors of this place and ensure that your voices were heard by all of us. We would not be here today without your efforts. The third is to say to the victims: I can assure you that we will do everything we can to ensure that the Government implement the recommendations, as laid out today.
We have heard the Prime Minister make a very sincere promise in relation to compensation; and we will work with him and his Government, and indeed any future Government, to ensure that that promise is swiftly kept.
The Prime Minister
I welcome the absolute consensus that today is a moment for the families and the community, and for their voices to be heard loudest. Every single testimony and account in Sir Brian’s report today sets out a unique story of hurt, suffering and loss. Individually, these accounts are astounding; taken together, they are truly unimaginable. They must be heard and they must be understood, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I thank him for his remarks. I know that we share a determination to work together to ensure that nothing like this shocking and avoidable calamity can ever happen in our country again.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Sir Brian Langstaff’s report today has finally uncovered the truth of this appalling tragedy, which has affected the lives of so many. So many have been fighting, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, for decades to get to this point. Sir Brian has highlighted a devastating and abject failure of the British state: medical professionals, civil servants and politicians, all of whom felt their job was to protect their own reputation rather than to serve and look after the public they were there to serve. Today, as we rightly remember all the victims of this terrible tragedy, will my right hon. Friend commit himself unashamedly to working to ensure that all those in Government—politicians and civil servants—recognise that their job is to serve the public, not to protect themselves?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. As Prime Minister, she launched Sir Brian’s inquiry and in doing so began the process of establishing the full truth we have heard today. There is no doubt, as she recognises, that the inquiry came too late, that the compensation came too late and was woefully insufficient, and that the consequences of that failure are stark. That is why today I apologise on behalf of Governments since the 1970s for that shameful failure.
Sir Brian and his team have made a series of wide-ranging recommendations, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will study every single one in detail and work urgently across Government and public organisations—our health services, civil society, all—to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again, and that we end the challenges she encountered, where the institutions responsible for serving the public, including the NHS and the civil service, are more concerned by cost than accountability.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Today is about the tens of thousands of people whose lives have been torn apart by this disaster. Many of them have fought and waited for decades to see this day, and, tragically—as the Prime Minister reminded us—thousands have died waiting. I pay tribute to the survivors, the families, the campaigners and the journalists who have fought so long and so hard for justice. Having listened to their stories and having now seen the evidence laid bare in this report, I want, on behalf of my party, to echo the Prime Minister’s apology. We are all truly sorry for the pain that people have suffered over decades, under Governments of all parties, and for the failures of politicians and the state to do the most fundamental job: to keep people safe. We must now ensure that full compensation is paid without any more delay, and that nothing like this can ever happen again.
In his report, Sir Brian highlights the fact that
“the truth has been hidden for decades”
through a
“lack of openness, transparency and candour”
which has caused enormous damage. Will the Prime Minister join me in backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Across this House, we share a determination to work together to ensure that nothing comparable to this shocking and avoidable tragedy can happen ever again in our country. Today is a day for the victims and their families to hear the full truth, unequivocally acknowledged by all, and to remember the many, many lost loved ones. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make a full statement tomorrow, but we will study every one of Sir Brian’s recommendations in detail and work urgently across all parts of civil society to ensure that innocent victims are never again forced to fight for decades to be believed.
Sir Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and, indeed, the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
This scandal—the biggest in the history of the NHS—along with the scandals of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and those covered by the Ockenden and Cass reviews, are linked by public servants putting their reputations and that of the NHS above patient safety and care. Time and again, Ministers—including me—have stood at that Dispatch Box under successive Governments, promising that lessons will be learnt. I ask my right hon. Friend: why will it be any different this time?
The Prime Minister
Sir Brian’s report states categorically that this scandal represents a decades-long moral failure of the state, but in particular he highlights an appalling truth: that our national health service failed. It was known that blood and blood products given by medical professionals were contaminated. It is correct to acknowledge that medical practice has evolved—every day hundreds of thousands of our NHS staff do provide life-saving care for the British people, and we are incredibly grateful—but the report sets out clear and wide-ranging recommendations that we must study closely, and we will work urgently with our health services to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his apology on behalf of the nation. I also thank Sir Brian for his report. Finally—the truth. It is a vindication of nearly 50 years of campaigning for justice. I pay tribute to all those infected and affected, and also, importantly, to those who have lost their lives in the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. Two people, on average, are still dying every week. I wonder whether the Prime Minister understands that, although his Government accepted the moral case for compensation to be paid in December 2022, their failure to act on Sir Brian’s second interim report in April 2023 has added another layer of hurt. I hope very much, following what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, that by the end of this year compensation payments will start to be made to all those infected and affected.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement, and for her care and unwavering dedication to delivering justice. She knows better than anyone in the House the devastation that this scandal has inflicted on the community, and the strength they have shown in their fight for the truth. Sir Brian’s report sets out a decades-long failure and makes it clear that this is a moment of national shame. No one could fail to be moved by the stories within it, by the utterly shameful treatment of victims and their loved ones, by the callousness and cruelty that they suffered, and by their outstanding bravery, resilience and refusal to yield to a lifetime of prejudice and trauma. They have fought for the truth to be out, and they were right. Above all, today is a day for their voices to be heard.
Mr Speaker
That completes this short statement. There will be a full statement tomorrow, when all the details of compensation will be brought to the House and all Members will be able to get in.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any explanation for why we are getting only half an hour of the Prime Minister’s time? I know there will be a statement tomorrow by the Paymaster General, which we are all looking forward to, but what could be more important than being here and taking questions from—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will answer the question. I have worked very closely with different parties and, most importantly, this is about the families. It is their day, which is why the statement has been done in this way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to respect that, rather than question it.
Ukraine
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
All across the House condemned Putin’s invasion in 2022. The whole House has supported Britain’s actions to back Ukraine and galvanise the international community. Today, I hope the whole House echoes the words of the Prime Minister as he pledged £3 billion in military aid for Ukraine every year until 2030, and beyond if necessary. He said that
“Ukraine is not alone, and Ukraine will never be alone.”
The war has entered its third year. In the last few months, Russia has been eking out small territorial gains in the Donbas. Now, the Kremlin is probing Ukrainian defences north of Kharkiv. It is unlikely to take Ukraine’s second largest city anytime soon, but in recent days it has taken a dozen villages, so we are at a difficult moment, which underlines the critical importance of accelerating the delivery of vital military support to Ukraine.
Across the country, Russian missiles are raining down on Ukrainian power plants and the electricity grid. Ukraine continues to strike back, including with clear success in degrading Russia’s Black sea fleet and taking out military targets inside Russia. Increases in American, UK and European military aid are now arriving at the frontline, and the costs for Russia remain extraordinarily high. Some 465,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded since February 2022, with thousands of conscripts having their lives tossed away for the sake of only modest tactical advances. Meanwhile, Russia’s military now sucks up over 40% of Government spending, over half of Russia’s national wealth fund is gone, and Gazprom has posted its first annual loss in 20 years, to the tune of $7 billion. Every rouble that the Kremlin spends on a dodgy North Korean missile or Iranian drone is money that it is not spending on improving the lives of Russian citizens, on teachers, on pensions or on medicine.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have always been sceptical about the impact of sanctions when real warfighting breaks out, and that scepticism has recently been increased by the knowledge that so much Russian oil has been going to India to be refined there and then to be bought up by western countries that are sanctioning Russian oil. Can the Deputy Foreign Minister throw any light on this and on what we propose to do about it?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend speaks with knowledge and authority on this matter. He will know that the imposition of sanctions is a complex matter, that we have to continually ensure that those who break them are held to account, and that that is an iterative process—I believe that is the correct jargon. I can tell him that we have sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities, and that without sanctions Russia would have an extra £400 billion with which to prosecute the war.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I concur with the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), when he says that this is not just about oil but about sanctions being broken. What more can we do to stop UK and European companies that are quite clearly exporting their products via other countries, particularly Turkey and the Stans, to bypass those sanctions?
Mr Mitchell
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). This is a highly complex area and it must always be governed by law, including international law. We are working better all the time as we get better at it, and I hope he will accept my assurance that we are doing everything we can to ensure that we get better and more effective at it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am going to make a similar point. I understood that, following Ed Conway’s reports on Sky about motor manufacturing and diversion through Azerbaijan, for example, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was going to take action on this. Is the Minister able to update the House on precisely what actions the FCDO is taking to deal with this blatant sanctions evasion?
Mr Mitchell
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give those details across the Floor of the House, but at such point as it would be helpful and we are able to do so, I will assuredly inform the House.
President Putin surely knows that this is not sustainable. He will not be able to outlast the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their very survival, or Ukraine’s supporters who have economies 25 times the size of his.
The House will be aware that the situation on the frontline is difficult. Russia has numerical advantages in men and matériel, and we are acting now to help Ukraine hold the line and get back on the front foot.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My anxiety is that all the Minister’s figures about what the Russian economy is doing indicate that Russia has put the production of ammunition and matériel on a war footing, while everything I have heard from our western allies says that we have chosen not to do that. It feels as if we give bits and pieces here, there and everywhere—all well intentioned—but it does not add up to us putting the whole of the western military armaments process on a war footing. That is surely what we need to do.
Mr Mitchell
I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a very high regard, that when I have finished my speech I hope he will be reassured specifically on that point.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary has talked about the numerical advantage that Russia has over Ukraine. That is why it is so important that injured troops on the frontline in Ukraine are treated, cared for and recycled back into active service as quickly as possible. In Goole, we are proud to have provided over 150 ambulances, including armoured ambulances, which are being used at the front. The Deputy Foreign Secretary spoke about military aid. Can he assure the House that we are also doing everything we can to ensure that proper medical aid and support are being provided to those brave troops?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend’s constituents for the work that he described. Again, if he bears with me, I will be able to come directly to the point that he has made.
It is important to restate what is at stake. No one here in Britain, or indeed in the wider world, should be in any doubt: this is vital not just for Ukraine, whose determination to fight for its freedom is undimmed, but for us in Britain and beyond. This is the defining struggle of our generation. At stake in Ukraine are vital principles. These are not just words found in the United Nations charter—a charter signed by Russia but which she now flagrantly breaks and dishonours; they are essential foundations for the security and prosperity of the entire world. Sovereignty. Territorial integrity. Right, not might.
The war has brought with it the greatest atrocities on our continent in a generation: the death, rape, torture and deportation of civilians on a massive scale. We see the war’s impact spread across Europe, even to our own shores, with espionage, cyber-attacks, disinformation, suspected sabotage activity, airspace violations and GPS jamming, which impacts civil aviation. If Russia were to win in Ukraine, we would be back in a world where the most fundamental international rule—that countries must not seize land from others or resolve disputes by force—was in shreds. Success would only embolden Putin and authoritarian leaders around the world with designs on their neighbours’ territory.
The costs of supporting Ukraine now are far less than the costs we will face if it does not repel the invaders. That is why the Government have identified Russia as the most acute threat to British security, and why there has been enduring cross-party and public support in Britain for Ukraine since those little green men first appeared in 2014. It is why we have seen NATO only grow stronger since the Russian invasion, with Sweden and Finland joining an alliance dedicated solely to defending territory, not taking territory. It is why we saw the American Congress decide last month to approve $60 billion in further US support for Ukraine, and why the EU announced €50 billion in multi-year support. It is why, despite the different pressures some partners face, none but the most isolated and fanatically anti-western states seek to defend Putin’s blatant violation of the UN charter. This isolation is Moscow’s greatest weakness. Diplomatically, economically and militarily, the balance of advantage lies not with Russia but with Ukraine and her supporters, and we have to make that advantage count.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive attitude; we are very much encouraged by what he has said. It is important that Ukraine gets the military aid that it needs, but it is also important that the troops are rotated. I understand that that is one of the issues, because the troops who are on the frontline and under pressure all the time need a bit of respite. What discussions has the Minister been able to have with the Ukrainian army to ensure that there is help for it militarily and in respect of respite and relaxation?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he may rest assured that British military advice in that respect, and on much else, is not lacking.
I was saying that, in regard to Moscow’s greatest weakness, we have to make the advantage count diplomatically, economically and militarily. We and our allies and partners need to out-compete, out-co-operate and out-innovate. Ukraine can and will win, provided that we support it enough, fast enough and for long enough. The key priorities are clear. Kyiv needs immediate military aid, particularly ammunition and air defence, to defend the frontline and protect its vital infrastructure. One month ago today, the Prime Minister announced our largest ever single package of equipment to help push the Russians back on land, sea and air. Much of this vital kit is already in Ukraine, including 1 million new rounds of ammunition. In April we sent vital spare parts to keep Ukrainian equipment in the fight, with more to follow in the coming weeks, including more than 20 mine clearance systems to defeat Russian minefields.
This year alone, Britain has given more than 1,600 strike and air defence missiles, as well as more Storm Shadow long-range precision guided missiles. We have given £245 million for artillery ammunition, a £325 million programme for drone production and procurement and £20 million of emergency funding to repair energy infra- structure. Since June 2022 we have trained 40,000 Ukrainians under Operation Interflex, and we are encouraging partners to join us in ensuring that Ukraine can counter the immediate threat.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I absolutely support all that the Deputy Foreign Secretary is saying about military equipment, and so on, to support Ukraine in its efforts.
Going back to the previous question, surely there needs to be a two-pronged approach, with sanctions to put economic pressure on Russia, in addition to the military pressure. It cannot be just one on its own. Should we review the effectiveness of sanctions, and potentially extend them?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to do both, and we are doing both. Sometimes it is frustrating that we are not able to talk directly to this point in the House, but she may rest assured that we are using the sanctions regime in every way we can, and that we are getting better at it as time goes by and events unfold.
As I was saying, we are encouraging partners to join us in ensuring that Ukraine can counter these threats. That means more ammunition and long-range missiles, more funding and munitions for air defence and more emergency support for energy infrastructure, but we also need to focus on the longer term, making our strength count in a prolonged war.
We will move to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of the decade, which is the biggest investment in defence in a generation. We will maintain current levels of military aid for Ukraine, £3 billion a year, until the end of the decade, or longer if needed, and we call on others to join us in this pledge. We have promised to double our investment in munitions production to £10 billion over the next 10 years, giving industry the long-term certainty it needs to build extra production capacity. We are also strengthening Ukraine’s own defence industrial base, with 29 defence businesses visiting Kyiv in April—our largest trade mission since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Sir Chris Bryant
The Deputy Foreign Secretary is generous in giving way. The point he has just made goes some way towards reassuring me, but I think we will still need to go considerably further on producing arms for Ukraine.
Can I ask about the long-term future of Ukraine? Ukraine needs to rebuild itself, and it is making choices between spending money on armaments and spending money on rebuilding tower blocks that have been blown up. Why have we still not managed to give Ukraine the £3 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club? And why have we still not managed to get any of the Russian state assets that are sitting in European and British banks through to Ukraine to help it rebuild?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I very much hope that progress will be made at the G7 meeting later this week. Things are moving in the right direction, and we must hope for success by the end of the week.
The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about the so-called Chelsea fund, and he reflects the immense frustration that many of us have felt over the last year in trying to get the fund up and running. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely determined that we will do so. It will be the second largest charity in Britain after the Wellcome Trust. Every sinew is being bent to get it to operate. It is mired in legal and technical difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman has my personal assurance that we are doing everything to try to ensure the money is used to good effect.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The news that my right hon. Friend has given the House this afternoon on the amount of military equipment and money going into Ukraine is greatly encouraging. Britain has courageously led the world on co-ordinating the effort against Russia’s operation in Ukraine, supported, of course, by the Americans and, to be fair, the Germans, but we three nations cannot do it all. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage other rich nations and allies around the world to contribute their share?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the importance of that. I think the position is a little better than he suggests, but he may rest assured that we are pressing everyone to give the support that Britain is giving, in whatever way they can.
We are continuing to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia and, with the US, we have taken decisive steps against the global trade in Russian metals. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, we are bearing down on the circumvention of sanctions and, as the House knows, this was a major focus during the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to central Asia. We are adopting new measures to target the shadow fleet that transports Russian oil.
We have also consistently said that Russia must pay the price for its illegal invasion. Ahead of the G7 summit in June, we have been leading international efforts to build consensus on a lawful route to use Russian assets to generate the maximum possible support for Ukraine. We are, again, working with our partners so that they join us in giving Ukraine the long-term support it needs to win this war by ramping up defence production, supporting Ukraine’s own industry and imposing more sanctions to undermine Russia’s military industrial complex and reduce its export revenues.
Finally, we need to invest in Ukraine’s future security and prosperity by backing it not only in the war but after it. Last year’s London recovery conference raised $60 billion for Ukraine. In January, Britain was the first to sign an agreement offering bilateral security commitments to Ukraine following the Vilnius declaration. And now we are the first to commit to multi-year military support for as long as it is needed.
We are seeing encouraging signs of many partners making similar investments. The Americans and the European Union have agreed generous funding packages. Germany will host the next Ukraine recovery conference in June, and our main NATO allies and G7 partners are now following us in signing long-term security agreements with Ukraine. In July, at the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace, we will urge our partners to underline once again our unity in standing with Ukraine, which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who made a very good point.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary lays out the plans for a war that will go on for many years. Can he explain how Ukraine, with a starting population of 41 million, which has now probably halved through emigration and people being killed in the war, will possibly succeed in a long-term war of attrition against Russia, which has a population of 144 million, without NATO boots on the ground? Is that the end game of this situation?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I said at the beginning of my speech. The gross national income of those who are united against what Russia has done in Ukraine very greatly exceeds all of Russia’s assets.
Mr Mitchell
I am not giving way again.
Earlier this month, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh was the first member of the royal family to visit Ukraine since Putin’s invasion. She followed in the footsteps of Gytha of Wessex, an Anglo-Saxon princess who married the Grand Prince of Kiev. She was one of many figures in British history to have forged links with Ukraine over the centuries. Today we see a greater breadth and depth of co-operation than ever before on not only security, but areas ranging from English language training for civil servants to green technology.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I am pleased to hear about the co-operation that my right hon. Friend is setting out and, indeed, his positive message, but he has not acknowledged the important role of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, both in supporting those back home and in mobilising public opinion here in support of what this country and others are doing to try to ensure that Russia does not win this war.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. The contribution of the Ukrainian community in Britain—those who have come here—has been immense in raising awareness. I remember with the greatest possible affection the concert that took place in Wylde Green in my constituency, where a young Ukrainian opera singer sang the national anthem. At the end of the concert, everyone who had the privilege of being there was fully aware of the dreadful suffering that Ukraine was experiencing.
During his recent visit, the Foreign Secretary launched negotiations on an enhanced 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Our friendship with Ukraine is not only enduring; it is growing stronger. We will stand with Ukraine’s people until they prevail in the war, and we are confident that they will enjoy a future that is secure, prosperous and free. Ukraine’s cause is just; it matters to Britain. The consequences of Ukraine failing are unconscionable. Our friends and enemies alike are watching to see if we have the necessary resolve to see this through to the end.
Let no one believe that if Putin succeeded in his illegal invasion and conquered Ukraine, he would stop there. He would be emboldened by victory, and the failure of the west, Europe, America and our own country would define our generation’s inability to deliver the collective security we have championed continuously since 1945. The cost to us all of that failure would be many times the financial costs we bear today in delivering the necessary military support.
The support must continue if we are to maintain that collective security, the rule of law and the international rules-based system upon which the stability and success of future generations depend. The people of Ukraine have shown extraordinary bravery and determination in resisting Putin’s vile war machine. We cannot—we must not—let them down.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and the Foreign Secretary for his help in facilitating my visit to Ukraine last week with the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). As Russia’s new Kharkiv offensive began, we visited Kyiv to show our solidarity with the Ukrainian people and their Government. They have shown incredible courage throughout the war. On both sides of the House and across the United Kingdom, we are united behind Ukraine.
I must tell the House how important it is to face down Putin for what he has done outside of the capital. I drove with the shadow Defence Secretary to Bucha and Irpin, where hundreds were killed and where mass graves were discovered. We spoke with children kidnapped from Kherson and sent to Russian camps—children who were told that Ukraine no longer exists. This is Vladimir Putin’s intention. More than 800 days on, Ukraine is still standing and still fighting. Ukrainian soldiers and civilians alike have shown courage and bravery that demonstrates a 21st-century blitz spirit. They have successfully taken back over 50% of Russian-held territory and destroyed a third of Russia’s Black sea fleet. This is more than Ukrainian resilience; this is Ukrainian success. We saw that in Kyiv. We saw innovation flourishing. Start-ups are flourishing, driving forward advances in defence, health and veterans’ support. I only wish our media covered more of what the Ukrainian people are doing on the ground, every single one of them. We met mothers and daughters whose fathers are at the front, doing all they can to help in the defence of their nation.
We had one simple message on our visit: if there is a change in Government and we are successful at the election later this year, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes. We told Defence Minister Umerov, Foreign Minister Kuleba and President Zelensky’s head of office, Yermak, that this is Labour’s guarantee to Ukraine, and that is why we have fully backed the Government’s increased commitment for Ukraine this year and in the years ahead.
The conflict, as the Deputy Foreign Secretary has said, is at a critical moment, not only because of Putin’s new attacks around Kharkiv and across the frontline, but because this is an election year here in the United Kingdom, across much of Europe and, of course, in the United States. I have said this before at the Dispatch Box, but it is clear that Putin sees democracy as the weakness of the west and believes, frankly, that he can outlast us. We must show him that our democracy is, in fact, our strength and we do not give in to any short-termism in our approach, and that it is our determination to defend freedom that will keep us united with our allies and behind Ukraine.
As has been said, Putin’s war is not only a military one, but a diplomatic, economic and, most definitely, an industrial one. He has successfully moved his industry on to a wartime footing and is now spending 40% of his Government’s budget on defence. We have seen him deepening bonds in Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang, and China is increasing its support for the Russian war machine. China is coming perilously close to throwing its lot in with Putin’s coalition. That is the truth about Vladimir Putin and why I called him recently
“the ringleader of a new form of fascism”.
He will never make peace if he thinks that he can win on the battlefield, and he will never stop if he is not defeated in Ukraine. Now is the time for us to show our commitment to supporting Ukraine and that that commitment runs deeper that Putin’s commitment to invading it.
Is the Minister ready to join with Labour and take three immediate steps that Ukrainians asked us to take back to London? First, they said to us that, across the board, deliveries need to speed up and reach the frontline, especially the welcome packages of military aid from the UK and the United States that were promised in recent weeks. Ukrainians are especially in need of air defences, deep-strike missiles and ammunition—not tomorrow, next week or next month, but now. NATO allies that can send more, frankly should send more.
Secondly, does the Deputy Foreign Secretary agree that UK diplomacy should be accelerated to maintain unity for Ukraine and further isolate Putin? We are entering a vital period of diplomacy in the next few weeks, including at the G7, NATO 75, the UK-led European Political Community at Blenheim Palace and Ukraine’s peace summit, in which Ukraine is putting so much stock. At that peace summit, it is vital that we see members from the global south strengthening support for Ukraine, seizing frozen Russian state assets for Ukraine’s recovery and closing the sanctions loopholes, which many hon. Members from across the House have raised during the debate. These must be priorities for our Prime Minister.
I noted what the Deputy Foreign Secretary said about that peace summit, but will he confirm whether our Prime Minister has finally committed to attending Ukraine’s peace summit next month? He must not only attend, but use Britain’s diplomatic leverage to encourage the widest possible coalition of countries to join. It is important that countries such as India and Brazil are there in sufficient numbers.
Last June, Labour passed a motion in this House calling on the Government finally to set out, within 90 days, how they intend to seize, rather than just freeze, Russian state assets for the purpose of supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction. The United States, Canada and other countries are moving forward on that. The UK appears to be watching, so will the Deputy Foreign Secretary set out what steps are being taken, in concert with our G7 partners, to move this forward finally and make clear to the international community that we will hold Russia responsible for the perpetration of this illegal war?
Sir Chris Bryant
My right hon. Friend will know that it is perfectly possible that if there is some kind of agreement at the G7, for which we are hopeful, we might need legislation. My anxiety is that we would want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as possible, although, obviously, we would want to get it right. On the Labour Benches, we would want to do everything to help the Government, if necessary, to get legislation through before the summer recess, or certainly before a general election. I hope I am not speaking above my pay grade, from the Back Benches, but I hope that that is the position the Labour Party will adopt.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to press this issue, as he has for many months, and it is why I press the Deputy Foreign Secretary. We as an Opposition would have thought that we would be further forward at this stage. We recognise that the G7 meeting is critical, and the Government have our undertaking to support that endeavour, but as we hurtle towards the recess and anticipate a general election later this year, we all understand that we are running out of time. That makes my point and that of my hon. Friend absolutely fundamental. I hope the Deputy Foreign Secretary will say a bit more about that.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for making a speech that shows the unity of the House. Quite rightly, he is pressing the Government on a number of issues. When the Opposition support the Government in a matter as important as this, it gives much added force and emphasis. On his specific questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces will respond when he comes to wind up the debate—I think the House has heard enough from me today—but if there are any remaining issues, the right hon. Gentleman and I will be able to speak behind the Speaker’s Chair. On all these points, particularly on sanctions and moving together with other countries to try to ensure we are able to impose very serious financial penalties on Russia, I give him my assurance that we are moving as fast as we can. It involves many complex legal issues and getting agreement across the G7, and wider. We are doing everything we possibly can.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that undertaking, which the whole House will have heard.
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation website reflects that the latest financial penalty levied on any UK sanction target in the regime was in August last year. It is the only penalty issued on the Russian regime since the war began. I say to the Deputy Foreign Secretary, how can that be? Having just come back from Ukraine, it is clear that we have to do better than delivering just rhetoric and statements from the Dispatch Box; there has to be action. Just one penalty has been issued since the war began, so will the Minister address that point, which the whole House needs to hear about?
Mr Mitchell
It is not a surprise that the right hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same questions that I, as the Minister, ask of OFSI. OFSI says that financial investigations take a frustrating length of time to deliver. It assesses every report of new complaints. However, I expect the first monetary penalties to come during this year. We must comply with the law, but as a result of my asking exactly the same questions that he asks, I am told that those financial penalties are in the mix and that we will hear shortly—in any case, during this year.
Mr Lammy
I know the Deputy Foreign Secretary is doing his best. On the issue of repurposing state assets, we are told, “Just wait, we will get there. We have a G7 meeting, we will get there.” I say to him very gently that we are the country of the rule of law; we do not wait for others to get there. With the City of London, we must be able to do better than this. I put him on notice that if we win the next general election, we will review these powers, because we are determined to see that enforcement happen. If our allies in the United States can do it at speed, this great country can do it at speed as well.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is clear from the evidence that many NGOs already have that exports from this country and other parts of Europe go through Turkey, Azerbaijan and China, for example, which are clearly not end-user destinations. Those exports are then being moved to Russia. For example, I am told that Bentley cars are still available in Moscow. If that is the case, where are they being exported through? Quite clearly, it will be places such as China and Azerbaijan.
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend conveys the loophole after loophole that countless journalists have pointed out, and that countless members of the public can see. The Deputy Foreign Secretary knows that it is rather embarrassing, when we are in Ukraine with people who are putting their lives on the line, that it is still happening. We have to crack it, we can crack it, and I hope that we will now crack it at speed.
Thirdly, does the Deputy Foreign Secretary agree that we have to boost defence industrial production? The shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, has returned to this subject over and over again. The £2 billion for restocking Ukraine and our armed forces must be fast-tracked. The UK’s defence industrial strategy must be rebooted to grow our defence base at home and drive collaboration with our allies. In particular, United Kingdom and Ukrainian defence companies should be launching new programmes at this time to jointly supply the most advanced technology to both our countries.
This election year, the Labour party is committed to taking the politics out of support for Ukraine. I push the Deputy Foreign Secretary and the Government on these issues in a spirit of working together, and we will remain determined to work together on this issue. He will have sensed that these questions are coming from both sides of the House. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. That is our commitment from the Labour Benches. We are determined that Vladimir Putin will not get his way.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is deeply encouraging to hear what unites the two Front Benches on support for Ukraine. Whatever differences there are, those differences and concerns are expressed by people from all political parties and from no political parties. I very much welcome the tone of the debate.
The Prime Minister was right to warn that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous that our country has ever known, and to refer to an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—as a direct threat to global stability and global peace. Whether we like it or not, war has returned to Europe. Our eastern NATO allies are right to warn that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next. After all, Putin is explicit that his war in Ukraine is against NATO and the west.
The strategic situation is far from satisfactory, but we are at a turning point that hinges on how US policy now develops. That was something the Deputy Foreign Secretary did not address in his remarks; I would be grateful if it could be addressed in the summing up.
The Russian military may be running out of equipment more rapidly than we think, and its economy is more fragile than its hydrocarbon revenue would make it appear. However, Russia is still able to sustain massive casualties, and the Russian population still supports the war. Russia has accepted a subservient position in its relationship with China in order to ensure continued Chinese economic and technological support for the duration of the war.
The US and Europe are distracted from Ukraine by Gaza and other theatres, such as the Sahel and New Caledonia, where Azerbaijan appears to be manoeuvring against French interests. US domestic politics delayed aid to Ukraine by six months—a delay that Russia is exploiting, albeit with massive losses in personnel and equipment.
The delay has offered Putin an opportunity to gain an advantage on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine, but the biggest danger is that Putin will win the war on the diplomatic battlefield, which is more a contest of wills than of military supremacy. Putin still believes that he can wear down the west’s will to support Ukraine before the Russian will to fight fails. Ukraine is now under significantly increased military and political pressure.
However, the re-establishment of US aid and strong statements from the UK and others, coupled with the battlefield losses, have forced Putin to take domestic measures to enable Russia to continue fighting indefinitely. The appointment of the economist Belousov—I hope that I am pronouncing that correctly—as Defence Minister marks a decision to increase the level of militarisation of Russia’s economy, putting it further on to a war footing. The new Minister will have the job of doing that, and of ensuring that the measures do not destroy Russia’s economy, as they did in Soviet times.
Any change programme—and Belousov’s appointment indicates a significant change in Russia—creates a temporary weakness in the organisation being changed. Russia is compensating for that weakness by stepping up hybrid warfare attacks on the west, which could include assassination. I do not think that we should rule out some Russian involvement in the recent attempt on the life of the Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, who may be widely identified as pro-Russian but who is not.
Official US policy is still not robust enough. President Biden does not want to allow Ukraine to lose, but nor does he want to empower Ukraine to the extent that it could inflict a crippling and destabilising defeat on Russia. The US is treating this like a regional crisis that has to be managed, but war is war, not just a crisis, and this war is part of a global conflict. A war must be won, or far more than the war will be lost.
Ukraine rightly complains that the US will not allow the weapons that it supplies to Ukraine to be used to hit targets on Russian soil. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Defence Secretary encountered that frustration when they were there. Before the recent advance towards Kharkiv, the Ukrainians had to watch the Russians build up their forces on the Russian side of the border without being able to use US weapons to disrupt them. The Russian advance on Kharkiv demonstrates—this is the elephant in the room—that the US policy of limiting weapons use is totally illogical. It puts into jeopardy President Biden’s own policy of preventing Ukraine from losing. It makes this a critical turning point.
During a visit to Kyiv on 15 May, US Secretary of State Blinken said in a speech that
“Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war”.
Did that indicate a tacit change of policy? When my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that Ukraine could use British weapons to hit Russian soil, it provoked a huge reaction from Russia, obviously designed to put others off saying the same thing. Blinken’s statement produced no reaction at all, except Russia’s advance stopped when it could have made further progress. Two days after Secretary of State Blinken’s statement, on Friday 17 May, the Ukrainians launched one of the largest drone and missile attacks on Russian targets in occupied territory and also in Russia itself, accompanied on the 16th and the 18th by massive attacks on Crimea.
Secretary of State Blinken’s statement could indicate the first steps towards a significant change in US policy to allow Ukraine to use US weapons against targets on Russian soil, reflecting the realisation of at least some within the Administration that Ukraine must be enabled to win in order to expel Russia from its territory. We do not know. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces could address that question in his reply. There could be other reasons, such as record daily Russian casualties in their recent attacks. If US policy is not changing, there will be a de facto stabilisation of the frontline, with Russia in a stronger physical and psychological position than before, despite having achieved little of operational importance in terms of territory, and at significant cost in lives and equipment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Nothing justifies what Putin has done, but what worries me about all this is what will happen if the most likely outcome materialises: namely, a stalemate. Many people in Europe, such as President Macron and others, will say that we have to start negotiations, so what will our attitude be then?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
It is an unthinkable prospect. A stalemate would be a defeat. A stalemate would be a victory for Putin, who would be holding territory that he has claimed illegally. I thought the Deputy Foreign Secretary was very clear on that, supported by the shadow Foreign Secretary in the same terms. I do not think we should talk about defeat; we should be concentrating on how to ensure that we can expel Russia from all occupied Ukrainian territory.
If the Ukrainians’ hands are tied and they cannot use US weapons to strike targets in Russia itself, they will remain vulnerable to further Russian attacks. Russia will appear stronger than it really is, having obscured its growing deficiency in weaponry. Russia will be able to continue to keep up moderate military pressure on Ukraine, to prevent the Ukrainians being able to benefit from an operational pause—in other words, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Russians will have the upper hand. Russia will also step up its information warfare and influence campaign in Europe, employing hybrid and grey zone attacks.
Worse, with the US’s failure to call Russia’s nuclear bluff—that is what this policy amounts to—other states, most immediately in the middle east, will increasingly see nuclear weapons as conferring invulnerability. In the last few days it has been reported that Iran is willing to share nuclear technology with neighbouring countries, proving that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is ineffective. We should be more honest about that. Too many Governments in the west cling to the illusion that the treaty can lead to a world free of nuclear weapons, but even European countries beyond the UK and France may soon have to consider acquiring nuclear capability, or at least accepting US tactical nuclear weapons on their soil once again.
Gaza has put western influence in the middle east into freefall, while tying up western political attention and US military supplies and helping the Russian narrative to become dominant in the global south. Russia’s information efforts have played their part in making Gaza a debilitating issue for the west and interventions in other theatres, such as New Caledonia, keep the west on the back foot. The axis of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is strengthening. The temporary stabilisation on the frontline in Ukraine means that western European countries have still not yet had sufficient stimulus to make them appreciate the importance and urgency of going on to a wartime footing themselves and increasing their own defensive capacities.
If the US is, in fact, changing its policy, as I indicated it might be, that is a serious game changer and we must encourage it. It gives notice to Putin that eventually he will lose the war; the US can re-establish the credibility of its leadership of the democratic world and of NATO; the Chinese will draw an important lesson about US resolve, which will have significant implications for Taiwan; the Russian model will appear much less attractive to the global south and Russian influence will wane; and the impetus towards nuclear proliferation will lessen. Sadly, some European countries will feel let off the hook, and it will be harder to galvanise a united European defence effort.
What can the UK do? Sadly, even in the UK we are still reacting too slowly. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December that the Ukraine war was
“existential for Euro-Atlantic security”,
but there is little sign of that understanding in our day-to-day politics. The Defence Secretary has said that the UK defence industry must be put on to a war footing, which means that the whole of Government must be mobilised for that effort, and our voters must understand that the sacrifices to fund victory in Ukraine will be far less than the costs of defeat for Ukraine in the longer term.
The UK should build a cross-party assessment, which I think has already been built in this debate, of what needs to be done to move the UK by stages on to a war footing and to increase defence capability and capacity, rather than just talking about increasing the defence budget.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am going to bring my remarks to a close, if that is all right.
Even if we do not have enough kit to send to Ukraine, we could help the Ukrainians to make more kit themselves and significantly improve our training effort, which we now know is not providing the Ukrainians with the breadth or depth of training needed to win this war—I hope the Government will respond to that point. We must press the White House to understand that Ukraine must be enabled to win this war, or the war is lost. We must also keep encouraging our European allies to follow suit. We can all learn from the way that countries such as Finland and Poland have moved on to a war footing and are building much increased military capacity at less cost.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I would like to begin by reinforcing the parliamentary unity that is enjoyed on this issue. We have discussed it between the Government and official Opposition; well, the same applies to the third party in this Chamber. The SNP stands fully behind the Government’s actions with regard to Ukraine—and that is really something. We do not agree with the Government on very much, so when we do, it is obviously an issue of significant importance to our constituents in Scotland. Even more important is the message that that delivers to international stakeholders, not the least of whom are in Kyiv and Moscow, about the United Kingdom’s position on this.
Consensus is important, but I am certainly no British nationalist, as I have gone to some effort to demonstrate to the House over the last four years. As an impartial observer, perhaps, of the UK’s ambitions and activities in Ukraine to date, I would summarise them as follows: a strong start, but flagging and showing some limited ability to endure. Not all these activities are financial. I point to some tremendously effective decisions that were taken by the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), to issue Challenger tanks to Ukraine. They were of very limited tactical use, but tremendously important to the message sent out. I would like to see the UK Government —whichever Department—manifest equally important signals into this conflict that do not command particularly huge budgetary sums.
The war continues to be central to Putin’s narrative that Russia is under threat, as he seeks to divert attention from his failing economic and social policies. We should expect no let-up in that rhetoric from the Kremlin—to the bitter cost of Russian and Ukrainian civilians alike. Russia has violated almost all significant agreements with Ukraine and NATO; if the war were to end on unfavourable terms for Ukraine, there is every likelihood that Russia would subsequently be emboldened to use force where it sees fit elsewhere. It therefore remains essential for European and western security that Russia’s war of aggression fails.
With the current state of the war set as broadly stalemate, with neither side able to attain air superiority, both struggling to carry out mechanised manoeuvres at scale, and challenges in artillery ammunition supplies, Russia’s wholesale war footing and mobilisation of its industrial base should be a cause for growing concern. We should be concerned that the combined industrial might of the west cannot keep pace with Russia’s ability to manufacture and distribute artillery shells.
Russia therefore continues to press Ukraine along the frontline. Ukraine has made strategic gains in the Black sea, causing the withdrawal of the Russian national naval assets there and opening up western Black sea grain routes—doubtless positive, but of limited impact on its territorial defence in the east of the country. Ukraine’s recently passed mobilisation law, which came into effect yesterday, makes it easier to draft conscripts and provide financial incentives, and does not include provisions to demobilise troops that have served for more than three years. That law should be instructive to us in the west about the pressure Ukraine foresees in the months ahead.
As I said, Russia has significantly mobilised its defence industry, increased labour capacity and expanded production lines of existing facilities, and has brought back previously mothballed plants. That is a statement of intent if ever we saw one. Russia’s defence spending in 2024 is expected to consume 30% of Government spending—very instructive indeed. That has led to significant increases in production output, where Russia is delivering approximately 1,500 tanks to its forces per year, along with 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles. Those are figures many of us in the west could only imagine being able to stand up. According to the Royal United Services Institute, 80% of those stocks are refurbished and modernised; nevertheless, that is an extraordinary undertaking for an economy apparently under sanction. The number of systems held in storage means that Russia can maintain consistent output through 2024 and into 2025, but it should be subject to inventory attrition over the period thereafter. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are factoring that into their thinking.
Sir Edward Leigh
This is a very realistic speech. The trouble with this war, as with Russia’s previous wars, is that early incompetence has now been replaced by a ruthless authoritarian determination to win at any cost by mobilising the entire economy and being utterly impervious to the loss of human life. I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I have put to the House: although we may breathe fire and brimstone about how we are determined to win, what is actually happening is stalemate, and we have to work out how the west will navigate itself around a possible peace negotiation with Russia. I am not saying that I want that—it is thoroughly unpalatable and not a very popular thing to say—but we have to be realistic.
Dave Doogan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I do not share the logic that he applies to the potential outcome in Ukraine. I began in a position of consensus, and I do not think that the Deputy Foreign Secretary would join the right hon. Gentleman in his summation—and nor would I. Whatever the size of the bite that Russia takes out of Ukraine, if Ukraine does not get it back, that is a Russian victory whatever way we cut it and whatever wrapper we put on it, and where Russia prevails, aggression and the tearing up of the rules-based international system also prevail. We cannot allow that to happen.
The strides that Russia has made in regenerating its heavy armour should serve as a wake-up call to UK and western partners. To counter that, Ukraine must have serious supplies of anti-armour weapons. I note that Russia’s missile capabilities are being regenerated at significant cost to Ukraine, and that raises serious questions about the efficacy of sanctions, which I will come to shortly. We must ensure the most accurate calibration in the reconciliation of that which Ukraine needs and in how the UK and NATO allies can satisfy that unmet demand.
Ukraine’s key foreign military aid requirements are air defences, long-range missiles and artillery ammunition. Its shortages in air defence over the past weeks have allowed Russia to conduct a destructive missile campaign against national infrastructure, civilian populations and military targets, including the largest thermal power plant in the Kyiv region. Long-range missiles are required to strike Russian supply depots, command-and-control centres and military infrastructure, and artillery ammunition is essential for offensive and defensive action on the frontline, but they remain in short supply.
The United States Agency for International Development package passed only on 23 April, as we all watched months of delay take their toll on the war effort. The battle to pass that Bill has sparked fresh fears that a Republican election victory—a matter, of course, for the US electorate—could significantly reduce essential US aid to Ukraine, so it is important that the UK, along with the rest of Europe, has contingency plans in place for a potential reduction in the US footprint in aid to Ukraine. That also highlights the need for long-term planning in the military aid pipeline, as opposed to pulsing batches.
Are sanctions working, and who is suffering? Russian oil products are getting through to the UK despite the UK officially banning the import of Russian oil from 5 December 2022. A loophole in the legislation allows Russian oil to continue to flow into the UK provided that it has been refined into fuel in a third country, after which it is no longer considered to have originated in Russia. That is deeply disingenuous to domestic and commercial energy bill payers across the UK, who are facing huge increases in their energy bills because of the rise in gas prices caused by the conflict, while aviation fuel and other distillates from Russian oil continue to pour into the UK’s economy unabated. What do the Government say to UK taxpayers, who are funding billions in military aid to Ukraine so that it can defend itself from a Russian aggression that is, if we follow the money, part-funded by UK purchases of fuel refined from Russian oil? It is desperate stuff, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you do not need to be a forensic accountant to figure it out.
UK purchases of fuels from China, India and Turkey—much of which originates from Russian oil—have increased considerably since the sanctions regime began. From 2021 to 2023, purchases from India went up from £402 million to £1.5 billion, those from China rose from £30 million to £663 million, and those from Turkey from £1.8 million to £60 million. How do the Government explain that loophole? Will they close it off and, in so doing, close off the revenue to Putin and his war machine?
Not unrelatedly, UK businesses continue to see record growth in exports to Russia’s former Soviet state neighbours. That manifold spike coincides precisely with the introduction of sanctions on goods to Russia. Are the Government even interested—let alone concerned—by that patent economic blip and reality? They should be, given the possibility that such exports could contain important components for military purposes. That matters, because although Russian missile production has increased since the war began, Russia faces a serious vulnerability: its most complex weapons, such as missiles, are heavily dependent on western-sourced components. Against the backdrop of a 1860% increase in the export of UK-manufactured vehicles to Azerbaijan, is anybody in the Government really under any illusions about what is happening there?
Russia has maintained a steady supply of the necessary components to make high-end missiles because of the incoherent approach to sanctions adopted by western states. A less laissez-faire approach to countering the Russian defence industry will help to disrupt Russian military supply chains and, in turn, Russian supply lines. That must be a strategic priority for all of us who care about the integrity and future of Ukraine.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
This is day 816 of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian forces have grown increasingly capable in the months since October. They are now frequently striking high-value targets at depths of 120 km behind the frontline. Operationally, they have demonstrated some success in engaging Ukrainian vehicles that were recently moved to Kharkiv. Overall, the Kharkiv offensive is likely part of a broader effort to stress the entire line. It is unlikely to yield a decisive breakthrough, but it will ease the pressure on Russian units fighting in other areas. If that trajectory continues, it will become increasingly difficult for Ukraine to stabilise the front and prevent further territorial losses and casualties.
Russia has deployed precision-strike assets with greater regularity and confidence, typically with reconnaissance from a long-range drone that is closely integrated with missiles such as Iskander, Tornado-S and, occasionally, D-30 SN air-launched missiles. That is called a “reconnaissance-strike contour” in Russian military parlance, and it is clearly having a significant impact on Ukraine’s air defences and command-and-control structures. It is coupled with more tactical elements, such as the widely covered use of guided glide bombs, laser-guided artillery and the Lancet loitering munition.
The shift seems to have occurred because Russia’s reconnaissance drones are able to fly longer and further as Ukraine lacks the air defence missiles to shoot them—and close air support—down. To give an example, Russia’s use of the Lancet loitering munition has expanded significantly in the past three months. There were 178 strikes in March and 140 in April, but there have already been 157 this month. Many of those strikes will have disabled or destroyed key Ukrainian systems such air defence platforms and artillery.
Alongside that, Russian units are adapting to the use of first-person vision drones in various ways, there are more electronic warfare systems for vehicle protection, and the turtle tank concept is proliferating, which indicates that it is a successful counter measure. FPVs have also provided Ukraine with a powerful and cost-effective form of firepower until now, and have largely served to ameliorate the lack of artillery ammunition. However, if Russian units become more effective at countering them, Ukraine’s lethality will decline significantly.
Russian activity should be expected to peak around the G7 summit in June and the NATO meeting in July. The Government therefore have a window of opportunity to maximise their activity and help Ukraine. The UK has been the driving force in supporting Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion and before. It has stood shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, delivering the kit that the Ukrainian military needed most and when it needed it, quite often over the initial objections of our allies. The UK was the first to offer training, to provide NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—to ship 155 mm artillery shells, to provide tanks, and to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles.
Ukraine must win this war; as has been said by other Members, its failure to do so would result in severe consequences for NATO and the rest of the world. If Ukraine concedes one inch of land to Russia, then Putin, as well as our other enemies in China and Iran, will draw the inevitable conclusion that the west simply is not up to the task of defending our freedom and protecting our way of life, or does not have the willpower to do so. We have trained some 40,000 Ukrainian troops since the invasion began, in addition to our commitment to train Ukrainian jet pilots, but the question remains: how does Ukraine win this war? How does it fully expel Russian forces from its territory? Ukraine needs the right weapons to defend against Russian attacks, but also weapons to support its campaign to liberate its land.
Throughout the war so far, Ukraine has used ammunition and artillery at an astonishing rate: approximately 6,000 artillery rounds per day on average over the course of a two-year period. To put that into perspective, during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the ground war was concluded in just four days, using 15,000 rounds per day. Estonian analysts estimate that around 2.4 million shells will be needed for Ukraine to mount an effective counter-offensive against Russian forces, or against Russian-backed separatist forces such as those in Donetsk. That target of 2.4 million artillery shells is achievable eventually, but only with additional American support. However, the American capacity for manufacturing 155 mm high explosive artillery stands at 28,000 per month, and an anonymous American defence official has said that the inventory of 155 mm military artillery shells has fallen to an “uncomfortably low” level. As a consequence, there is a target to ramp up production to 100,000 per month by the end of the year.
A discussion paper published by the Estonian Ministry of Defence notes that 4,800 anti-air missiles are required on an annual basis. However, meeting that target would exceed all NATO production capacity at the current rate, with current American levels standing at 3,600 and the rest of NATO’s standing at 1,000. Of those anti-air missiles, Ukrainians have been asking for Patriot missiles; according to the Heritage Foundation, US army stockpiles have stood at approximately 4,410 from 2005 until now, with a production capacity of 240 per year. However, with instances of Ukrainians firing 30 missiles in as many seconds and employing around 10% of annual global production last year, it is clear that the production of air defence missiles has to be stepped up. Companies such as MBDA in my constituency are a key part of that effort.
The manufacturing of Storm Shadow missiles will make a tangible difference on the battlefield. That long-range, conventionally armed, deep-strike weapon is designed to be used in pre-planned attacks against high-value stationary targets with pinpoint accuracy. Those missiles have proven invaluable in targeting Russian positions in Crimea, and the use of those munitions has been highly effective in containing the Russian onslaught. I am glad that our Government agree that Ukraine can use British weapons to strike any targets it deems necessary for its defence. I would like to see our allies in the US and others follow our lead in allowing the Ukrainians to use the long-range missiles that the Americans and others have given them against Russian targets in Russia itself, which would be an absolute game changer.
The facts I have outlined demonstrate that all our NATO allies should follow our example by putting their defence manufacturing on a war footing, especially when it comes to artillery and ammunition. Alliance members must meet NATO requirements, such as the requirement for all members to have a 30-day stockpile of wartime munitions. Only half of members met that requirement prior to the invasion, which is brought home by the fact that by November 2022, 20 NATO allies had significantly diminished their stockpiles. We should be in no doubt that Russia will remain a belligerent neighbour even after it has been thrown out of Ukraine. NATO members, including the UK, will need to maintain war levels of equipment reserves well into the medium term.
The UK was also the first major ally to sign a long-term defence security partnership with Ukraine. That alliance foresees helping Ukraine develop a sustainable defence industrial base while at the same time expanding and fortifying our own. The UK has ringfenced £350 million to forge collaboration and partnerships between UK and Ukrainian drone companies, in order to marry technologies and scale up production to get thousands of drones to the frontline within the next six months. That type of practical co-operation is a win-win for both of our countries and an example to our allies. Both of our countries benefit from the sharing of technologies, the real-time battlefield testing of equipment, and the further iteration of technological development and collaboration that will help defend this country. That form of practical collaboration should be expanded into other areas of defence manufacturing, and we must assist the Ukrainians to start producing their own equipment in-country, or as near as damn it.
We need to be clear that the money we spend in engaging in this type of co-operation is not aid: it is an investment in the United Kingdom’s long-term defence and security. The defence of Ukraine today is the defence of the United Kingdom tomorrow. Over and over again, I have heard at first hand from senior members of the Ukrainian Government their frustration with the bureaucracy that is slowing down that co-operation. I call on our Ministers to work even closer with their Ukrainian counterparts to identify and eliminate those obstructions. I have met representatives from Ukrainian small and medium-sized enterprises; just today, somebody told me that they want to talk directly to their British counterparts in order to develop technology together. I want to see the Ministry of Defence facilitating those conversations, not merely directing them to the big prime contractors.
On Monday 15 January, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister said in this House that he agreed that we must place defence manufacturing on a wartime footing. We are now in mid-May, and in my view, that process has to be accelerated. We do not have the luxury of time; this cannot be business as usual. We must work with our Ukrainian friends to build the arsenal of the free world together.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to participate in this vital debate—a debate full of parliamentary unity, as colleagues have said—because in the past two years, I have been able to meet Ukrainians who have been forced from their home country and have come to the UK. In the early months of this war, I was able to visit refugee camps in Poland, and through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I have been able to work with MPs from Ukraine on a regular basis at assemblies and elsewhere. The UK’s resolute and profound support for Ukraine is one of the few areas in which this Government have acted with consistency and honour, and it is vital that the next Government deepen and intensify our relationship with Ukraine, as well as Poland, the Baltic and the Scandinavian states, which understand the scale of the threat and are ready to act decisively. I welcome the 10-year and 100-year agreements with Ukraine, committing us to a covenant that will endure through time and begin to outline a post-Brexit foreign policy that will define us for the next century.
That reaffirmation of our commitment to Ukraine comes at a critical time. We must all face the credible possibility that the United States will scale back its support for Ukraine after the presidential election. We can no longer expect Washington to take on the mantle of European security, and it is therefore more important than ever that European states hold steadfast in their support for Ukraine. We must recognise that Russia is stronger now than it was at the beginning of this war. The UK’s sanctions have proved less effective than predicted, and Russia has succeeded in strengthening its relationship with China, in which there are, in their words, “no limits”. Russia is deepening its relationship with Iran, North Korea and India, through which Russian oil and gas make their way on to the open market. Russian power grows stronger, not weaker in Africa. The news from Kharkiv indicates that the balance is shifting decisively on the battlefield. Russia’s military capacity is intensifying as it shifts to a war economy, funded by its sale of precious metals and natural resources, overwhelmingly to China. In doing so, it is creating a Eurasian economic sphere on which it can depend to access the raw materials necessary for its defence and industrial production.
While we have tended to think about this war in terms of values—of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law—we have thought less about value and how our relationship with Ukraine must be a productive partnership. Ukraine has the largest titanium, lithium, uranium and graphite reserves in Europe, and we must also understand this war as a battle over the raw materials required for modern defence and industrial production. Titanium is essential for aircraft, helicopter and drone production, and lithium for the batteries that will fuel the vehicles of the future. If Russia is allowed to gain control of this critical resource endowment, the continent’s security prospects will be in even greater jeopardy. We must prevent Russia from seizing Ukraine’s natural resources, and we must secure them for Ukraine. These are the materials required for the renewal of our common defence capability.
The balance of power is shifting throughout the world. Globalisation has not delivered what it promised, a point made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The spread of democracy, human rights and the rule of law has been proven not to be inevitable. We can only defend these values if we are able to defend ourselves. Our alliance with Ukraine is part of that defence, and it must include the renewal of our collective industrial and defence capabilities. We must ensure that it works because we are defending our liberty and sovereignty as well as Ukraine’s. The foundation of our partnership with Ukraine must be one of enduring value as well as shared values.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I think this House is at its best when we get serious issues of this kind, and those on all sides of the House are in agreement—broad agreement—about what needs to be done. We have heard some excellent and informed speeches from both sides. I think the announcements made at the beginning of this debate by the Deputy Foreign Secretary are very welcome, particularly the £3 billion this country is going to give Ukraine this year and every year thereafter, while some of the significant sums—for example, on artillery and drones—are very welcome.
We have reached a critical point in the Ukraine-Russia war when we, along with our allies, need to decide how far and for how long we can take our support. In recent weeks, Russian forces have made slow but important advances in the area of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, compounding their advances by stretching the Ukraine army along a wide front. Opening up new fronts as well as widening those in the south-east Donetsk and Luhansk regions will stretch Ukrainian forces in a battle of resources, as Ukraine awaits the delayed US aid and equipment.
The UK and US have provided strong support for Ukraine, but there have been limitations and critical delays, as others have said, in providing the weapons and equipment needed. We are at a point where this war is dragging on, with limited and slow advances on both sides. The west has provided enough support for the Ukrainians to defend themselves, but not enough to make decisive advances, let alone enough to end the war. We must decide with our allies whether we will step up this support to persuade the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine. What we should not do is allow a war in Europe to drag on for many years and become a frozen conflict. That would cause an increased death toll, damage Ukrainian infrastructure and impact on our own and other western economies. Not only would it continue to prolong the suffering of the brave Ukrainian people, but it would make the job of rebuilding the country in the longer term much more difficult.
There is a strong possibility that, if we are not sufficiently determined to oppose Russia now, its aggression will not cease with Ukraine. We have only to look at what is happening in Georgia at the moment. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the demonstrations against the foreign agents law, it is clear that the majority of people in Georgia want a closer alignment with Europe and NATO than with their historical ties to Russia. That will be a cause for thought in Moscow. I use those words carefully.
In Europe, there is the possibility of risk to a Baltic state or Moldova. What would it mean if a NATO state were targeted next? Estonia’s Prime Minister urged NATO allies at the security conference in Tallinn to follow their response by stepping up support for Ukraine, while Moldova has recently defied Russia with a EU security pact deepening defence co-operation. Of course, one of the outcomes, whatever happens in the war in Ukraine, is that both Sweden and Finland have become members of NATO. Those deeply independent, non-aligned, neutral countries joining NATO must be a real slap in the face for the Russians. European countries have a huge vested interest in continuing to provide considerably more equipment and training. As I have mentioned, some countries such as Germany and Poland are to be commended for what they have done.
As I have said, the UK is sending an extra £500 million on top of the £2.5 billion in military aid that it had already pledged to give Ukraine in 2024. In February, the EU agreed to a further £42 billion package, but by March it had failed to meet its targets on sending shells to Ukraine. After the US and Germany, the UK is the third largest supplier of weapons and equipment to Ukraine.
As I said in my intervention on the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who made an excellent speech, I think we must do much more on the diplomatic front to encourage a coalition of the willing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the consequences of the Russians winning in Ukraine are huge in the longer term. I think it would mean that a number of non-aligned nations will decide that they are perhaps better off with the coalition of Russia and China, rather than with the west, which would be an utter disaster. It is important that we try to build that coalition of the winning, and I am not just thinking of Europe and America. There are countries in south-east Asia and in the middle east that we should be trying to persuade to join this coalition.
The US has been a huge supplier of arms and financial support, and its contributions to the war have far outweighed what has been sent by all other countries put together. In a recent visit to Kyiv, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, pledged ongoing US support for Ukraine after Congress approved the $61 billion aid package. Arriving at the frontline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has said, are the ATACMS—army tactical missile systems—which are long-range precision-guided missiles. Of the $61 billion-worth of aid being provided, about $8 billion will be used to resupply Ukraine with missiles and ammunition. That is a crucial point, because these missiles are absolutely critical.
The US has also been stepping up its own arms manufacturing, as we heard on the Public Accounts Committee visit to the Pentagon two months ago. That is critical. Europe needs to step up its arms manufacturing, which it has pledged to do, but it seems to be doing that far too slowly. This is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said, just about manufacturing. Huge volumes of hardened shelters are required to store the shells. There is a lot attached to building up this capacity, and my hon. Friend was right to indicate those figures. Furthermore, after that first year, the step-up in the second year will be even greater, which is good news.
As the Prime Minister said, we are facing some of the most dangerous and yet transformational years to come. Others have mentioned that the Ukrainians must be free to make decisions on how they use the arms that we supply, and they should not be hampered by conditions imposed by us. It is utter nonsense to watch Russian troops massing on the border near Kharkiv, and then to expect the Ukrainians not to use the vital weapons we have supplied to prevent that from happening.
An important area that has not yet been discussed is that, as any military tactician knows, to win a ground war air superiority is needed. Therefore, if the west really wants to help Ukraine, it must be far more generous in providing fighter aircraft, complete with trained Ukrainian pilots and anti-aircraft missiles. Ukraine has consistently asked the US for fighter jets to counter Russia’s air superiority. In May 2023, the US agreed to let other nations supply Ukraine with US-made F-16s. However, the US has hundreds of those aircraft, which are being rapidly superseded, and it could well afford to donate some of them. Instead, it says that the F-16s must be supplied by Denmark, the Netherlands and other nations, and we must train those pilots in how to use them. As others have said, our missiles have been very effective at deterring Russian ships in the Black sea.
I am not really criticising, but the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) slightly dismissed the fact that grain was getting out of Ukraine. It is not only good in itself, but important—others have touched on this—that small businesses are able to flourish in Ukraine. It is important that they are able to generate profits, and even more important that they are able to employ people who are not able to fight in the war, such as women who are not at the front. It is important that the Ukrainian economy is beginning to flourish again.
Dave Doogan
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman at all. I was very specific in what I said, and I talked about a “tactical advantage”, which is minimal.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.
As Russian advances were being made in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin was making a state visit to China, in a show of strength. China is the largest investor in Ukraine after Russia, and it is propping up the ailing Russian economy by buying a significant quantity of Russian oil and gas at cheap prices. China could have a significant influence on Russia to settle the war if it chose to do so. A group of colleagues visited China the other day and made those points, but I do not think we had any impact on the Chinese. Surprise, surprise some might say, but we have to go and we have to engage, otherwise we certainly will not have an impact.
Putin has been making recent changes, dismissing his Defence Minister who had been in charge since 2022—the beginning of the war, when Putin expected Russia to take Kyiv in days—and replacing him with a very different person in Andrey Belousov. He is now overseeing the $117 billion defence spending that Russia has embarked on, and building up a Russian war machine that is reminiscent of what they did in world war two, by turning the entire economy to a war footing, which suggests that Putin is preparing for a long war with Europe. In addition, Russia’s allies, China, Iran and North Korea, have huge manufacturing capabilities that could replace a significant proportion of the Russian arsenal if it wished. If we and our allies are unwilling to provide more decisive support, there will inevitably be a political settlement between the two countries, which will leave Russia in a far more powerful position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex indicated, we do not know what the US position will be after the elections in November. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is imperative that we engage with both sides in that election—Republicans and Democrats—so that whatever happens we strongly make the point that it is vital that the Americans continue on their course. Otherwise there is a danger that we will not be able to win this war.
Hotbeds of tension that could unravel in the years to come in the middle east and in east Asia around Taiwan and China are being carefully managed at the moment. Eyes are on the west and how we deal with Russia. The more Russia succeeds in Ukraine, the more co-operation between Russia and China seems to be strengthening, and the old enmity between them is reducing. That is incredibly dangerous. Urgent concerted and positive help must be given to the Ukrainian people in their hour of need for as long as it is needed, to deter Russia from taking any further offensive action in the rest of Europe.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
For more than two years Ukrainians have been fighting this war on behalf of us all. The brave Ukrainians are fighting for our shared values. They are fighting for our democracy, for our freedom, and indeed for Europe’s freedom. Many of those brave Ukrainians have made the ultimate sacrifice. Women and children have paid with unspeakable suffering and death. We are not dying each day to defend Europe from Russia. Our job, and the job of other European and NATO countries, has been to support Ukraine. That has been through military aid, sanctions, and cracking down on dirty money, yet too often we are playing catch-up, and delays in vital support getting to Ukraine have cost them dearly.
The delay in American support for months has given Putin a new-found optimism, which could prove catastrophic to our Ukrainian allies. Who knows what will happen in the US presidential election? Our country and Europe need to be ready. Our support for Ukraine needs to step up. Any sign of weakness or hesitancy inspires Putin. The result of this war will have a greater impact on Europe than it will on America. It is ultimately our war—Europe’s war—and we need to make sure that Ukraine wins.
When armaments are supplied, too often restrictions are placed on them. Limiting the use of long-range missiles is asking Ukrainians to defend their country with one arm tied behind their back. Russia has gone all in to win, and Ukraine being able to fire missiles slightly further will not change Russia’s already barbaric behaviour. The massacre of Ukrainians in Bucha shows how the Russians will behave if they win. Ukrainians know that they are fighting for their survival.
There is $300 billion of Russian central bank funds sitting in the Euroclear exchange, and our Government should be pressuring the EU to use it to support Ukraine. Money seized here should also be used to support Ukraine. China has given Putin a blank cheque; it is supplying him to win. It is also time for talks on Ukraine joining NATO and the EU to begin, and to be hastened. That is what they are fighting for—to be part of the free and democratic world, and ideals that many have fought and died for. Denying them that in the hope of appeasing a ruthless dictator is pointless. History teaches us that trying to appease a bully does not work.
Ukraine is backed by the free and democratic world. Putin is backed by dictators and despots. If Putin wins, every authoritarian regime across the world will be emboldened. Whether we like it or not, there is a war in Europe. There will be a winner and a loser. It is essential that Ukraine wins this war, and we must ensure that it gets what it needs. Ukraine must win, and Europe and NATO must do everything in their power. Ukraine must win, for if not I really fear that Europe and NATO may not survive in the future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Nothing I will say in this short speech in any way approves of what President Putin has done—he is an appalling man; a tyrant who has caused massive damage to infrastructure and countless deaths—but we have to be realistic in these debates. We cannot just will what we want. There is a mismatch between our determination, our interest and our will, and those of the Russian state.
Let us go back in history. When people in the west discuss Ukraine, they often assume this is a simple case of a large state invading a small country that has always been independent. That is not the view of the Russian state or most people who live in Russia. Ukraine means “borderland”, and for centuries, since Catherine the Great, Ukraine was effectively part of Russia. Even under the Soviet Union, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation, and it was only willed to Ukraine by diktat in the 1950s. Not a single Member of Parliament objected to that and the Crimean people were not consulted.
I am not in any way defending the Russian position—what they have done is appalling—but from that historical reality, and it is a reality for the Russian state, they are absolutely determined to pursue their objectives, as wrong as they may be. As we have heard, Putin is a tyrant. He has put the entire Russian economy on a war footing. He is apportioning a part of the economy to defence that we have not been spending since the second world war. Although we may want to win the war, we have to be realistic. Given the mismatch in resources between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and given all the difficulties that the Ukrainian state has been trying to cope with in the management of its economy for many years, with corruption and many other issues, it is extremely unlikely, sadly, that Ukraine can win this war.
As I said earlier, this war is following the pattern of earlier wars that Russia has engaged with: early incompetence replaced by an utter determination to win that is completely impervious to the loss of human life.
Jim Shannon
Does the right hon. Member not agree that if the battle in Ukraine is lost, then it will go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and eventually the whole way back to us? The battle in Ukraine has to be won. It is not a matter of giving in; we have to win it.
Sir Edward Leigh
If we are going to win this war, we have to be prepared to give the resources necessary to do so. The truth is that such is the overwhelming predominance of the American industrial military estate that it could have won the war by now. America could have armed Ukraine to such an extent that it could have won. America could have allowed the Ukrainians to use its weapons to bombard Russian forces within Russia. America does not want Ukraine to humiliate Russia and win this war. America does not want Ukraine to lose the war. America could have won this war by now, as it won the second world war, but apparently it is not prepared to will the resources. We may not agree with that or like it, but that is the reality. We all know the strength of the American economy, and we all know that for months weapons deliveries were delayed.
All that I am trying to do is inject a note of reality into this debate. We cannot keep having these debates, saying, “We are determined to win this war. We must win this war”, when we are not willing the resources. I therefore ask the House these questions. Are we determined to put our own economy on a war footing? Are we determined to spend less on health, education, justice, and all the other good things in which we believe, in order to win this war? Are we prepared perhaps to put our own troops into Ukraine? Are we prepared for our own young men to die, or are we just prepared for thousands of young Ukrainian men to die and not have a single casualty ourselves? Those are the realistic questions.
The most likely outcome is that there will be horror and stalemate, and eventually somebody in Europe—President Macron or that sort of statesman—will then say that we have to conduct peace negotiations. What do we do then? Will we be part of a movement to have peace negotiations? Will we reward Putin for his aggression? Will we accept that there is a stalemate, and therefore Russia is enabled to grab part of Ukraine? What is our attitude? Nobody yet in this debate so far has seriously addressed those questions. All they have said is that we will win this war.
Members should look deep down into their hearts. Is there anybody sitting in this Chamber—I mean not what they say publicly, but what they think privately—who actually thinks now that Ukraine will win this war? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say that, but how? Given the huge mismatch in resources between Russia and Ukraine, and given the fact that America is not prepared to furnish Ukraine with sufficient armaments to ensure that we win, how will we? I am with you all. I am prepared to put our own economy on a war footing. I am even prepared to send our own troops to Ukraine. I am prepared to spend less on all the things I value, such as health, justice and all the rest. But we have to be realistic, and at the moment we are not being realistic. As a result, Europe is trembling in a sort of arthritic way, neither pursuing the war with full vigour, which is how we won the second world war, nor prepared to conduct peace negotiations. The result is a stalemate, which is deeply damaging to our reputation, our economy and everything else.
I just pose the question. I am not saying that we should give in or that we should have peace negotiations, but I ask those on the Front Benches to be realistic in this debate.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I had prepared a speech but will now have to make a different one, given that last speech from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I think he is an outrider for his own party in his view. First, I want to take on this idea that Ukraine historically is just some sort of outcrop of Russia. I will start and go backwards.
My father wrote his PhD on the Viking incursion into Slavic lands. The Varangians created Kyivan Rus’—the Kyiv empire. It was an empire centred not in Moscow, but in Kyiv. Kyiv predates Moscow as the predominant city of the Slavic lands. If anybody wants to make a claim, it should probably be the people in Stockholm, because it was Swedish Vikings who settled those lands and established that kingdom—I do not think the Swedes now have any such ambitions.
If we move back even further, the Scythians settled Crimea and created the agricultural breadbasket that we know today in southern Ukraine and Crimea. They supplied the Greek empire with its grain. That established Athens and other republics in Greece and fostered the democracy that we know now, because the Greeks could rely on the Scythians for grain. That is the ancient legacy of Ukraine. It is not Moscow or the tsars, but the Scythians and then the Varangians. My first point, therefore, is that the Ukrainians have a clear and historic right to a nation. It is straight out of the Putin playbook to try to denounce the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state.
Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough that the UK, the United States and every European nation need to go on to a war production footing. We need to increase our production of basic military equipment, such as artillery shells and bullets—the Minister for Armed Forces knows how many times I have questioned him about this issue. We then need more advanced military equipment too. Actually, the most advanced anti-drone manufacturer in the world now is Ukraine. We have much to learn from that, and in future we can do many things in joint ventures for our own defence. But we now need to ramp up our own military production. We have underutilised factories here, in the US—they have promised to increase production by the end of the year—and in Europe. To be fair to the Germans, they have done exactly that, particularly in shell production.
It is estimated that the Russians are expending 10,000 to 15,000 artillery shells a day, while at the beginning of the war that figure was over 50,000, so they have depleted their reserves and are just using their current production. It is inconceivable that 30 or so countries in Europe and North America could not match that level of production if we went on to a war production footing.
I had not intended to talk so much about military production. I had intended to talk about how it has been my honour to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine since December 2022. In that time, I have organised three humanitarian aid convoys to Ukraine and three parliamentary delegations—I see hon. Members in the Chamber who have been on them.
The people of Ukraine owe us nothing, but we owe the people of Ukraine everything. The sacrifices I have seen—towns and villages destroyed; schools obliterated; men without legs or arms who still want to contribute to their country’s war effort. We cannot abandon those people. They did not ask for this situation; it has been meted out to them by a violent, brutal autocrat. I will not call him a dictator—I am not sure whether we are quite there yet—but the last Russian presidential election was not legitimate; it was a stolen election.
We are now in a situation where we are a bit weak minded —I agree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough on that—and Putin’s mind is like a ball of steel. He will stop at nothing. We need to take that same attitude and stop at nothing. He will back down only if he sees strength; he will not back down on weakness. That is an issue not just for the United Kingdom but, as I said, for the whole of Europe and North America and the rest of the democratic world. We need to ensure that we are doing everything.
I will finish shortly, because I know that others want to speak, but I want to make a few points. It is still not that easy for humanitarian aid to flow across the UK border and EU borders into Ukraine. We are still seeing issues with people from Ukraine gaining visas to travel here. It is not acceptable that people have to travel to Warsaw to get a visa. We need consular services. If they cannot be provided in Kyiv, they should be provided in Lviv.
We also need to look at how the funding that we have raised has been spent from end to end. A large proportion of the money raised by the Disasters Emergency Committee from the goodness of the British people has been spent outside Ukraine, because it has been deemed too difficult to spend it inside Ukraine. However, there are small aid charities, such as those that we have been working with, which are willing and able to spend money in Ukraine but have no supply of funding. We need to open up the books of all the charities. DEC will open up the books only for the money that it has collected, not for each individual organisation. We need to see more money being spent in Ukraine.
We have €300 billion sitting in Euroclear. We need to see that money not just frozen, but seized and then utilised for that war effort. Then we will see a change in the front. The biggest difference that could be made to see a swift conclusion to the war and no more Russian troops on Ukrainian territory is in air superiority. The Ukrainians are losing the war because, owing to the Russians’ air superiority, they cannot defend their troops on the ground. We have done a good job in training the first tranche of pilots from Ukraine, and now other countries are also training them, but they need the planes now. We had a setback following the election in Slovakia—we were about to see planes go, and subsequently they have not. We need other countries, and particularly the United States, to supply F-16s. We also need both variants of the Storm Shadow missile made in the UK to go to Ukraine, not just the export variant, which the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) expertly spoke about earlier. Finally, we need the resolve and long-term commitment to support Ukraine; not just to see this as something that happened two years ago and is slowly sliding off the agenda.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) brought some dissent to the Chamber. The consensus that exists can sometimes stop us thinking freely and thinking of alternatives. It is sometimes helpful to have the sort of devil’s advocate approach that he brought.
To the point that the right hon. Member made about the stalemate, as he observes it, we need to think not entirely about the situation on the ground but about what makes us different and what makes Ukraine different from Russia. What we have seen in Ukraine from Russia is chauvinism, as the term is understood more broadly. There is a tendency in the Russian mind to regard itself as superior, as nationalist and as imperialist. That is why we cannot simply talk about an accommodation at this stage. Diplomacy? Yes, of course, diplomacy must go on as the war goes on—the war is but politics by other means—but Ukraine needs to be negotiating from a position of strength, and certainly from a stronger position than it sees itself in now.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary started his speech by talking about the £3 billion that the Government have announced for Ukraine as annual military aid, and he asked whether other political parties will support it. The answer is yes, absolutely. The Liberal Democrats, as other parties have already set out this afternoon, certainly intend to support £3 billion annually for Ukraine. I hope that support for Ukraine does not serve to be a party political issue in the run-up to a general election. Let us look at things differently, but let us have a consensus as we have up to now. The UK has been pretty exceptional in Europe in having consensus across our political parties; let us hope that continues.
The Liberal Democrats develop our policy at conference. We are very democratic; it is voted on by our members. Last autumn, we hosted Kira Rudik, the leader of Ukraine’s liberal party, Holos. She gave an emotional speech from the platform, which resulted in a standing ovation that was both instinctive and heartfelt. I think that explains why in my party—I know this is also true of other parties—there is a real determination to stand with Ukraine until the end. But it is also necessary to think about endgames, endpoints and how the war might end, so I will address that in my closing remarks.
I would like to talk about how the war in Afghanistan ended for the Soviet Union as well as how this war might end given the amount that Russia is spending on defence at the moment, and, finally, about what role China might play in any conclusion to the war. In 1988, the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. It did so after 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed. Many people attribute the withdrawal to the fact that, back home in the Soviet Union, many families were mourning the loss of those soldiers, so there was pressure on the Government in Moscow to withdraw. We will plainly not see that situation here.
In Afghanistan, the motivation was about communist ideology and economic models; for Russia, this is much more a war of religion, of culture and of spiritual questions. The amount of money that the Soviet Union expended on that war was huge. Post 1989, we saw the break-up of the Soviet Union because of the amount of money spent on that war, to keep up with the expenditure of the United States and NATO.
We should give some thought to the popular support for the war in Russia. We know that Russians are following the propaganda pretty closely. An independent polling organisation called the Levada Centre asked the question, “Who initiated the aggression in eastern Ukraine?” Some 48% of Russians thought that it was the United States and NATO; only 20% thought that it was initiated by Kyiv; 14% said that it was difficult to say; and 4% said Russia. I accept that it is a brutal, authoritarian regime where people are scared to give their opinions, but Russians are fed daily on that propaganda about the eastward expansion of NATO after the second world war—it is very much in their minds. We should try to get in their minds. Sun Tzu said centuries ago, “Know your enemy.”
I listened to a fascinating interview on BBC’s “Ukrainecast” on 7 May, with Alexander Goncharov, a former Russian military officer who, when asked why the war started, talked about Ukraine prohibiting the Russian language and bombarding civilians in Kursk, Bryansk, Belgorod and Crimea. That is the mindset of Russians who support the war, and we should pay careful attention to it, particularly when thinking about the restrictions imposed on Ukraine for the use of British weapons and how they might be used over the border into Russia.
Finally, thinking about how the war might end, I want to talk about China. Putin visited Beijing last week. At the outset of the war, I supposed that it might end after the intervention of Chinese diplomacy. Instead, we saw a sham of a peace plan from Beijing in March 2023, although on the positive side it encouraged Russia to stop nuclear sabre-rattling. Unfortunately, China is condemning unilateral sanctions and criticising the expansion of collective defence treaties—a euphemism for NATO. Although I still think that Chinese diplomacy could be helpful to us in bringing the war to an end, it will not be on the terms suggested by Beijing last year.
We have talked a lot today about putting the UK economy on a war footing. We should think more about how we encourage our allies in Europe and beyond— including some of the neutral states that have yet to show skin in this game—that this is a war of liberty against chauvinism.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me begin by echoing the sentiments across the House for those supporting the fight in Ukraine against Russia’s unjust and illegal attack on that sovereign nation. I also pay tribute to the work of our NATO allies to support the people of Ukraine and, above all, to the tenacity and dedication of the people of Ukraine in resisting this totally unjust invasion.
We must remember that this is not the first invasion of Ukraine. In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea and was engaged in a proxy war for nearly eight years in the Donbas to try to weaken the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This invasion is clearly a war of choice by Vladimir Putin, though we can have all the excuses under the sun why he undertook this reckless action. What we sadly heard from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was basically straight out of the Putin playbook. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) eloquently spelt out the truth of the ancient history of the integrity of Ukraine as a nation, and debunked the Moscow-centric nonsense that Russia has a right to dominate and dictate what goes on around its borders.
If the right hon. Member for Gainsborough wants to be brought a little further up to date rather than hear the ancient history eloquently portrayed by my hon. Friend, let me tell him that when the Soviet Union was disbanded, Ukraine had a third of the Soviet arsenal of nuclear weapons. It declared itself a state in 1990, joined the non-proliferation treaty and signed the Lisbon pact in 1992 to give up those nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia and ourselves, in the Budapest memorandum on security assurances of 1994, guaranteed the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. The present Russian leadership may get into the semantics that it has always been part of Russia—clearly it is not—but it gave an assurance in 1994 that Ukraine was an independent nation. I ask people to read the history rather than listen to the podcasts. If there is one thing that it demonstrates, it is how effective Russia’s propaganda machine has been. We saw that in the 2014 invasion of Crimea when, suddenly, even people who should know better in the national newspapers in this country were writing that Crimea had always been part of Russia. I ask people not to fall for the propaganda.
Can Ukraine resist? Yes, it can. It has had a fantastic, valiant fight so far, but it can do that only with our assistance and that of our allies. Russia has had some 450,000 personnel killed or wounded since 2022. Ukraine liberated Kherson in November 2022, but there has been continued pressure. Russia will go to lengths to put itself on a war footing and to ensure that it keeps chipping away at territory, but at a huge cost to itself. Our strategy must be not just to supply weapons but to crack down on people who are breaking sanctions. We only have to look, not just in this country but in Europe, at the amount of goods being shipped to China, Turkey, Azerbaijan and other countries; clearly, that is not the end destination—they are going into Russia to help the war machine, as has been outlined. It is only with collective will that we will succeed in resisting that aggression.
I am a vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and we—not just the national delegations but the individual Members of Parliament who make up the assembly—have been united in our support for Ukraine since 2022. We first agreed an arrangement with Ukraine as far back as 1991. We have the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council, which has met on a number of occasions and will meet again this weekend in Sofia in Bulgaria. We are united in our support for Ukraine’s military fight. We are unanimous in our support for its defence of its democracy, and in supplying humanitarian help. This weekend, we will pass another unanimous resolution in support of Ukraine.
To those who say, “What happens if we fail in Ukraine?” I suggest they talk to our fellow parliamentarians in the Baltic states, Poland and the rest of eastern Europe. They are fearful that if Russia gets its own way in Ukraine, they will be next. I had the honour of visiting the three Baltic states last year. Each one is conscious that they are a heartbeat away from their democracy being snuffed out by a Russian invasion, so it is important that we contribute.
On the United Kingdom, I agree with the Deputy Foreign Secretary that there has been cross-party support in this House. That is very important in sending a clear message of support to Ukraine, and a clear message to Russia and others, that we will stand firm against this type of aggression. I have been a little concerned, I have to say, since we got the new Defence Secretary. He is now trying to play politics with this issue, which is a bit sad. A few weeks ago, he challenged the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), on what he would commit to after the election. He should just grow up and stop playing politics with this issue. It is far too important for that; likewise, the political football kicked around about the £75 billion increase in defence expenditure.
Let us be very clear—I have certainly been very clear in the 23 years I have been in this House—that we do need more defence expenditure, not for the sake of it but to ensure that we work with our NATO allies to help them to resist, and to act as a deterrent. People say, “If you support more defence spending, does that mean you are a warmonger?” No, it does not. I work on the very clear principle that conventional deterrence is just as important as nuclear deterrence. We need to keep arguing that. Someone asked what would happen if we get a new American President next year. I will still be arguing—we should continue to argue—for the importance of the transatlantic European alliance. Ukraine may be a long way away from the United States, but the US has found before that if it does not act early, the cost to the country, including in human life, will be 10 times more, if not more, if it has to defend it in a hot war.
It is important that we work closely with our NATO allies and our European allies, too. I see people pointing fingers around Europe, saying, “This country’s not doing that, that country’s not doing this.” But just look at what Europe as a whole is providing for Ukraine. It is a huge contribution that is certainly on a par with what the United States is giving. It is very important that there is no disruption to the flow of military equipment and humanitarian aid.
Is this a fight for the rules-based order? Yes, it is. I have no doubt about that. If Putin gets his own way in Ukraine, it will be a green light to others who want to use force to inflict their will on the world. We are approaching 6 June, which is the 80th anniversary of D-day. People died on the beaches to preserve the democracy that we all hold very dear. I think we sometimes take that for granted. What has happened in Ukraine has put into clear focus that the democracy and freedom of speech we value is very delicate, but it is certainly worth defending.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Hear, hear to that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am very pleased to speak in this debate and to add my support, and I thank all Members for their constructive contributions. With everything going on in the world, it can sometimes be easy to forget—even if we see it on the news—the ongoing devastation in Ukraine, because we are not there and we do not see it every day.
I have to start by saluting the courage, tenacity and strength of character of Ukrainian men, women and children. When the war started, I remember one thing impressed me greatly: women in school canteens were making meals for the troops at the front; those who made clothes, whether they were wedding dresses or whatever, were making uniforms for soldiers. That showed me the courage and commitment of the whole nation together. Men, women and children were saying to themselves, “This war is our war,” and every one of them, in their entirety, was committed to supporting their troops at the front. I remember saying to people in the House that if only we, in this country, had the same commitment and understanding of the war, what we could do as well. But our Government and our Ministers have shown very clearly their commitment, so with that in mind I congratulate them. Last week, I asked the Minister an urgent question on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the situation in Georgia. That day, the Minister reinforced the Government’s commitment.
It has been some 815 days since Putin’s operation and still Ukraine is subject to aggressive military operations, so it is important that we do more to assist. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not in his place, asked the question, “Who believes Ukraine can win?” Well, I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe it can. And I think everyone on the Opposition Benches thinks it can win. Members on the Government Benches believe it can win. There might be one or two who are doubters and who are not sure about the future. Perhaps—I say this with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, because he is a friend of mine—Chamberlain lives on in this House with some people. Thank goodness that that particular individual opinion is one that is singularly held and is not held by everybody else. What a blessing that is.
I want to speak up on human rights and on the religious persecution in the eastern Donbas region. As a member of the Baptist church, I know that many Baptist pastors went missing in eastern Ukraine when Russia came in. They have never been heard of again. They have never been accounted for. Their families grieve for their loved ones. So I ask the question again: where is the justice? The ongoing Russian threat has completely undermined human rights and democracy in Ukraine, and in Georgia, too. Only last week, Russia launched a new offensive in the Kharkiv region. Our support to Ukraine to combat that has been monumental. It is so important that we continue to support Ukraine in the future, whether it be with missiles, air defence systems or ammunition. What we need—Ukraine has asked for this—is a dome-type self-defence system to combat Russian missile attacks. Our supplies must be central to helping Ukraine in its plight against Russia.
Why do I believe, and why do Opposition Members and some Government Members believe, that Ukraine can win? Well, just last week the British Army was on manoeuvres in a NATO exercise, showing its strength and showing what it can do. If we combine the military might of all NATO countries, it far outweighs what Russia has, so do not for one second think that we cannot, as western countries and as NATO, combat Russia. We can not only equal, but beat what Russia has. I believe that in my heart.
Poland has just announced that it will build a defensive wall or barrier on the border with Russia. That shows its determination, and its understanding of where the threat lies. We should recognise the strength of the combined NATO countries, including the United States. Yes, they were slow to provide the military aid that was needed; there was a wait of perhaps a year and a half for it to come through; but it is through now, and the commitment is there. When all this is added together, it cannot be ignored. The strength of NATO is in the nations that are involved. It is in their outgoing military activity, and their resolve to combat Russia as best they can.
Only yesterday it was revealed that Russia had been using an increasing number of “glide bombs”, which are cheap but highly destructive. More than 200 are thought to have been used in a week to attack Ukraine’s northern town of Vovchansk. Furthermore, 3,000 were dropped in Ukraine in March alone. It has also been said that Ukraine is struggling to combat the bombs. It is therefore imperative that we step in: I know that our Ministers do that, and our Government do that—I never criticise our Government for a lack of commitment, and the support of all parties in the House has made their commitment easier—but we need to ensure that we retain the ammunition and the defences that we need in order to fight back.
I am always mindful of Russia’s army. It is an army of monsters, an army of criminals who have sexually abused and raped girls as young as eight and women as old as 80, with violence and brutality. You and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, and many others in the House, believe that there will be a day of reckoning when Russia, and all those who have committed these despicable crimes, will be made accountable and amenable in this world. The violence carried out against Ukrainian soldiers has been terrible as well; some of the things that have been done are unprintable.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke about why it was so important for us to beat Russia—as, indeed, did I, in an intervention. We should focus on the positivity of beating Russia, because if it is Ukraine today, it will be Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and us tomorrow. Failure is not in our psyche. This is about defeating Russia, and we must be clear about what we are trying to achieve.
This month, UNICEF reported that nearly 2,000 children in Ukraine had been killed or injured amid ongoing and escalating war. However, the overall tally of children’s deaths is likely to be higher owing to displacements and deaths that have not been recorded. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke of children who had been displaced—who had been told that the battle in Ukraine was over, and had been taken away from their parents and their families. That report comes after Russia escalated its attacks in the Kharkiv region, where several children were killed and hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of infrastructure was ruined and destroyed.
According to Save the Children, 2.9 million children in Ukraine are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The two years of the war have taken a devastating toll on the people of Ukraine; more than 10,000 civilians have been killed since it started, although again I must emphasise that the real numbers are likely to be much higher, and will continue to rise. More than half the number of children who are enrolled in schools in Ukraine are missing in-person schooling. I know that education is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I think we need to focus on not just military and humanitarian aid but educational aid for those children. I also know that our Government and our Minister have not been found wanting in that regard, but nearly 1 million children across the country have no access to any in-person learning opportunities owing to the current insecurity. In 2023 alone, UNICEF is said to have given 1.3 million children formal and informal learning opportunities, which is fantastic; but it is important for us to send Ukraine that educational assistance, because for those children so many months without learning will need to be replaced.
The United Kingdom has been a good friend—an excellent friend—to Ukraine, and to Georgia and other countries threatened by Russia. We will always call for resolutions, on all sides, and our deep and long-standing partnership with and support for Ukraine has been unwavering. However, in the interests of freedom, of liberty, of democracy, of justice and of decency, we must stand by one of our partners when it needs help, and more needs to be done to sustain a sovereign and democratic partnership. Today I look to the Minister, and to my Government, to provide an update on our ongoing assistance; and perhaps the Minister can tell us what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the war on young people’s education in Ukraine.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the debate, and I thank Ministers for making time for it. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I wanted to respond to it together rather than delegating the task to others, in order to underline the importance that we attach to the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine. This has also given us the opportunity to draw some lessons, as my right hon. Friend did earlier, from our visit to Ukraine last week. Like my right hon. Friend, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his help in facilitating that visit. We would be grateful if the Deputy Foreign Secretary passed on our thanks.
While my right hon. Friend and I were in Irpin, we met three Ukrainian teenagers. We talked about their families and friends, about possible careers and about their hopes for the future—but these young people had been through something so horrific that it belongs in the 1940s. After Putin’s full-scale invasion began, they were kidnapped and sent to camps in Crimea and Russia. Every morning they had to sing the Russian national anthem, and they were sent into isolation if they did not do as they were told. One, a diabetic, was refused insulin and became very sick. Those who were running the Russian camps told those Ukrainian children, “No one cares about you”, “Your families are dead”, and “Ukraine no longer exists”. I want to praise the work of the Ukrainian charity Save Ukraine, which is doing vital work to rescue the stolen children, reunite them with their families and help the survivors to deal with their trauma.
Despite those young people being told “Ukraine no longer exists”, more than 800 days on from Putin’s full-scale invasion it is still standing, and civilian and military alike are still fighting with huge courage. We toured a factory and spoke to the wives, mothers and fathers who had fled from the east to Kyiv in the face of Putin’s invasion, and are now working together to support the Ukrainian war effort. While their loved ones are on the frontline, everyone in Ukraine is fighting to defeat Putin.
The shadow Foreign Secretary and I had one simple message to convey during our visit: the UK continues to be united for Ukraine. If there is a change of Government after the election this year, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes. We told the Ukrainian Defence Minister, President Zelensky’s chief of staff and the parliamentarians whom we met that this was our Labour guarantee to Ukraine. That is why we have fully backed the Government’s increased military aid to Ukraine, for this year and the years ahead.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said that in his speech the shadow Foreign Secretary had shown the unity of the House. He was right, and all the speeches tonight have shown the unity of this House. In fact, this House has shown a unity behind Ukraine that goes beyond the debates in this Chamber. As UK parliamentarians, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), have all been involved in gathering aid and driving it to Ukraine over the past couple of years. Other Members have taken in Ukrainian families. Like tens of thousands of big-hearted Britons, we have offered, through the Homes for Ukraine programme, shelter, refuge and a life in this country to over 140,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s invasion.
I turn now to the contributions to the debate. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a deeply reflective speech with a wide sweep that recognised that, as he said, this war is part of a global conflict. He quoted Secretary of State Blinken, who, as he rightly said, was in Kyiv on the second day that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I were there, which was 15 May. The hon. Member quoted Blinken as saying that
“Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war”.
In fact, the rest of what Blinken said is important. He said that Ukraine is conducting the war
“in defence of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity. And we will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed”.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who speaks for the SNP from the Front Bench, added the SNP’s voice to the all-party consensus, although I was puzzled when he described himself as an impartial observer of the UK’s activities in Ukraine. However, he was dead right when he said that it is essential for western European security that Putin’s full-scale invasion fails. If he prevails, he will be tearing up the rules-based system. That is why it matters so much to us, as well as to the Ukrainians, that they win.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has so many innovative defence companies in his area that he speaks as someone with quite a lot of technical expertise. He described how, and with what kit, the Russians are stepping up their rate of successful fire on the frontline. He said that defence of Ukraine today is defence of the UK tomorrow, and I liked that argument. It is an argument that I consistently put in different terms in saying that the UK’s defence starts in Ukraine, and we need to do more on both sides of the House to convey a sense of importance and urgency to the British public so that we can help reinforce their continuing support for the war.
Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made an argument as well as a speech, which I always like to hear. He said that we think about this war in terms of values, sovereignty, territorial integrity and democracy, but that we think less than we should about making the long-term partnership with Ukraine valuable to the UK. That seems especially important, as a successful Ukraine will become, in partnership with the democratic west, central to wider European security and prosperity in the future.
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) rightly urged, as I will in my remarks, more attention and effort on the diplomatic front to build what he called the “coalition of the willing”, and he pointed the attention of his own Government and the House towards countries in south-east Asia and the middle east that should be part of such a coalition. Like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, he also warned about the increasing co-operation between China and Russia.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) reinforced the argument that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made in his speech: we in the UK are still too often playing catch-up on sanctions, and on tackling the dirty money of Russian oligarchs in our country. She urged the Government to demonstrate more action and greater leadership in directing frozen Russian state assets towards the much-needed reconstruction help for Ukraine.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that he wanted to inject some realism into the debate, and he was right to say that we cannot just will what we want. He said that if what we want is a Ukrainian victory, we must will the resources. However, I say to him that the Ukrainians can cope with what he described as the mismatch with Russia, as long as we and other nations maintain our backing for them.
That point was picked up immediately by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, who said that the importance of our ramping up production lies in the fact that if we and other allies of Ukraine provide ammunition and weaponry, Europe and the US can, between us, easily counter the levels of increased Russian production. He showed a really extraordinary grasp of the history of Ukraine and of the reality of Ukrainian history, rather than the Russian revisionism that we sometimes hear. I pay tribute to him and the other officers of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine for their work.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Would it not also be sensible to emphasise that if we want this war to go on forever, we should allow Russia to stay in control of sovereign Ukrainian territory? If we want to have a clean and clear end to this conflict, the only way to do so is to expel Russia from illegally occupied territory.
John Healey
I will come to some of the military challenges faced by Ukraine in a moment, if I may; the hon. Gentleman made that point very powerfully in his speech earlier.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) echoed what we have declared as Labour’s intent: to try to take the politics out of the UK’s support for Ukraine in the run-up to the election. I trust that the Government will respond in the same way. Like the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that more diplomacy is required with countries that he described as having yet to declare their position, alongside the military aid that the UK is supplying.
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) was the only one who reminded the House that the Ukrainians have not just been fighting Russia since February 2022; they were fighting it for over eight years before that, after proxy forces invaded parts of the Donbas and Russia seized Crimea. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I found most moving about both of the visits we have made to Ukraine is the wall of remembrance for fallen heroes, which has the photographs and details of all those who died before February 2022. Over 13,000 Ukrainians lost their lives through fighting the Russians on Ukrainian soil. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also reminded us, in his role as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, that the Parliamentary Council at NATO had established relations with Ukraine way back in 1991. He asked what would happen if we failed in Ukraine. He was right to say that the Baltic countries and the former eastern bloc countries all know that they will be next.
Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us about the pattern of military aggression from Russia, not just in Ukraine but in Georgia. It is exactly what the UN charter is designed to prevent: big nations redrawing international boundaries by force. It is exactly why it is so important that Putin does not prevail. When we were in Kyiv last week, the message of those we met was consistent. They described the conflict in Ukraine as being at a critical moment, with new offensives around Kharkiv and new attacks along the length of the frontline. That is an easy thing to say, but the length of the frontline for the Ukrainians is 800 miles. That is as far as London to Aberdeen and back. The scale of the challenge they face is huge.
It is tough for Ukraine at the moment, and it is set to get tougher still in the months ahead. Its most urgent and complex challenge is to stabilise the front in the coming weeks and prevent what are local tactical gains by Russia from becoming a wider operational success. Stabilising the front depends on the prompt delivery from the west of air defence, artillery and long-range strike systems. Also, it depends not just on the western allies; it depends on the Ukrainians to construct effective defensive fortifications, to boost their own military manpower, to maintain the quality advantage that they have in training their forces and also to restore morale.
Alongside this, the Ukrainians have also scored significant successes with their own offensive operations, and we must not lose sight of that, particularly outside the land war. These have involved long-range strikes with indigenously produced weapons systems, partisan warfare in parts of Russia and the occupied territories, special forces operations and maritime operations. These are no longer symbolic; they are increasingly substantial in their effect. They have destroyed one third of the Russian Black sea fleet. Notwithstanding Putin walking away from the Black sea grain initiative, they have opened up freedom of navigation in the western side of the Black sea and Ukraine is now exporting more grain than it did under the initiative when Putin gave it the go-ahead. It is also exporting many other goods. For the large majority of Ukrainians, it is quite clear that the stakes are nothing less than the survival of the state and the nation. People in Kyiv told us, “Even if the west stops supporting us, we will not give up fighting.”
This has also become a war about the survival of Russia as a state and the survival of its elites. Too often, the western view has been that this is somehow a war of choice for Russia, but that has underplayed how Russia has once again become a country whose primary vocation is war. In that vein, Putin has now moved his industry on to a wartime footing. He is now spending a total of 40% of his Government’s budget on defence. This war is not only military; it is also diplomatic and economic, and Putin will not make peace if he thinks he can win on the battlefield. He will not stop at Ukraine if he succeeds there.
Our recent military aid packages from the UK and allies have been really warmly welcomed and received in Kyiv, but more is needed. Deliveries of air defence, ammunition and long-range missiles need to be speeded up, and further diplomatic and economic action must be taken to isolate Putin further. We have to be able to show him that things will get worse for Russia, not better.
That is why we are asking Ministers and allies to take three immediate steps. First, deliveries of military support need to speed up and reach the frontline. As NATO’s Secretary-General Stoltenberg has said, any country that can send more should send more. Training for Ukrainian troops should also be expanded.
Secondly, UK diplomacy should be accelerated leading up to the G7, with the NATO 75th anniversary, the European Political Community meeting and Ukraine’s peace summit all taking place in the next few weeks. The purpose will be to strengthen support for Ukraine, seize frozen Russian state assets and close sanction loopholes. All those must be the outcomes of successful summits over the next few weeks.
Jim Shannon
I mentioned the necessity of helping civilians with humanitarian aid. If we help the civilians, we also encourage the soldiers at the front. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe we need to focus on that, too?
John Healey
Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a sound point.
Thirdly, as many speakers have said, we must boost industrial production. The £2 billion for stockpiles, to re-equip Ukraine and replenish our own forces, was allocated in the spring Budget of 2023. By the end of last year, only a third of that sum had been committed and none of it had been spent. I have now been waiting four months for an update on the progress on committing and spending that £2 billion. It must be fast-tracked and it must be used for stockpiles. It cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence budget, which was the National Audit Office’s concern. We have to reboot our industrial strategy, grow our defence base at home and further collaborate with Ukraine and our allies.
We are proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, and the Ukrainians have told us how important that bipartisan support is to them. The President’s chief of staff told us, “The UK elections are the only ones we are not worried about this year.” On military support for Ukraine and reinforcing NATO allies, the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s fullest support.
I conclude by returning to where I started. The charity Save Ukraine told us that well over 20,000 Ukrainian children remain stolen and in Russian hands or on Russian territory, but it is determined to bring every single one of them home to their families and home to their country. Across this House, our determination must be just as strong to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes for it to win.
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
This has been a powerful and sincere debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions from across the House.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), started by reflecting on his recent visit. He talked about the courage of the Ukrainian people, and he said that this is, indeed, a critical moment. Putin believes he can outlast the democracies of this world, and of course we will disprove that assumption. The shadow Foreign Secretary asked three important questions. First, he asked about speeding up deliveries, and we are straining every sinew to expedite the delivery of lethal aid. This year we have taken our contribution up from £2.5 billion to £3 billion.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we will accelerate UK diplomacy, and I can give him that assurance. We have the G7 summit, the NATO summit in Washington in July, the EPC and, of course, the Ukraine peace summit. I cannot comment on the Prime Minister’s diary, but I know the summits will be attended at the very highest level. He also asked about seizing state assets and sanctions. Of course, the G7 summit in June will be the critical moment. As the Prime Minister has said:
“We and our G7 partners…should be bold and pursue all routes through which immobilised Russian sovereign assets can be used to support Ukraine, in line…with international law”.—[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 38.]
The direction of travel is clear, and we are expediting that work.
We should also have no embarrassment about our remarkable and decisive contribution to Ukraine’s security. Those from the UK who visit Ukraine should hold their head high with pride at our contribution to protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a characteristically knowledgeable speech, in which he laid out the contest of wills that is under way in Ukraine. He spoke interestingly about the role of Russia’s new Defence Minister, Belousov, and how that should make us concerned about the wholesale Russian mobilisation to a greater war footing. He also pointed out that it is a global crisis, not just a regional crisis, which is the important context in which to understand it.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) also confused me when he said that he is impartial—I know he did not mean it in that sense—but he rightly spoke about the concern we should have about Russia’s military might. He asked about the refining loophole for the export of hydrocarbons. I can assure him that a huge amount of diplomatic and technical work is being done, with delegations right across the middle east, central Asia and the Caucasus, to ensure that countries at risk of sanction circumvention change their policy to ensure that they are not exploited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) gave a characteristically knowledge-able description of the military situation and the huge military-industrial challenge. His mention of the capabilities in his constituency was very welcome. Of course, the huge resource and energy that we are putting in to supplying the Ukrainians with what they need to develop their drone capability also attends to our own consequential drone strategy, as does our commitment of £10 billion over the next 10 years to increase supplies of our own munitions, in the context of needing to ramp up industrial capabilities not just for supplying Ukraine but for backfilling our capabilities. Indeed, we have an important role in what he termed, and I welcomed this, “the arsenal of the free world.”
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made some welcome comments on his personal experience. He pointed out the role of China and the hydrocarbons relationship with Ukraine, which is important, and the important role played by the so-called Eurasian economic sphere. That economic context and the hugely consequential deposits of titanium and lithium in Ukraine could make it an important global player in its longer-term economic development, which is important for how we understand its capacity for its own reconstruction.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out that this is a critical moment in the conflict and mentioned the regional context. His mention of Moldova was welcome. We recognise the critical challenge faced by that country. He should be assured that we are putting a huge amount of political and technical energy into supporting Moldova in building its state institutions. He urged more work on the diplomatic front, which we are doing. He talked about the importance of air capability and of more grain flowing through the Black sea, which is actually as a consequence of the remarkable military gains achieved by the Ukrainians, often with remote, uncrewed maritime vessels. That is illustrative of a remarkable revolution in warfighting, which we should also note.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The Public Accounts Committee looked in great detail at how we built capacity during the covid pandemic for producing vaccines. Will the Minister look at the lessons learned in that campaign? In particular, during that campaign we invested directly in capacity, not through the firms that were producing. Will he look at that as a method of how we could rapidly build up our military capabilities?
Leo Docherty
That is one of the things we are looking at.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who spoke about this being Europe’s war, not just America’s, which was an interesting contextual point. She spoke about the brutality in Bucha and the strategic importance of a Ukrainian victory, which was welcome. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made a provocative but sincere speech and asked the question, “Do we have the resolve to win?” The House answered that question with a resounding yes—we do have that resolve.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made a welcome historical point, putting in context the journey to statehood for Ukraine, mentioning the Viking establishment of Kyivan Rus’, the Scythians and Crimea. He also mentioned the ancient grain-based relationship with Europe, which was an interesting insight, and which disputes much of the propaganda coming out of the Kremlin. He pointed out the human cost of the war in Ukraine.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about the chauvinism of the Russian state, which was a good way to put it. He outlined his party’s support for our policy, for which I was grateful. He drew an interesting and relevant parallel to the Russian experience of invading Afghanistan.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) paid tribute to the tenacity of the Ukrainian people. He pointed out that the first invasion was in 2014. For understanding the geopolitical journey of Ukraine, 1992 in Lisbon and 1994 in Budapest are important dates that we must all recognise when we consider our posture. The views of his fellow members of the NATO parliamentary delegation from eastern Europe and the Baltic states were welcome because they are highly relevant. I agree with him that increased defence spending is not an indication of warmongering; no—it is the surest safeguard of peace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of the struggle of the whole nation, which was a good way of putting it. He spoke about the brutality of Russian forces, the threat to the Baltic states and the horrendous impact on the education of young people in Ukraine, which will surely last a generation.
I was grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who reflected on his visit to Ukraine last week, and the horrific experience particularly of young people there; he gave two examples of young people being kidnapped, sent to camps and told that Ukraine does not exist. Well, the whole House knows that Ukraine does exist, and it has proved that to the tyrannical invader in magnificent fashion over the past two years.
I was grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for reiterating his support for the Government’s policy, and for the unity and resolve reflected across the whole House—across the political divide. He mentioned the 800 miles of frontline, which indicates the scale of the challenge for the redoubtable Ukrainian military. In answering his three questions, I can give him the assurance that our energetic and dynamic support in supplying lethal aid and military training will continue. Our effort is reflected in the increase of resource therein, from £2.5 billion to £3 billion this year. Our energy in that quarter will be matched by our diplomacy across the landscape of important diplomatic events this year, which I have already mentioned, and we will sincerely carry out a ramping up of industrial production. I give him the commitment that we will keep him and his Opposition colleagues updated as that is expedited.
Putin’s war has demonstrated one thing above all others: he will never be able to subdue the will of Ukrainians to be Ukrainian, which is why he should end his unwinnable war, and the hideous suffering he is inflicting on Ukrainians and Russians, by withdrawing his forces. Putin should also know that this is not the outcome Ukraine and its allies are planning for. In January, the Prime Minister and President Zelensky signed an historic 100-year partnership, and more and more of our allies are following suit.
Since Putin’s invasion of Crimea, we have helped to train over 65,000 Ukrainian military personnel. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, we have sent almost 400 different military capabilities; in terms of resource value, that amounts to £3 billion this year. We are making long-term investments in Ukraine’s security, in the air, on land and at sea, including by hosting a forum with Ukrainian defence companies this week.
Taken together, our current support will help to keep Ukraine in the fight; our continued support and diplomacy will ensure it prevails; and our long-term support and co-operation will help the Ukrainian people to rebuild their country, strengthen its defences and deter future aggression. Putin thinks he can outlast us, but he should be in no doubt. The United Kingdom will stand with the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The occupant of the Chair, as hon. Members know, is always completely impartial. However, the sentiments of the House are quite clearly unanimous on this issue—slava Ukraini.
Business without Debate
Families in Temporary Accommodation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I rise to speak out of desperation on behalf of the 112,660 homeless families, 145,800 children, and 20,000 babies who are currently living in temporary accommodation. I meet at least three or four of those families every single Friday at my advice surgery, as they are put into cramped, uninhabitable or overcrowded temporary accommodation. When I use the word “temporary” I am being misleading, because homeless families are being placed in temporary accommodation for so much longer than anybody ever should. Some 3,700 families have lived in temporary accommodation for over five years. One family has lived in it since 2009. Some children spend their entire life living in so-called temporary accommodation.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I was informed by the Shared Health Foundation about a woman who had to flee her home with her three children because of domestic violence. She has been put into temporary accommodation that is unfit for human habitation, and has been told that she is likely to be there for 10 years. Is that not absolutely inexcusable?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
My hon. Friend’s story of that particular family is sadly not unusual. I know of the work of the Shared Health Foundation, which is part of the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group on households in temporary accommodation. I know what brilliant work it does, and that, in the foundation, my hon. Friend will have a strong advocate in trying to resolve the difficulties that she is experiencing. I will use my speech to tell the House about a few families I know of, and the disadvantages that their children face at every stage of childhood, from pregnancy all the way up to A-levels.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for rightly bringing forward this debate on families in temporary accommodation. People in my constituency face similar issues. Some sofa surf and some have been in temporary accommodation for years. Does she agree that there is a need for much more new build social housing, and that it can only go hand in hand with funding and planning in local authorities, which needs to be centralised? Does she agree that that is one of the solutions?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I agree; indeed, it is the only solution. The only way we are going to bring an end to use of expensive and appalling temporary accommodation is through building more social housing units. After I have spoken about the consequences of temporary accommodation, I will look at its cost to the taxpayer, and the billions of pounds that we are spending on it, which frankly I could think of such better uses for. Finally, I will speak of the solution to this mess.
Stories of dislocation and crisis alone could fill the debate. I have managed to get two or three such cases resolved in the last week. These are a selection; I could have doubled, tripled or quadrupled the examples of the conditions that people are being kept in, but I will start with just one. Joanna was placed in a shared house when she was four months pregnant, along with four men she did not know. She had been living there for 14 months, and by the time she came to see me she had a nine-month-old daughter. Like countless other pregnant women and parents with small children, she worried endlessly for her safety. The biggest worry for people like Joanna is that they have no safe sleeping arrangements for their babies. That is important, because we know that between April 2019 and March 2023, 55 children died as a result of the temporary accommodation they were housed in—42 of them were under one. The most likely cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome because of the lack of safe sleeping provision, such as cots. I would like to think that I speak for the whole House when I say that that is unacceptable.
After their children start going to primary school, families in temporary accommodation face a whole new set of challenges, because at least 30,000 families were placed in a borough outside their home: taking children out of school, and the families away from their support networks; taking parents and adult children away from jobs; and taking the families away from the hospitals and GP surgeries that they might desperately need. Once we remove a desperate, vulnerable family from their home environment, there are consequences for their children in school attainment and attendance, and all sorts of other things.
The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but I know it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find such accommodation, particularly for larger families. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance. One child was moved homes five times in the first five weeks of his GCSE exams and was forced to rely on a charity that paid for his taxi to his first exam.
On one day at the civic centre in my constituency, the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford—170 miles away from their home borough—and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? It is a ludicrous situation, and it means that thousands of children turn up at school dirty, tired and underdeveloped, far from ready for their vital first year. Some will have grown up confined to a small room, shared with the rest of their family, with no space to play, walk or socialise with other children. Others might live in mixed housing blocks alongside drug users, where their older siblings prefer to use a potty in the cupboard rather than queue in the corridor for a shared toilet.
I am happy to take the Minister to the temporary accommodation that many of the families that I represent have to live in. She can meet Mr and Ms N, who have five children all under the age of eight. They were originally living in my local borough of Merton in south-west London when they were made homeless, but they have been sent to every corner of London to find temporary accommodation—first to Walthamstow in north-east London and then to Ilford. Ms N is now living over an hour away from St George’s Hospital in south-west London, where she needs to go for her for appointments, medication, and scans. Her kids are missing school because of the more than two hours they have to spend on public transport every day.
The Minister can also meet Mr and Ms G, who were made homeless when they were living in Colliers Wood, which is also in my home borough of Merton. They were moved to West Croydon, from where their kids had a 90-minute journey to school, and at the end of last year they were relocated to temporary housing in Tottenham—again, miles away from the place they called home for nearly two years. They had finally found a school where their children were happy and starting to be more social, confident and secure, and I can read to the House what their primary school had to say about one of their children:
“Alfie is currently in reception. He has settled in really well and has a strong friendship circle. His attendance is extremely strong at 97% and amounts to only two absences due to illness. His punctuality is currently 100%.
Alfie’s confidence has grown, and we are very proud of his development. We look forward to seeing him progress at this school.
Alfie’s parents have relied on a strong network of parents to help them navigate through the daily aspects of school life.
I would worry that the impact of moving school as well as a new home would be very upsetting for him.”
That is one of the many consequences of our country’s lack of investment in new social housing. I am conscious of time, although I realise I have benefited from the early closure of the previous debate.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In January of this year, my local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, had 153 households in temporary accommodation. That figure was 101 in January 2022. The use of hotels alone cost the council £625,000 in the last financial year, diverting resources away from other much-needed support services during the cost of living crisis. Does my good friend agree that the Government have failed families in temporary accommodation?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I agree. Those families are being failed, and they are being failed by us all unless we get action to build more social housing.
The shocking thing is that the weaker someone is, and the less fight they have, the worse they get treated. A child with special needs will often find themselves in the ridiculous situation whereby the social services department—in the same council as the housing department that placed the child outside their borough—scraps the transport to their special school because their council has moved them out of their area. It is extraordinary that we make victims of those people, who just cannot stand up for themselves.
Members would not believe the fortune that taxpayers spend on such unacceptable accommodation—accommodation that you wouldn’t put your pet in. London boroughs spend £90 million every month on it, which is 40% more than they spent last year. Councils in England alone spent £1.74 billion on temporary accommodation in 2022/23—that is 10% more than the year before and a 62% increase over five years. Some councils seriously risk bankruptcy because of the cost of temporary accommodation.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, who is undoubtedly a doughty champion for those in temporary accommodation in constituencies up and down the country, is making a powerful and moving speech. The Secretary of State has expressed his regret about the number of children living in temporary accommodation, even though he has sat on the Government Benches throughout. The figures that my hon. Friend outlines make for very grim reading indeed, and it is clear that we cannot go on like that. Does she agree that a future Labour Government will have to work at pace across all Government Departments, rather than in silos, to get those numbers down, just as we did last time we were in office?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Providing more social housing, and giving more support to families in temporary accommodation, needs to be a mission of the next Labour Government.
It strikes me as extraordinary that we, as a nation, are spending £1.74 billion on temporary accommodation, knowing that the figure will not go down any time soon. In Merton, we have one of the lowest numbers of families in temporary accommodation. The figure stands at between 400 and 500 families, but that is 400% higher than it ever used to be. With the ban on section 21 evictions again kicked into the long grass, I have no doubt that I will continue to see more and more families turn up at my weekly advice surgeries having been evicted from their homes and forced into temporary accommodation.
However, we can solve this crisis; it just needs the political will, which is, I would argue, something that we have been missing over the past 14 years. I do not know how anyone can say that building more social housing has been at the top of the Government’s priority list, given that we have had 15 housing Ministers in 10 years, with an average tenure of nine months each. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) is very talented, and I know that she is sympathetic to our arguments and has helped the APPG on temporary accommodation greatly, but I think even she would find it difficult to struggle around this generational crisis in less than a year.
I try not to take things personally in politics, but when a Government treat housing as a political game—another hotseat for the latest Minister, only for them to be turfed out months later—it is difficult not to be angry. Never has this country needed a cross-party, long-term consensus about tackling our housing crisis more than it does now, and never have a Government seemed so ill equipped for that challenge. I appreciate that I may be biased, but the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must be desperate for a Labour Government, just to give it some stability. I bet that a fair few of the 112,660 families living in temporary accommodation would like to see that, too.
Here is what we can do. There are 19,334 hectares of unbuilt green belt within a 10-minute walk of London train stations where there is enough space for 1 million new homes—that would be a very sensible start. Then, we could look at dealing with land bankers: in 2019, the FTSE 100 house-building companies were sitting on land banks of more than 300,000 plots between them. That is even more land that could be used for some of the families I have mentioned today. Finally, it feels like stating the obvious, but we could bring back mandatory house-building targets for local authorities. It is incredibly important to bring back those targets, and I am glad that Labour Front Benchers have committed to do just that.
There is one party in this House refusing to build on the grey belt, removing housing targets and delaying the ban on section 21 evictions, and its Members are not sat on the Opposition Benches. I issue a plea to the Government: build the homes my constituents deserve, so that we can end the vicious cycle of temporary accommodation. The situation is desperate, and I hope that the Government give it the political will it deserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), both for securing this important debate and for raising such important issues. I was delighted to work with her and her APPG on the new homelessness code of guidance for cots in temporary accommodation, and I look forward to working with her on other matters.
The whole House will agree that every child and every family deserves a decent, safe and secure home. First, that means making more good-quality, affordable homes available to families and having an effective safety net to prevent homelessness before it occurs. We are delivering on that goal by increasing supply: in the Conservative party manifesto, we committed to build 1 million homes in this Parliament, and we are on track to achieve that. I know that the hon. Lady is very genuine in her desire to see more housing starts, but I would simply say that London, under its Labour Mayor, was the worst-performing region for housing starts in 2022. We are delivering more affordable homes—nearly 700,000 since 2010—and scaling up that delivery through the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will provide thousands of new homes for rent and sale across the country.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Last year, Merton Council had 72 two-bedroom properties and 34 three-bedroom properties to offer the 10,000 families on its housing register. The situation is so dire that it will not be long before a local authority goes bankrupt just on the back of temporary accommodation costs. Surely the Government have to intervene and do something.
Felicity Buchan
Yes, and I will go on to explain what the Government are doing. One of our schemes is the local authority housing fund, through which we have given £1.2 billion to local authorities so that they can build and purchase housing, both for recent arrivals such as Ukrainians and Afghans and for temporary accommodation. I believe that the hon. Lady’s Borough of Merton was a beneficiary in round 2 of the local authority housing fund, and received just under £750,000.
As I was saying, we have an affordable homes programme, which is a massive £11.5 billion programme that will provide thousands of new homes for rent and sale across the country. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the quality of temporary accommodation is also very important. The number of non-decent homes has fallen by 2 million since 2010. What is more, from April we restored the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile. This means that 1.6 million low-income households will be on average about £800 a year better off, making it more affordable for families on benefits to rent properties in the private sector.
Navendu Mishra
I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning the local housing allowance. It has been uprated, but rents in Stockport are already some of the highest in Greater Manchester and the north-west, and local housing allowance is not sufficient to meet market needs in Stockport. Will she revisit this issue, and specifically look at the rates in Greater Manchester and the north-west, reflecting not only on the need but on the average rates?
Felicity Buchan
The local housing allowance has been uprated to the 30th percentile, which means people should be able to afford the bottom 30% of properties on that allowance; the intention is not that they can afford every property. The provision falls under the Department for Work and Pensions, but there is an ongoing commitment to review the local housing allowance.
Ultimately, we all want to avoid people facing homelessness in the first place, and we are putting almost £2.4 billion over three years towards tackling this issue, including £1.2 billion through the homelessness prevention grant. Since the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force in 2018, more than 740,000 households have been prevented from losing their housing or have been supported into settled accommodation. The Act supports the most vulnerable, including by providing temporary accommodation to pregnant women and victims of domestic abuse. We have come a long way, but I recognise that challenges remain and the impact that living in temporary accommodation is having on too many families.
The hon. Lady mentioned the data from the National Child Mortality Database. Clearly, that is incredibly concerning, and it is why we updated the homelessness code of guidance in February to make it clear that temporary accommodation should not be considered suitable for a family with children under two years old if there is not enough space for a cot, and that housing authorities should support families to secure a cot where needed.
Where families are placed in temporary accommodation, I share the ambition to improve housing quality across the board, and to ensure that families know how to complain when they are being let down. This is the thinking behind the new proactive consumer regime being introduced via the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which gives the Regulator of Social Housing new tools to hold social landlords to account. The current review of the decent homes standard and measures in the Renters (Reform) Bill also aim to strengthen standards and regulation across all tenures, including temporary accommodation.
The hon. Lady mentioned the health and education impacts of living in temporary accommodation, and that is something I want to dig into more deeply. I had a conversation last week with the Shared Health Foundation, with which I know she spends time. We had a productive conversation, and I commit to working across Departments to look at improving health and education impacts for those in temporary accommodation. We are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable in our society, are safe and have access to an excellent education. That is why we are providing more than £2 billion in 2024-25 through the pupil premium to support disadvantaged pupils, which will include many who live in temporary accommodation.
Concerns have been raised with me that children, and indeed adults who are in temporary accommodation, may lose their places on NHS waiting lists if they move out of their integrated care board area. I have been reassured by colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care that that should not be the case. I know that was a concern of the Shared Health Foundation, and I am happy to follow up on any of those concerns, but that should not be the case.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. None of us wants to see large numbers of people in temporary accommodation. We want those numbers to fall, which is why we have a series of Government initiatives such as the homelessness prevention grant, the local authority housing fund and the local housing allowance rate. It is clear that we must address the drivers and impact of homelessness on children living in temporary accommodation. We all need to work collectively to get those numbers down and do the best we can for the most vulnerable groups in our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry
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
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
(1 day, 6 hours 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
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 632748 and 651094 relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and accessibility.
It is a pleasure, Mrs Harris, to serve under your chairmanship. The petitions call for an independent review and an exemption for blue badge holders, and were signed by more than 17,000 people. I congratulate the creators of the petitions, Mike Spenser and Mark De-Laurey, who are here today. Many thanks to the Petitions Committee for producing a survey, completed by 7,000 people, to which I will refer in my speech.
Low-traffic neighbourhoods, or LTNs, are traffic-control measures that reduce motorised traffic within a limited area. They are intended to make active travel more comfortable and enhance public spaces for pedestrians. Studies have shown that there are benefits, from improved road safety to better health outcomes, as people are encouraged to walk and cycle rather than drive. Their introduction, however, has proven to be controversial in some of our communities.
There is an irony in the fact that the introduction of LTNs was intended to bring communities together when, in some cases, they have now become a source of controversy. Of the respondents to the Petitions Committee survey, 78% said that LTNs had a “negative” or “very negative” effect on them, with only 17% saying that LTNs had a “positive” or “very positive” effect on them.
I support the efforts to create a more sustainable transport system, and actions to tackle what is a climate emergency. It is my intention to use this debate to present some of the challenges and to put forward recommendations for action that can be taken to prevent the problems that so many of our communities have experienced.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
More than 28,000 deaths a year are linked to air pollution. Does my hon. Friend, who has begun her speech excellently, agree that much more needs to be done to monitor and reduce air pollution, so that we can improve the quality of life for us and our constituents?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with her, and I will come on to that later in my speech. It is really important that we tackle not only air pollution and air quality but some of the inequalities that may come about as a result of some of the changes being introduced.
Although the basic idea of LTNs dates back to the 1970s, the latest wave and the name itself are far more recent. During the pandemic, the Conservative Government encouraged local authorities in areas with high public transport use to reallocate road space to help to enforce social distancing and encourage active travel. Statutory guidance was issued, and the Government’s active travel fund provided money for LTNs as experimental traffic orders, or ETOs. Many would argue that that is where the problem possibly started.
Although the reasoning behind the introduction of LTN measures was understandable given the circumstances, the way in which they were implemented has created problems. As they were introduced as ETOs, the usual legal obligations to carry out a full consultation were often waived, and some councils decided to perform their public sector equality duty on a rolling basis. This resulted in changes being imposed on communities without their input or approval, often without sufficient information, and with little regard for equality considerations.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I stated back in March ’22 that I was concerned that continuing with the roll-out of LTNs in my area before bus prioritisation would worsen congestion, further negatively impact bus uptake and increase division around active and public transport measures in Oxford’s communities. As my hon. Friend is stating clearly and eloquently, the timing of the introduction of LTNs in cities like Oxford has underlined the lack of a joined-up approach to the issues.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the manner in which the Conservative Government initially funded these projects, stating that LTN money could not be used for longer-term, more integrated transport plans? Does she agree that while many local residents will understandably support LTNs in the streets they live on, if we are to tackle the climate crisis, we have to ensure that everyone, not just those on higher incomes, can get from A to B and travel in a cleaner, greener way? People who live on council estates surrounding city centres also need their transport needs considered.
Marsha De Cordova
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point that we must ensure that communities are brought along on this journey and that there are challenges that the Government have not addressed.
Marsha De Cordova
I will make some progress.
Common complaints about LTNs have included the shifting of traffic to boundary or sacrificial roads, increased congestion, barriers for emergency services, worsening pollution and a negative knock-on effect on public transport. Many communities that have been impacted by traffic moving to densely populated areas are from poorer and black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds. One survey respondent described the impact, saying:
“The traffic was pushed out of [an] extremely wealthy [area] and onto the roads of the poor…The result was complete GRIDLOCK. The arterial roads remain highly congested to this day and it is horrible and stressful to be stuck in polluted traffic for hours on a journey that should take mere minutes.”
The introduction of LTNs has in some cases had a greater impact on disabled people, with 86% of those who responded to the survey saying that LTNs had a “negative” or “very negative” impact on them. Some of the concerns included the installation of bollards and planters, locked dropped kerbs, excessively longer journeys, which are not only inconvenient but lead to higher costs, and the failure to exempt blue badge holders from LTN schemes.
Increased travel times are not just mild inconveniences. Many disabled people often find commuting far more exhausting. In the most extreme cases, the added hassle caused by the longer journey time makes travel difficult, robbing them of the energy they need for when they arrive at their destination. Worryingly, travel times were also linked to the increased cost of petrol and taxi fares, adding to the financial burden borne by disabled people. That has the potential to prevent them from travelling or, worse, to keep them trapped in their homes. Someone living with multiple conditions said:
“The LTN has added to my journey times and costs and also my fatigue levels are increased due to the extra stress and travelling, added to this I suffer with anxiety as MS means I sometimes need access to a toilet quickly, with my journey time now increased threefold it makes it very difficult.”
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech she is making. The LTN she describes sounds as if it has physical barriers. Does she agree that where an LTN is enforced through camera technology and residents can enter or leave their homes by the route that suits them best, they do not suffer from the problems she has described so well?
Marsha De Cordova
Making sure that routes are accessible is crucial, and using technology such as cameras can be a way forward. I will come to that shortly.
Marsha De Cordova
That’s fine—no need to apologise!
Moreover, not all LTNs have blue badge exemptions; that is the focus of one of the petitions we are debating. Although LTN schemes are different everywhere and councils have different policies for blue badge holders, disability is not a geographical issue. The lack of exemptions has led to there being a postcode lottery. One respondent to the Petitions Committee survey said:
“I cannot take my mother who has a blue badge to medical appointments as it would result in going through an LTN and getting a fine.”
Southwark Council in London recently had to scrap its plans for a low-traffic neighbourhood after a backlash from residents, including local disability groups, as blue badge holders and disabled motorists would not be exempt. Many of the benefits of LTNs do not help disabled people. For instance, active travel measures such as cycling infrastructure are not always accessibly designed. Narrow cycle lanes, designed with a standard two-wheel bike in mind, cannot be used by trikes or other non-standard vehicles. This really is about creating an inclusive public realm.
The accessibility issues around LTNs show that society is rarely designed with the needs and interests of disabled people in mind, and that often leads to their exclusion. In fact, many of the issues predate the introduction of the schemes and stem instead from the existing barriers. LTNs are inaccessible because street spaces themselves are not inclusive, so simply removing them is not a solution, as the status quo ante was not always inclusive and accessible.
A basic principle of the disability rights movement has always been, “Nothing about us without us”, which signals the importance of consultation and co-production in any policymaking that impacts our lives. Given the sometimes routine exclusion of disabled people from decision making, the existing approach to policy development has had and will have a wide impact. Poor consultation on low-traffic neighbourhoods and their imposition in a time of national crisis has allowed controversy to arise.
At first glance, the Department for Transport’s review in March this year shows support for LTNs, but the responses were based on a limited set of data. The surveys featured were limited to residents of only four geographical areas, and they had a low response rate. The review also failed to consult public health professionals, older and disabled people’s groups, and those representing black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.
The Government have issued guidance on the implementation and monitoring of LTNs, which could help to ensure that future schemes are more inclusive and have community buy-in and support, but given some of the concerns about the Government’s review, there is a case, outlined in petition 632748, for an independent review that has a specific focus on the impact on disabled people and consults all the relevant people and stakeholders. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to that? In the short term, LTNs must permit access to blue badge holders, as Mike Spenser called for in his petition.
A more sophisticated LTN design might include cameras, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, to permit other vehicles and allow disabled people to access areas via any vehicle they choose, including taxis. Not all disabled people are blue badge holders, and many of them rely on public transport, including taxis.
Another recommendation could be for the temporary suspension of LTNs introduced during the pandemic until legal obligations are met and assessments and proper traffic baselines have been carried out. Although LTNs are the responsibility of local authorities, will the Government consider updating the guidance so that such an approach can be adopted? The current guidance is based on legislation that can lead to statutory requirements to consult, but if a traffic regulation order is made, key stakeholders such as the police and ambulance service must always be consulted.
There is also a requirement in the regulations to consult other organisations that represent people likely to be affected by the provisions of the order, as the local authorities see fit, but have the Government considered amending the legislation to put in place a mandatory requirement to consult other groups and stakeholders, such as those representing disabled people? LTNs can work in certain areas if they are supported by the community, which includes those who live on boundary and sacrificial roads. To enable that, will the Minister agree to develop a national framework for local authorities to use when planning new LTNs and monitoring existing and new schemes?
Successful and sustainable improvements to our transport system and public realm must always consider the interests of all who will be affected. Disabled people know this all too well; however, the interests of all communities everywhere can benefit from this simple lesson, and we can avoid the problems that we see today. I think all of us present can take that point. I am sure the House will agree that for a system or a scheme to work, it is important that we bring our communities together behind us so that all schemes can be successful.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and every one of those members of the public who chose to add their names to the petitions and take part in this debate.
I represent a constituency that has thankfully not had low-traffic neighbourhoods inflicted on it, and I am here to argue that we do not want them. We have seen how they operate next door in Enfield, and we do not want that kind of traffic mayhem transported into our borough. I want my constituents to be able to get where they want to go without too much unnecessary hassle.
A successful economy depends on movement and mobility, and schemes that deliberately cause traffic delays by restricting access to our road network cause economic damage. Ultimately, such schemes make the economy grow less vigorously than it would otherwise have done, and make everyone worse off than they would otherwise have been.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Battersea, this is not just an issue that impacts people who drive cars; it affects people in buses, taxis and vans, all of which are hit by the congestion caused by LTNs. We all know that local businesses suffer when their customers and suppliers find it harder to get to them, which is another consequence of the schemes. However, people’s simple freedom to live their lives in the way they want is also restricted by this kind of anti-car measure, which inflicts unnecessary delay and headaches on them.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The right hon. Lady makes a powerful point that people should live their lives as freely as possible, without too many interventions, and should therefore be free to use their car. Does she not recognise that other road users, such as people who walk or cycle or young people who try to walk to school, but who feel that cars are endangering them or making them less free to use the road, are on the other side of the argument?
Theresa Villiers
Of course, I am a strong supporter of measures that have a positive impact on cycling safety, and we must ensure that the rules of the road strike the proper balance to protect vulnerable road users. However, I do not believe that LTNs are the way to deliver that.
Ruth Cadbury
Like me, the right hon. Lady represents an outer London suburban borough. In her constituency, are there really no residential roads that are a continuous traffic jam as rat-runners queue to get to the main road by missing the main junctions? Before LTNs were implemented, the residents of those roads, such as Wellesley Road in Chiswick or the Teesdales in Isleworth, did not have the freedom to go home or leave home in their own cars because of the continuous traffic jams outside their homes.
Theresa Villiers
Of course, I accept that rat-running takes place, but again, I do not believe that LTNs are the right way to deal with that; there are much better alternative ways to manage traffic that should be considered first. I am especially concerned that older people, who perhaps do not find it as easy to get around as they used to, are particularly disadvantaged by LTN schemes, as that generation might be dependent on their cars or on taxi transport. It would certainly help if blue badge holders were exempted from the schemes, but that does not cover the millions of people with very real mobility impairments that are not serious enough to qualify for those badges.
On the rationale for the schemes, we are told that it is to get us out of our cars and make us walk and cycle, but what about the parents of young families who cannot simply load their young family on to a bicycle, as blithely advocated by the Mayor of London and Transport for London?
We also live in an era of increased awareness and concern regarding crimes against women, so we must also listen to the women who feel real fear and insecurity because an LTN means they can no longer be dropped off right outside their home by a taxi when they come home at night. They might find it more difficult to get taxi transport because they live in an LTN. The equalities impact of LTNs and a range of anti-car measures were not properly taken into account before the schemes were introduced.
As I have said before, I am a strong supporter of measures to improve cycling safety, but dogmatic measures forcing cars out of more and more road space are not the right answer and the air-quality benefits of LTNs are heavily contested. The additional congestion that they cause on main roads might worsen emissions in those locations, which are often places where people on lower incomes live, including many people from minority ethnic communities. Again, the equalities impact of the schemes is severe.
Traffic does not evaporate when we close roads, much as TfL would wish it to. It just moves to a different road. An area can be told to put up with increased emissions because a more affluent nearby street has demanded an LTN. Such projects can be extremely socially divisive, as has been clearly illustrated by the debate in places like Tower Hamlets.
Roads policy from the Mayor of London and London Labour boroughs has too often seemed to reflect the views of a limited number of vocal pressure groups, rather than the broader consensus of opinion and rather than embracing the views of women, minority ethnic communities, the elderly and the disabled. Consultation has far too often been inadequate, not least because it tends to focus only on the people who live in the street to be included in the LTN and ignores those who travel through those streets or the roads on to which traffic is displaced.
Wera Hobhouse
The right hon. Lady is being generous in accepting interventions, and I thank her for that. I used to be a councillor—not in my constituency but in another local authority—and the problem was always one of consultation, which I fully agree with. More people should be consulted on planning applications, but the argument is always about what is mandatory and what a councillor must do to consult, which is quite narrow. We know that councils are all cash-strapped and do not have the ability to consult more widely. Does she agree that we need a mandate to consult more widely, as well as the funds for that?
Theresa Villiers
If councils are not able to consult adequately, they should not introduce the schemes in the first place. Over the past 24 hours I have received emails from many people, particularly in London but beyond as well, which seem to me to be cries for help from people who are frustrated that their lives have been turned upside down by the schemes.
LTNs are an experiment that have failed. They harm our economy and our capital city, and they punish people just for trying to get around in a bus, a car or a taxi. It is time to halt the introduction of new LTNs and time for the Government and the Minister to intervene to start removing existing LTNs. The madness must stop.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I call Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. [Interruption.] Sorry, Sir—Wera Hobhouse.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and thank you for upgrading me to Sir Wera. We are having a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on introducing it so thoroughly. I also congratulate the people who signed the petition so that we could have the debate. Of course, the whole point of these debates is that they come to the House because people want us to debate certain issues, and I am always in favour of doing so; it is important that we do.
In many of our local council areas, low-traffic neighbourhoods have become very contentious, with both opposition and support. The term LTN is new, but the concept is not: the planning principles of LTNs have been used in street design since at least the 1960s. The concept has suddenly become controversial because of the motives behind LTNs, such as reducing traffic and encouraging active travel, and because they are at odds with the Government’s new-found pro-driver policy.
Most of us are all sorts of things: we are motorists, we are pedestrians, and we are cyclists; we use the road in all sorts of ways. It is important to look at the issue in the round and to understand the different uses of the road by different users. It is particularly important, as has been mentioned, to ensure that vulnerable road users are not excluded from our streets. That is an important principle to which all local councils need to adhere.
In Bath, my local council has been very brave in introducing a wide range of LTNs—12 in total. That has created a lot of reasons for people to write to me. I have had 57 people write to me about LTNs, but there are 70,000 people in my constituency, so although 57 is a relatively large number, we have to think about the number of people as a proportion. We are usually written to by people who do not agree with what is being done, rather than by those who agree with what is being done. Among the 57 are people who agree with LTNs. One wrote recently:
“Dear Wera, I just wanted to write in support of these zones. As a cyclist (walker and motorist) they are wonderful for those neighbourhoods. I live on the…estate and there have been moans about the LTZ at Sidney place—I have not noticed a change in the congestion myself and fully support the trial.”
I congratulate my local council on having been brave, as well as on making the LTNs a trial. Councils have to be careful to support what they introduce with data, and I have challenged my own council to provide such data to local communities and to those who oppose LTNs. I have facilitated access between local groups who are opposed to a particular LTN and councillors and council officers, so that we have discussions and so that people understand what LTNs are for, what is being measured, what the council wants to achieve and how LTNs can improve our neighbourhoods. It is important that each council is transparent about what it wants to achieve, provides the data, and communicates and engages, as we have heard. The council must ensure that it includes as many people as possible in the debate about how it wants to move forward.
An official study commissioned by the Prime Minister, which was intended to show that LTNs are unwanted, concluded that they are genuinely popular, particularly once they are implemented. The Department for Transport surveyed residents in LTN trial areas in London, Birmingham, Wigan and York: 45% of respondents supported the schemes, 21% opposed them, and 58% were unaware that they lived in a low-traffic neighbourhood.
It is no wonder that the Government delayed the publication of the study, because ultimately it produced the opposite of what the Government thought it would produce. Despite the results of its own report, the Department for Transport has said that it will no longer provide central funding for LTNs, and there are also plans to cut councils off from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency databases.
This debate must be evidence-led. As I have said, it should be about the evidence, not about what people fear. Change is always difficult; managing change is one of the most difficult things that we have to do as politicians, as I remember well from my time as a councillor. People are afraid of change, and the most important thing that we need to do as political leaders is respond to and communicate on people’s fears about change.
The debate has to be evidence-based, and there are some legitimate concerns, as we have already heard. For example, disabled people worry about their mobility. In most cases, proper consultation, comprehensive exemptions and more accessible transport options are solutions that widely dispel those fears. LTNs themselves must be fully accessible, with dropped kerbs and no street clutter, otherwise disabled people feel penalised for driving without access to alternatives. As I have already said, whenever there are concerns, people can write to me, and usually those fears are dispelled once they fully understand how the schemes are implemented.
LTNs have clear benefits: they improve air quality, increase the number of journeys made by walking and cycling, and show reductions in street crime. A study found that after three years, street crime decreased by 18%, with an even larger reduction found for violent crimes, and the most significant reduction for sexual assaults. One study found a 50% reduction in road casualties within LTNs with no increase on neighbouring roads. I know the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) is going to speak because what is being done in Bath city centre will affect neighbourhoods in his constituency. People fear the possible result in neighbouring wards or boundary streets, but clear evidence from the surveys shows that there is no such result. If there is evidence of it, of course we need to look at that.
Early findings indicate that LTNs make neighbourhoods a lot safer after they have been introduced. Air pollution is an invisible killer. A claim often made by opponents of LTNs is that emissions increase outside the designated LTN, but there is little evidence to suggest that that is the case. Researchers at Imperial College London found that NO2 declined by 5.7% within liveable neighbourhoods, and 8.9% on boundary roads. The Government’s own report acknowledges:
“By reducing traffic and emissions, LTNs can contribute to a cleaner, safer environment”.
Improvements to air quality, coupled with increases in active travel, contribute to healthier lifestyles, with long-term benefits through reducing demand on the NHS.
It is unfortunate that an unhelpful argument has broken out between central Government and local authorities. Local authorities want to work with Government to reduce emissions and make our roads safer, but this Government are intent on reducing councils’ abilities to do so. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that councils should consult more widely, and I agree with that. It is the best way of increasing democracy and allowing people to be part of the decisions made in their neighbourhoods. However, councils do not have the money or resources to do that, so the mandatory requirement is very limited, and although money is being put towards wider consultation, councils are being hampered. I absolutely agree that councils must consult more widely in order to include a wider group of people, but they also need the money to do so, which they currently do not have.
That consultation would be great for democracy, except that we then have to think about how widely we consult. Is it the whole of the city? Is it the whole of the city and North East Somerset? Should it go beyond North East Somerset? Councils often end up consulting just the neighbours who are directly affected. As I have said, I am sad that this issue has ended up in debate, when we could have had an agreement across our communities, local government and central Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I will speak at greater length later, but the main thrust of the petition is to seek a review. That is what the Government have done, and that is what we are debating today. The debate is about a review of LTNs, and she is characterising it as a “them or us” situation. With respect, I am not sure that is a fair approximation of the review sought by the petitioners, which is exactly what the Government have provided.
Wera Hobhouse
Absolutely; I agree. It is meant to be about a review, but I find the argument is often skewed towards the people who simply object. I am happy to listen to what the Government have to say in response and to what the review process is producing. In my constituency of Bath, we are in the middle of a big discussion about LTNs and their principles, and I speak as a constituency MP.
Implementing LTNs must be bottom up and not top down. Councils must work closely with residents when they intend to implement LTNs. I look forward to the wider discussion, but, as I said, there are many proven benefits to the principles of LTNs, and I hope those principles are not neglected in the Government’s review.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris, and by thanking you for understanding that I will not be able to stay till the end? I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on her fine introduction to this important discussion and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on her speech, which I agreed with almost in its entirety.
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). My seat is a doughnut seat: the hon. Lady is the jam in the centre of the doughnut, and I am the heavy, leavened dough that surrounds the hon. Lady’s jam.
I wish to speak in the debate because of the effect that LTNs are having on my constituents. The anti-car policies that are being introduced have a big effect on people living in rural areas. They affect them as they try to go about their business without the concomitant benefits. An LTN being introduced in a city does not help someone living in a rural area who needs to go through, or do business in, that city. The fact that it also has effects on the businesses in the city is perhaps more a matter for the hon. Lady than for me, although many of my constituents own and have interests in businesses in Bath.
We have touched on consultation. As I understand it, opposition to the Sydney Place scheme has been 100:1 and more than 4,000 people have signed a petition against it—it is about not just the 57 who may have written to the hon. Lady, but the thousands of people living nearby who will be affected. We have to remember that, in 2022, 78% of journeys were taken by car and that, however much we wish to pretend otherwise, we are a society, a nation and an economy based on the internal combustion engine. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, that is where our economic activity comes from. It is how people get to their jobs and take their children to school. We have to make a choice, as a Government and as local councils, about what approach we take to politics. Do we really think that we should be telling people how to lead their lives? Should we tell them what is good for them and make them do it?
Ruth Cadbury
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know his seat well, but he has described it as a doughnut of the countryside around Bath. Would he not agree that, if everybody who can drive who lives in the centre of Bath or London drove everywhere, the whole road system would be gridlocked, and that providing safe alternatives—decent public transport, and safe routes to walk and cycle—takes up a lot less space than everybody driving their own vehicle?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady says that, but the self-same council that is keen on these low-traffic neighbourhoods has cut the number of buses in my constituency. It has kept most of them in Bath, but the ones in the rural areas it has cut like Billy-o.
Wera Hobhouse
It was the West of England Combined Authority Mayor who cut the number of buses in Bath, and my councillors have made many representations about that. Traffic has been one of the biggest issues ever since I turned up in Bath over 10 years ago, and traffic has doubled in the past 15 years. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we deal with that?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am glad the hon. Lady asked me that question because, before the Lib Dems took charge of the Bath and North East Somerset Council, I was working with the previous council on the Bath bypass. That would have joined the A36 and the A46 and been the most sensible thing to do, but in accordance with this whole LTN, anti-motorist approach, as soon as the Lib Dems got in, they did not want the bypass. Why? Because they hate the motorist. They do not like people taking charge of their own lives; they think they know best and they want to tell people what to do. That is why this approach is so bad.
I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to take away the funding from the schemes, to apply the rules and guidance that came out, I think, on 17 March, to make them into firm law and to implement them on the schemes that are already in place. We should be on the side of freedom and of liberty, of people going about the lives that they choose to lead, rather than thinking that we know best.
The thing that has reduced pollution has been not LTNs, but improvements in the internal combustion engine and, most crucially, the move away from diesel engines. Bear in mind, it was not that long ago that the know-all Government were telling people it was such a good thing to have diesel engines. People were pushed into having them and the percentage of diesel engines in this country shot up. Why? Because the Government of the day wanted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and ignored the emissions from particulates and oxides of nitrogen, and that led to a decline in the air quality where cars were, which is being improved now, as people have gone back to petrol engines or diesel engines have been improved.
That is the way to do things, to maintain liberty, freedom and choice, and to recognise that the overwhelming majority of journeys are taken by car and that the free flow of traffic is essential to our economy. The Government made a decision in the emergency of the pandemic to do something that seemed to be a solution at the time. Many decisions were taken during the pandemic that, with hindsight, turned out to be wrong. This is one of them. It is time to reverse it. It is time to back freedom and the motorist.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on her excellent introduction to the debate. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods, but I certainly hope that they are not stopped, as the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) have suggested they should be.
In my constituency, measures to create what we might now call low-traffic neighbourhoods have been in place for decades. On Chiswick Lane, a barrier that keeps traffic from cutting through from Chiswick High Road to the A4 via Airedale Avenue, Netheravon Road and Beverley Road has been there for more than 40 years. Worple Road in Isleworth is closed to through traffic trying to take a shortcut from the A316 over to Old Isleworth. Pears Road in Hounslow used to be a back road avoiding Hounslow High Street and Hanworth Road. Chiswick Common Road has long since been cut off as a vehicle route from Chiswick High Road to Turnham Green Terrace. Those have been in place for a long time. They use physical barriers such as bollards and planters, and no one—no one—has contacted me or their local councillors demanding their removal. Furthermore, if those barriers were to be removed, there would be many objections.
Such measures to prevent rat-running were implemented because there was an issue for residents on those roads. The number of drivers avoiding traffic jams on main roads by using residential side roads grew over the past 10 or so years, in particular, following the mass use of real-time sat-navs.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady agree that a council does not pick issues out of thin air, but responds to residents writing to the council in large numbers to say that they want change? The council does not just decide to do something to annoy people.
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Lady makes a good point. My experience is with Hounslow. I cannot say whether each local authority implemented change that was needed—or whether they plucked ideas out of thin air in 2020—but that is certainly the case in Hounslow.
The nightmare for residents who live on roads that are rat runs, particularly since the mass use of sat-navs, is that it varies; at some times of the day there is speeding, and at others there are continuous traffic jams, with vehicles spewing fumes and preventing residents from driving into or out of their own road. That environment takes away the freedom of children and older people to feel safe walking around their neighbourhood, particularly at junctions and crossroads. National figures show that more people cycle where they feel safe. Many of us own bikes but are not brave enough to cycle when roads are busy.
All the low-traffic neighbourhood measures that were implemented in Hounslow in 2020 were introduced in neighbourhoods or on roads where residents had long been angry about the impact of rat-running and had been calling on their councillors—I was one of them—for action for years. The measures introduced by the Government in 2020, during covid, which are probably the one thing I can compliment former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on, provided regulatory change and the funding to make implementation by local authorities happen quickly.
Local authorities, including Hounslow, used temporary measures to try out what worked. Some roads are now low-traffic neighbourhoods as a result of that work, including the whole south Chiswick area, which I will come to shortly; Green Dragon Lane, a road with almost all social rent housing where only a minority of people have use of a private vehicle; Occupation Lane in Brentford, at the top end of a council estate; and the Teesdales near West Middlesex University Hospital, where there were continuous battles between drivers trying to pass each other on a narrow road with resident parking.
Since they were implemented on those roads and others in Hounslow, the LTN measures have been achieving exactly what residents had asked of the council. They are stopping through traffic using the road as a shortcut while allowing residents to pass freely. Residents can drive into and out of their roads, and walk to and from their homes safely, especially when crossing and at corners. No longer are there long traffic jams with vehicles spewing out fumes and drivers getting angry when trying to pass.
Some of the schemes were revised. One was tried that removed through traffic from Turnham Green Terrace in Chiswick, a popular shopping street with very narrow pavements. The idea was to make it more business friendly, but local councillors asked for it to be removed, so it was. The schemes can be modified. Another popular shopping street, Devonshire Road, was closed completely. Concerns were expressed by the shop owners, but not by the restaurant and bar owners, so Devonshire Road is now open to through traffic during the day so that people can access the shops, but in the evening it reverts to a traffic-free road with tables and chairs outside on the carriageway, which benefits the restaurants and bars.
Physical barriers are not the only tool. In many cases there are often far better tools to create a low-traffic neighbourhood. Hounslow has made extensive use of camera technology and enforcement so that any vehicle can enter and leave a neighbourhood or road whichever way suits its driver, so long as it enters and leaves by the same way it came in, or arrives, stays and then leaves later.
I want briefly to address school streets, which are a subset of liveable neighbourhoods. There have been over 30 in Hounslow, and headteachers have told me of their benefits. They have cut out a lot of the conflict between the tiny minority of parents who insist on driving their children to school and the much larger number of parents who walk their children to school and get very angry at the behaviour of some selfish drivers. Those drivers are no longer able have close access to the school. One headteacher told me that an awful lot of families are now walking to and from school rather than making a trip of a couple of hundred yards in a vehicle every day.
Hounslow’s largest low-traffic neighbourhood started life before covid and was known as the south Chiswick liveable neighbourhood. Rat-running drivers seeking to avoid the Hogarth roundabout when travelling from the A3 or A316 to head west on the M4 or A4, or travelling either way between Chiswick bridge and Kew bridge parallel to the River Thames, had long been an issue. Thousands of vehicles a day were travelling straight through that neighbourhood without stopping, and most of them were long-distance; they were not local Chiswick vehicles.
In 2019, after full consultation, residents supported in principle the implementation of the liveable neighbourhood for south Chiswick. It was actually implemented in 2020 using the covid emergency measures, because funding had not been available prior to that. The impact has been significant: a 50% drop in through traffic, more people walking and cycling, and a drop in average vehicle speeds. On the boundary roads, there were not greater traffic jams and higher volumes, but a reduction in traffic of between 2.8% and 9.3%, despite the closure of Hammersmith bridge. That suggests that low-traffic neighbourhoods encourage a modal shift away from private vehicle use and towards public transport, walking and cycling.
The most remarkable impact we have seen in Chiswick is the loss of a council seat in the 2022 elections by the party that campaigned vigorously against the low-traffic neighbourhood that had been implemented two years earlier. For the first time in 48 years, a Labour councillor was elected to represent the Chiswick Riverside ward—hardly evidence that local people hate the LTN.
Following concerns raised locally, Hounslow has made improvements to the LTN scheme, and could perhaps make some more. I would like to see improved signage warning drivers that they are entering an LTN. Another suggestion is the use of a “one strike and then you’re fined” rule to warn people not to drive through the area again. I have been fined for not being able to see a sign in an area I did not know very well. I was a bit annoyed with myself. It was a school street and I was driving through at the very end of the school street restrictions. That annoys people, and does not help their ability to support what I believe overall are very good policies.
There is no doubt that restricting through traffic in an area achieves its purpose if it is done well and there is a need, with less pollution directly outside people’s homes, safer roads and easy access for residents. There is national evidence that there is more walking and cycling in quiet areas, and that more walking and cycling in retail areas—Walthamstow town in Waltham Forest being the best example—has strong economic benefits for local businesses and high streets. We know the benefits to tourism areas of easy, safe, segregated cycling infrastructure or quiet areas to cycle. I do not know how many other people look for cycling opportunities when they are going on holiday, but good cycling measures are a draw to tourists.
Low-traffic neighbourhoods, if they are implemented where they are needed, are properly consulted on and use clear signage and appropriate technology—camera enforcement or bollards and planters, as appropriate—can work.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. As she is drawing it to a close, and as she has said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work, I want to pick up again on the barriers that disabled people face. Does she agree that it is important to co-produce the design of any low-traffic neighbourhood with disabled people and their organisations to ensure that they are inclusive? Does she also agree that those who have a blue badge should be exempt from such schemes?
Ruth Cadbury
As Front Bencher myself, I will defer to my colleague on the Front Bench today, although it seems to me that exemptions for blue badge holders would make sense, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave in her speech.
Let us remember that disability is not one thing. Some disabled people rely on a private vehicle to get about. Many disabled people cannot drive, for all sorts of reasons. Many, particularly frail elderly people, can walk short distances, but need to feel safe. They want to know that they can be seen at the corners of roads when trying to cross, so pedestrian build-outs and clear crossings, and so on, are essential. Good design is important, as is segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, where appropriate, so that no one fears being mown down by somebody cycling too fast in an area that should be for pedestrians. That is particularly true of one form of low-traffic neighbourhood: pedestrianised retail areas or town centres—although I am not sure whether we are talking about those in this context.
Nobody likes getting a fine for driving a route that they have always driven, but there is no reason why councils cannot use a first strike and then a fine the second time for those who did not notice the changed signage. I agree that we should consider exempting blue badge holders, particularly for a barrier-based LTN where the alternative journey is a long way round. However, if the proposals are not working and not delivering the improved environment that residents said they wanted, they can be reversed and something else can be tried.
The majority of my constituents do not have sole use of a private car and, being in London, do have alternative travel choices. Those who live on roads in LTNs should have the choice, so that, should they want to restrict their road, they can. They should not have the choice to use their road as a shortcut imposed on them by other drivers, particularly those who are not even local, such as—in our case—those driving between Surrey and Heathrow airport. Why should our residents have to put up with those drivers using their small residential roads as a shortcut?
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for sponsoring the debate and all those who have added their names to these two important petitions: a petition calling for an independent review of low-traffic neighbourhoods and a petition calling for the exemption of blue badge drivers from low-traffic neighbourhoods.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions this evening—I have been getting better at learning the names of Members’ individual constituencies, but bear with me if I get any of them wrong, Ms Harris. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is quite right that we must continue to work hard to reduce the impact of air pollution on our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said that we need a joined-up approach—I quite agree with that—and that everyone should be able to travel from A to B in a green way.
I heard a lot from the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the so-called war on motorists and how there were alternatives to it. I have to say, I did not hear many mentioned, but I thank them for their advocacy on behalf of their constituents. I think this shows the importance of proper consultation and considerate planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work when they are supported by the residents they affect, but that that must include consultation and co-production with disabled people. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that effective consultation is important and that the views of all the different kinds of road users should be taken into account. Crucially, I agree that the debate must be based on evidence. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was right to draw attention to the ongoing consultation about LTNs. Where there is a clear need for change, action should be taken. Her recognition of the positive impact on school zones was also important.
Low-traffic neighbourhoods have become a common part of many communities across the country in recent years. They play an important part in delivering safer streets and cleaner air and in helping encourage people to use active travel to get around. We know that benefits local economies, improves physical and mental health and brings down carbon emissions.
In many areas, LTNs have become a core part of life for the communities who live in them, with many enjoying the reductions in noise and air pollution thanks to the reduction in congestion as a result of roads being closed to through traffic. Obviously, there often need to be exemptions: emergency services, public transport, permit holders, and sometimes taxis. However, the overall reduction in most through traffic from LTNs is still significant.
Studies have shown that in areas where LTNs have been introduced, traffic has been reduced by 32% on average, with only a 4.5% increase in traffic on boundary roads. Nitrogen dioxide pollution has fallen by up to 9% in some areas with those schemes. Inside LTNs in Waltham Forest, road injuries have fallen by up to half compared to before the schemes were introduced. Data shows that 61% of people living in low-traffic neighbourhoods support the schemes. It is important to talk about the benefits of the schemes, because, despite what the Government try to say, the evidence shows that for the most part they are popular with local people and effective at achieving the desired reduction in levels of pollution and road injuries.
However, not everybody who lives in low-traffic neighbourhoods supports the schemes. Some have legitimate criticisms of how the schemes have been designed and implemented. In some individual cases there has arguably been a failure to consider the needs of particular groups, including—as is the subject of one of the petitions—those with limited mobility and blue badge holders. We can all agree that local authorities that introduce the schemes should ensure that accessibility needs are carefully considered and prioritised as proposals are designed and consulted on.
Many low-traffic neighbourhoods already exempt blue badge holders, but many do not. The Government’s own review on low-traffic neighbourhoods has found that of the LTNs surveyed, 38 exempted blue badge holders and 34 did not. It is clear that more can be done to ensure that LTNs consider the needs of those with limited mobility. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how the needs of disabled people, and those with limited mobility, can be considered from the start of the process when it comes to designing and implementing low-traffic neighbourhoods.
There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that the needs of all constituents are properly considered, and supporting the right of local communities to make the right decisions for their areas. That point—that this is a decision for local communities—is extremely important. Measures to improve road safety around schools and in residential streets are vital for the safety of children, are often demanded by local communities themselves, are essential to meeting legally binding objectives set by central Government on, for instance, air pollution, and are ultimately decisions to be made by those who know their local areas best.
Labour’s position on low-traffic neighbourhoods is clear: they are decisions that should continue to be made by local authorities, not be decided by diktat from Whitehall or Westminster. Of course, these decisions must be made with proper consultation, and the concerns of each community must be taken on board. Central Government have a role to play in ensuring that is the case, but if we go too far we risk undermining the independence and autonomy of the elected local decision makers who know their areas best.
Although I appreciate the strength of views in the petition that calls for a review of LTNs, as colleagues have noted the Government recently commissioned a review and published it just weeks ago. It came after the Prime Minister claimed that he wanted to stop “hare-brained” safety schemes and the so-called “war on motorists”, so let us look at some of its findings. Some 58% were unaware that they lived in low-traffic neighbourhoods altogether. Of those who were aware, more people were positive than negative. A clear majority of people were concerned about the number of vehicles travelling through their areas, and they were equally concerned about the pollution that they caused. That is not exactly the outcome it appears the Prime Minister was looking for when he commissioned the review. Perhaps that is why it was reported that the Government tried to permanently shelve it.
It would be remiss of me not to point out the pure hypocrisy behind the Government’s apparent about-turn on low-traffic neighbourhoods. Despite decrying these schemes, which their own review have found to be largely unobtrusive and popular, as part of the so-called “war on motorists” senior Conservatives themselves championed the schemes from the start. In July 2021, a prominent politician described low-traffic neighbourhoods as “transformational”, and warned:
“if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is”.
Who was that? It was the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In November 2022, another distinguished colleague of ours in this House said that decisions on low-traffic neighbourhoods are
“entirely a matter for local authorities…to make.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c.493.]
Who was that? Why, it was the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the Chair of the Conservative party. Would the Minister like to tell us what the current Prime Minister thinks the alternative to these schemes is? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for North West Durham that they are best left to local authorities themselves to decide on?
It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s desperate attempts to deflect on to this so-called “war on motorists” are just hollow soundbites with no substance behind them. Just a quick look at his record confirms that. The cost of driving is soaring: car insurance costs are up 80% in just two years. The charge point roll-out for electric vehicles remains off track. The Government are set to miss their own 2030 target of 300,000 public charge points by several years. The state of our local roads today is just shocking: there are more potholes on British roads than craters on the moon.
Despite the Prime Minister’s and the Transport Secretary’s desperate attempts to politicise local transport issues such as road safety, school streets and reducing local air pollution, the evidence tells us that these schemes remain largely popular, and that they are effective and inobtrusive for most people. Although the Prime Minister may be keen to airbrush history, not too long ago these very schemes were championed by the most senior figures in his own party.
Many LTN schemes are far from perfect, and there are perfectly legitimate questions about how to design them with sensitivity to the needs of constituents—especially disabled people and those with limited mobility. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on how we can best support local authorities to do just that, but we should not forget the basic principle that decisions about local roads and local neighbourhoods are best made by those who live in those neighbourhoods and those who have been directly elected to represent them. These powers and responsibilities have been devolved to local government for many years. We should not let a desperate quest for political relevance from those at the top of Government to lead us to put our lives at risk, fail to tackle harmful air pollution and backslide on the basic principles of local democracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her introduction. I particularly thank everybody who submitted their name in support of the respective petitions.
Let me gently push back on the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood). There is not a question of trying to politicise something given that the very purpose of the Petitions Committee is that we in Parliament answer a petition. It is not from any of us; it is from the people who put forward their names for a petition. Then, there are criteria from the Petitions Committee, and we then try to address and answer those petitions.
While I will get into the substance of this particular debate, the first and fundamental point, surely, is that traffic management has existed under various statutory formats for some considerable time, and the implementation of what is now called low-traffic neighbourhoods dates back in statute to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) outlined regarding her area of Chiswick, there have been versions of that in some shape or form for a very long time, and local communities have co-existed with them on an ongoing basis.
However, there is no doubt that this issue has caused concern and is upsetting—and, in certain places, dividing—communities. It is also the case that the administration of the blue badge scheme, which dates back to section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, is something that is causing genuine concern—I am going to try to address that in detail—by reason of the implementation of low-traffic neighbourhoods.
I want to try to address this debate as calmly and even-handedly as I possibly can. There are a number of reasons for that: both because I think it is the right thing to do as a Government Minister—where we are trying to navigate different sets of priorities in different local communities—and because, clearly, the purpose of the original petition was for Government to have a review. The review that we published on 17 March sets out in quite some detail the approach that the Government take, but it is a first version. The final version will be produced later this summer.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister will know that, as part of any review, it is best to gauge the views of all key stakeholders. One key stakeholder group that really did not have an opportunity to contribute was older and disabled people. For example, the leading charity for transport issues, Transport for All, was not engaged or consulted as part of this review. Will the Minister agree to ensure that, as he publishes the future review, they will be consulted? It is so important that the voices of disabled people and their organisations are heard in this. Will he commit to that?
Guy Opperman
With great respect, I am going to push back slightly because, clearly, one of the key purposes of this review, which I am going to set out in quite a lot of detail, is an assessment of issues in relation to what are called exemptions and exceptions. Included as part of that are vehicles exempted from restriction—generally indicated on the traffic signs; those can include permit holders, buses, taxis and disabled badge holders. There is a detailed section on exactly that point, and there are further sections about how implementation should take place for that. More particularly, we are, on an ongoing basis, engaging with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—or DPTAC—via the Local Government Association and individual local-government organisations. With respect, I will return to that in a little more detail later.
Low-traffic neighbourhoods clearly expanded during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic. The rapid roll-out led to concerns that they were being imposed, and that communities had not been fully involved in their development. There were also concerns that the roll-out did not properly take into account the needs of many organisations, including disabled people, and representations were made in a whole host of ways, leading up to the actual review itself.
We have to accept that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work where they are well designed and where there is, crucially, local support for them. But they can also do harm where they are poorly thought through and introduced with insufficient public engagement and support.
Guy Opperman
I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady yet; I want to try to make some progress. I will, of course, let her come in at a later stage.
The Government have been clear that effective traffic management is not about dictating travel choices, but about enabling more choice in how people make their journeys. Local traffic measures must work for residents, businesses and emergency services. We can bandy about examples of successes and failures—there is no doubt whatever that there have been both—but it is clear that some communities have been upset and antagonised by low-traffic neighbourhoods. That is particularly true in London, and one could give examples from Tower Hamlets and, I believe, Ealing and Streatham. Certainly, as a cyclist in London, I have experienced and seen some, and I did a further visit to the Wandsworth Bridge Road last week. Some of those communities have introduced low-traffic neighbourhoods and then abandoned them.
Similarly, where I live in the north-east, a low-traffic neighbourhood was introduced in Jesmond. It has subsequently been abandoned, in circumstances where there has clearly been an impact on the local community, which was upset about how it was implemented, and a massive effect on businesses. There must be due consideration of the impact on local communities, which we all like to represent in our constituencies, and of the consequences of channelling all traffic, for example, on to one major road, while massively reducing traffic on side roads and impacting on parking. Businesses will unquestionably suffer as a result of a downturn in the local economy, and they have done so.
Guy Opperman
I will not give way yet, so let me make some progress. We need to ensure that changes to local roads properly take account of communities’ views and are implemented in a way that does not fundamentally dictate how people should travel.
I want to keep returning to the petitioners, because they are the people we are addressing today. The first petition asks that the Government carry out an independent review of LTNs. After the initial reply was sent in April last year, the Prime Minister announced in July that he was commissioning just such a review. He also set out—a fair point has been made—the plan for drivers, and a fundamental effort was made to look at all aspects of how transport was being undertaken.
The review of LTNs commenced in September last year, and set out to ensure that schemes work for residents, businesses and emergency services, the last of which have not, with respect, been mentioned as much as I thought they would be in the debate. This additional project was separate from the work already under way to review schemes funded through the second tranche of active travel funding, including a deep dive into the impact of segregated cycle lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods. It included a literature review, a survey of local authorities in England, an in-depth study of four schemes, and interviews with key stakeholder groups.
The LTN review completed in January this year and concluded that there are some significant key issues with the implementation of LTN schemes in England. That was based on externally commissioned, independent research and analysis carried out by an independent contractor. I will not go into the details of the particular points that can be found upon reading. There has not been much reference today to the document of 17 March, but I strongly urge all colleagues to read it in detail. However, I have a little time, so I will set out the opening couple of paragraphs:
“Last year, the Department for Transport commissioned a review of low traffic neighbourhoods… The research shows that, while they can work, in the right place, and, crucially, where they are supported, too often local people don’t know enough about them and haven’t been able to have a say. Increasingly and frustratingly, we see larger and larger low traffic schemes being proposed by some councils despite concerted opposition by local residents and by local businesses, and in some cases”
—as I have outlined—
“being removed again. This guidance makes it clear that should not happen.
It also sets out that, even if they are introduced, councils should continue to regularly review low traffic neighbourhoods, ensuring they keep meeting their objectives, aren’t adversely affecting other areas, and are locally supported. This guidance makes clear our expectations, and…will carefully consider how councils follow it, alongside other appropriate factors, when looking at funding decisions.”
I do not propose to read out a substantial review document, but it goes on to say:
“Ultimately government can make changes to the legal framework if advice is overlooked—although working cooperatively with local councils is by far preferred. We need a fair approach, where local support is paramount, and this guidance sets out how that can be achieved.”
Wera Hobhouse
I do not think anybody in this room would disagree with anything the Minister has read out, because it is about the engagement that local councils have. For that reason, does he not agree that Bath and North East Somerset Council is taking exactly the right approach? It is having a trial period of LTNs, with proper success criteria that can be evidenced. If an LTN does not work against the success criteria, it will be removed. Is that not the right approach?
Guy Opperman
I do not propose to sit in judgment on an individual local authority’s approach in trying to persuade local communities, which is the purpose of this process, that there should be restrictions on one cohort and that there might be difficulties for other cohorts—I include bus travel, emergency services and problems for the disabled—and to make an assessment of whether that individual local authority is doing a good or a bad thing. What I will say, however, is that, self-evidently, the things we have talked about are not happening up and down the country at present; that is patently clear. We can say that very clearly because a large number of local authorities are abandoning their LTNs.
Guy Opperman
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will let her come in in a second.
In answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), she should ensure that her local authority, if she has such influence, sets out an approach that tallies with the guidance and ensures that businesses, disabled groups and key organisations, including public transport and emergency services, are not adversely affected.
I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg): there is a concern and a danger that those who benefit in the inner city will be impacted by those on the outskirts of local communities. We have seen exactly the same thing with traffic-exclusion zones and the ultra low emission zone, where there are very strong arguments for such measures. There is a very small traffic-management approach in the centre of Bristol, for example, but the wider London version measures hundreds of square miles, and the impact can patently be seen in the opposition from some groups and the way in which it has been implemented. I hope that that answers the point from the hon. Member for Bath.
I promised the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) that I would give way, so I will do so now.
Anneliese Dodds
Does the Minister accept that his Department has been part of the problem? He talks about enabling choice, but I wrote to the Department for Transport in 2022 to say that there was a need for a joined-up approach and that there were concerns about how bus operators would operate, which was critical for people who were not able to cycle or walk. The response I got back did not say that my city could have a joined-up approach or that it could have longer-term funding. Instead, it effectively said, “This is the programme.” If we really are going to have action on the climate crisis, perhaps his Department should have listened a little more.
Guy Opperman
I slightly regret giving way to the hon. Lady, who raises an individual letter about her individual city. The review is addressing something that has existed for many years, and the Government think they have come up with a balanced and measured approach. I would also make the point that other aspects of the implementation have to be done, as in her area, by the local authority. It is for her local authority to take the local community with it. If it is not taking the local community with it, it is incumbent on the local authority to look at how it is implementing these things and at whether it can continue to sustain that. With respect, multiple local authorities have failed to do that and have then had to abandon schemes, which sadly reflects badly on those local authorities.
Theresa Villiers
Will the Minister be clear with the House that no more central Government funding will go to these schemes? Government statements have indicated that there are circumstances in which access to the DVLA database might be restricted; how bad does a scheme have to be before the Government will consider taking that step?
Guy Opperman
I probably should not be taking so many interventions. I am trying to respond to the debate without prejudicing the final version of what is an interim review.
My right hon. Friend is a very experienced Cabinet Minister of old—that is not a very fair way of describing her previous experience—and she will understand that I have an obligation not to prejudice the final version of the review. I merely direct her to paragraph 3 of the foreword, which I did not read out—I was not going to read the whole thing out—but says that
“a consultation will also be launched on targeting the use of DVLA data by councils to enforce substandard LTNs and other anti-motorist traffic schemes.”
If my right hon. Friend looks at the actual review, there are passages contained therein on funding. However, much as I said, the preference is to have worked with local authorities; it is only in extreme circumstances that the issue of funding that my right hon. Friend describes would come into play. I suggest she takes the individual document and awaits the final Government version, which will be there and responded to.
Guy Opperman
I am sorry but I will not. I have taken multiple interventions and am going to try to make some progress. I am only on page 6 of my speech, which was meant to take only 10 minutes.
The review that has taken place has flagged particular concerns over the impact on disabled residents, the high number of penalty charge notices, the cost of the LTN schemes, and even concerns from individual emergency services that delays to crews caught up in LTNs could potentially risk lives. Those are not concerns that should be under-managed in any way.
Many disabled residents, as well as groups representing the views of disabled transport users, felt that inadequate consideration had been given to their needs and the impacts of LTN schemes on disabled people. In addition, several LTN schemes reported by local authorities to the DFT had not carried out equality impact assessments. We believe we have tackled these issues through the draft guidance, which sets out clear expectations for comprehensive and in-depth local engagement and full consideration of the needs of all road users in such a scheme.
We are clear that we will not support LTNs in future unless they are designed and delivered having had regard to the new statutory guidance, which will apply to new and existing schemes. Although it is guidance, we reserve the right to take further action if local authorities do not follow it. Local authorities are expected to consider the guidance. As with the new guidance on 20 mph limits, those that do not follow it could find implications for the future award of funding. As I have set out, I will pass that message on.
On the key accessibility point, the Government are committed to improving transport accessibility and supporting disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. The LTN review found that too many schemes had not fully considered the impact of the changes on disabled people. I make the point that local authorities are bound by the public sector equality duty, and it is for them to ensure that they fully consider the impact of any proposed scheme in such a way. Any infrastructure they install should be delivered in a way that enables them to comply with equalities legislation.
The second petition we are debating requested that a flag be added to DVLA records to identify vehicles that belong to blue badge holders, so that they can be automatically exempted from any restriction and not attract enforcement activity. Although I understand the concern, I am afraid that currently that is not a viable solution. I will try to address in detail why that is the case. Clearly, blue badges are linked to the individual and not the vehicle. A badge holder may travel as a driver or a passenger in any vehicle, including a taxi or minicab, allowing them to access more easily the goods and services that they need to use. Therefore it is not possible to flag with the DVLA every vehicle in which a blue badge holder may travel. Likewise, although local authorities have access to a record of blue badge holders in their area, badges are registered to the individual and not the vehicle in which they travel.
Notwithstanding that, our draft LTN guidance makes it clear that local authorities should always consider exemption from restrictions for blue badge holders, as well as for deliveries and other essential services. It also addresses things such as emergency services. Again, I do not want to read out the entirety of it, but I encourage anyone who is passionately interested or who is contemplating this matter to look at the sections on exemptions and exceptions and how the individual situation for disabled people can be improved. The guidance sets that out in quite a lot of detail.
To answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) when she identified particular problems, I make the strong point that there should be considered, ongoing, good-practice principles of monitoring and evaluation, in line with the active travel fund monitoring guidance, but, where local authorities detect hotspots, where a disproportionate number of PCNs are issued or where representations or appeals are being made, that should alert them to a possible need to review the cause. The monitoring of PCNs and challenge levels should be carried out from the outset. That clearly includes monitoring the impact on local communities, the impact on the disabled, the impact on individual businesses, and the way in which the fines are being taken.
I cannot address much more, given the nature of the guidance being an unfinished document that the Government have to respond to.
Simon Lightwood
I will be brief. In my reading of the Department for Transport website and the “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” research report, at no point is it mentioned that it is an interim or draft report. Will the hon. Member elaborate on that and explain, if it is an interim report, when the final report is expected?
Guy Opperman
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that. The final report will be this summer.
The situation in terms of the way ahead is that we need to find a way in which our local communities can use a process that has been around for a considerable time and managed in local communities in, by and large, a satisfactory way, but has clearly been expanded substantially over the last few years. We need to find a way in which the Government can provide the guidance and then local authorities can implement the schemes in an appropriate way. If they are not implemented in an appropriate way, clearly there have to be consequences.
I assure the petitioners, who are the most important people here, that we are working to ensure that local authorities give proper consideration to the needs of all users and gain buy-in across the local community, in all shapes and forms, when discussing and then implementing any local authority LTN schemes.
Marsha De Cordova
First, I again thank not only the original petitioners for creating the petitions but the thousands of people who took the time to sign them, and the many thousands who responded to the Petitions Committee’s survey on low-traffic neighbourhoods and accessibility.
I also thank all the hon. Members who spoke today. It was a robust debate, despite the Minister’s response. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for their contributions.
I must say that in my view the Minister failed to address some of the points that I raised in my questions about the accessibility of the schemes and the need for an independent review. We ask for an independent review because sadly the Government carried out a review that was not exhaustive and did not include many key stakeholders, such as disabled people. We learned today that it was an interim review and that a review will be published in the summer. I am lost for words as to what to say about that, other than to make a final plea to the Government, once again, to ensure that disabled people are included as part of the review. Involving committees linked to the LGA is not the same as consulting the 14 million disabled people, potentially, who live in affected areas, including me.
On the issue of blue badges, it is a shame that, with the petitioners present, the Government have come forward with no solution to ensure that anybody who holds a blue badge is exempt from the schemes. Ultimately, this has been disappointing, but the conversation still needs to go on. As we have said, low-traffic neighbourhood schemes can work if they are done properly, are led by evidence and are fully inclusive and accessible to us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 632748 and 651094 relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and accessibility.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Liam Fox
The issue of rent charges also applies to freeholders; it is not just leaseholders who are the victims. An amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 would deal with the problem once and for all, so I encourage my hon. Friend to look at amendments to that Act when we bring forward legislation on this subject. If the Government do not want to bring forward such an amendment to the 1977 Act, I would be more than happy to table one.
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2033; that has been in law since before I was born.
[Official Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 400.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley):
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2037; that has been in law since before I was born.
Justice
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Victims should have the right to know who this Government are letting out of jail early. With today’s news that, despite Ministers’ protestations to the contrary from the Dispatch Box, high-risk offenders have been released early, why should the public have any confidence that this is a Government who put victims first?
Laura Farris
I want to provide some reassurance to the shadow Minister. Under our scheme, no sexual offender, no terrorist offender and nobody who has been convicted of a serious violent crime or been convicted for four years or more will be eligible for early release. I would just remind him that the slight distinction between our scheme and that conducted under the last Labour Government between 2007 and 2010 is that we have a governor lock. That means that the governor of any prison can prevent an individual prisoner from being released early if they do not think that it is suitable to do so, and that was not the case under the last Labour Government.
[Official Report, 14 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 119.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
Laura Farris
I want to provide some reassurance to the shadow Minister. Under our scheme, no sexual offender, no terrorist offender and nobody who has been convicted of a serious violent crime and been convicted for four years or more will be eligible for early release. I would just remind him that the slight distinction between our scheme and that conducted under the last Labour Government between 2007 and 2010 is that we have an exemption process. That means that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service can prevent an individual prisoner from being released early if there are concerns about their risk, and that was not the case under the last Labour Government.
Written Statements
Infected Blood Inquiry Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
Today, Sir Brian Langstaff has published the final report of the independent infected blood inquiry. I am authorising a copy of the report to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am very grateful to Sir Brian for his forensic and detailed report, his team’s diligent work over the six years of the inquiry, and the sensitivity and care with which he has ensured that the people directly and indirectly impacted by the infected blood scandal have been front and centre of his inquiry’s work. His report is a very substantial document, and it will be impossible for anyone reading it not to be deeply affected by its content. The report lays bare the devastating consequences of the use of infected blood and blood products, and I hope it answers the questions that the infected and affected have been asking for so long.
I have listened to the strongly held views of those members of the infected blood community that I have spoken with; this day is about the truth, the community, and a time for reflection about those they have lost, and the suffering which they have endured over decades.
It is right that the Government should formally recognise this significant report on the day of publication, and so the Prime Minister will give a short statement to Parliament later today. There will be a further statement tomorrow in the Commons regarding compensation.
The Government will look to provide the House with a further opportunity to debate the infected blood inquiry’s final report.
[HCWS481]
Online Divorce Applications
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy KC, has today made the following statement:
There is a statutory bar against applying for an order for divorce before the end of one year from the date of the marriage (section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973).
A digital service for divorce proceedings was first introduced in 2019, which included a validation function to stop applicants making their applications before one year and one day from the date of their marriage.
A new system was built to reflect the implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 introducing no fault divorce, and it went live on 6 April 2022. We have identified a technical fault with the new system, which allowed applications to be made after a year of marriage (as opposed to one year and one day) between 6 April 2022 and 23 November 2022. The error was rectified as soon as it came to light, to prevent any future applications from members of the public being submitted early. We have since reviewed all 90,431 applications made during this period and identified 67 cases where members of the public submitted an early application and subsequently received their final divorce order from the courts. The premature applications were not rejected during the court process at the stage of issuing a conditional order, or a final order.
The independent judiciary are looking at how best to deal with the cases. Until they reach a decision, all final divorce orders of the court will remain final orders.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has written to all those people who have received a final divorce order from the court. HMCTS has established a dedicated helpline and contact email to offer guidance and support.
[HCWS482]
Grand Committee
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
This instrument continues the important agricultural reforms we are making in England. Through these reforms, we are investing in the long-term prosperity of the sector and the future of our precious environment—things which I know many in this House care deeply about. The instrument applies progressive reductions to delinked payments for 2024. Delinked payments were introduced on 1 January 2024 in place of payments to farmers under the basic payment scheme in England. We are phasing out untargeted subsidy payments, as they have held the industry back and done little to improve food production or the environment. We are doing this gradually, over our seven-year agricultural transition period in England. That period began in 2021, so we are now in the fourth year of the transition.
The Government first announced the reductions in this instrument in the agricultural transition plan, published in November 2020. We are applying the reductions to delinked payments in a fair way. Higher percentage reductions are applied to amounts in higher payment bands. We plan to make delinked payments in two instalments each year, which will help farmers with their cash flow.
By continuing gradually to reduce these subsidy payments as planned, we are freeing up money so that farmers can access a wide range of environmental land management schemes and grants to suit all farm types. At this year’s National Farmers’ Union conference, the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to maintain total farm support at an average of £2.4 billion per year across this Parliament. Therefore, the money that is no longer being spent on untargeted subsidies is not lost to farmers; instead, it is being put to better use. It is being redirected to the sustainable farming incentive and other farming support, which help boost agricultural productivity and resilience, increase food security and deliver for the environment. Our new schemes are investing in the foundations of food security and profitable farm businesses—from healthy soils to clean water.
Earlier this year we updated payment rates in our environmental land management schemes, the average uplift being 10%. Some payment rates went up by significantly more: for example, species-rich grassland has risen from £182 to £646 per hectare.
This summer, we will launch up to 50 new actions, which will allow farmers to access scheme funding for things such as precision farming and agroforestry for the first time. The new actions give farmers even more choice about what they can do, especially those on moorlands and grasslands.
Nearly half of all farmers are now in one of our environmental land management schemes. So far, there have been around 22,000 applications for the sustainable farming incentive under our 2023 offer, and more than 21,000 agreement offers have been issued. There are now over 35,000 live Countryside Stewardship agreements—more than double the number since 2020.
The sustainable farming incentive can help to reduce costs and waste on farms, to make them more resilient and to improve food production by, for example, funding farmers to plant companion crops to help manage pests and nutrients, to assess and improve the health of their soil, and to grow cover crops to protect the soil between the main crops. We are designing our schemes so that they work for smaller farms. We have doubled the management payment for the sustainable farming incentive, which is now worth up to £2,000 for the first year of an agreement. This will help to attract even more smaller farms into the scheme.
Smaller farmers potentially have access to more income than they did before. Under the basic payment scheme, half the money went to 10% of the largest farms. Under the sustainable farming incentive, payments are based on the actions that farmers take, rather than simply the amount of land they have. This means that SFI agreements can produce more income than the basic payment for a typical farm.
Farmers taking part in the sustainable farming incentive are typically more than making up their lost basic payments so far. The value per hectare of applications so far is £148. This, alongside delinked payments for small farms this year—equivalent to £117 per hectare—adds up to more than the value of the basic payment scheme per hectare before the start of the agricultural transition. That is £233 per hectare under the basic payment scheme, versus a total of £263 under delinked payments and the sustainable farming incentive.
This year, we will make it even easier for farmers to access the funding by allowing them to apply for actions previously in Countryside Stewardship mid-tier and the sustainable farming incentive through one application process. In February, we announced the largest-ever grant offer for the agricultural sector, totalling £427 million. This includes a doubling of the investment in productivity and innovation in farming to £220 million this year. This provides support for farmers to invest in automation and robotics, as well as solar installations to build on-farm energy security. It also includes £116 million for slurry infrastructure grants and £91 million for grants to improve the health and welfare of our farmed animals.
We are providing a range of other support for farmers and land managers. This includes a third round of our landscape recovery scheme later this year. The farming resilience fund continues to provide free business support to help farmers plan and adapt their businesses. To date, more than 20,000 farmers have received this support.
In conclusion, the Government continue to back our farmers. We are investing in our new schemes and grants, which are helping farms and food production become more resilient. They also deliver better outcomes for animals, plants and the environment. We must press ahead with these reforms as planned. As ever, I am happy to take any questions. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out the regulations, which, as he explained, follow on from the earlier regulations to delink payments. I congratulate Defra on the second Farm to Fork summit, which seemed to be well received last week, particularly the inaugural publication of a food security index and the commitment to introduce a five-year seasonal workers scheme, which will be extremely well received by fruit and vegetable farmers across the country.
On farms and food security, the summit recognises the unprecedented challenges all farmers have faced this year. This has been the wettest 18-month period—not just a 12-month or six-month period—since 1836. Also, unprecedented imports have led to competition on very unfavourable terms. For example, given that battery-cage production of poultry has been banned in this country—I do not disagree with that—it is unfair that our farmers face unprecedented levels of imports of battery cage-produced eggs and poultry from EU and third countries.
I would like to press my noble friend to explain how he expects small farms, which he mentioned specifically, to benefit from the provisions of these regulations. We in North Yorkshire are fairly unique in that 48% of our farms are tenanted; that is possibly replicated in County Durham, Cumbria, Northumbria and other parts of the north, and perhaps in the south-west. How does my noble friend expect tenant farmers to benefit, not just under the provisions in the regulations before us but under other provisions that have been announced this year?
I would argue that tenant farms are the backbone of the country. I mentioned the wet weather that we have had, which has had an impact not just on crop production. The AHDB’s figures find that the planting of oilseed rape is down 28% this year, while the planting of wheat is down by 15% and winter barley by 22%, but my noble friend will also be only too aware that livestock farmers have endured an incredibly difficult lambing period. Many have been unable to turn their stock out and have had to rely on feeding livestock, particularly sheep, at a much earlier stage in the year than they would have done otherwise. Cattle have been stuck in sheds with feed running low. I understand that this year straw will be like gold dust.
We all know that, because of the war in Ukraine and other factors, energy and other input prices remain volatile. This is an extremely difficult time, with farmers facing high input costs and very challenging sales prices. Against that backdrop, can my noble friend imagine anything else that the Government can do to extend help to tenant farmers? How does he imagine that small farms, family farms and tenant farms in particular will benefit from the provisions before us today?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to keeping up the pace of reform, because it is immutable that we will not be able to tackle net zero or species decline without changing farming considerably and adopting nature-friendly farming practices. It is also difficult to imagine how we can maintain food security without altering farming practices, because climate change and environmental degradation are probably two of the bigger risks to food security.
The basic payment system was always a bit half-baked, if I can use that expression, in that it gave substantial sums of money to large farms and rather less of a share to smaller ones. Many of these smaller farms are the ones that are taking major steps to re-engineer their agricultural practices and businesses in order to maintain future economic sustainability and deliver both for the environment and on carbon. It was quite a worry when various newspapers started banging on about the fact that farmers should not have to lose basic payments at this stage because they were facing the pressures that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, just outlined—in particular, the lousy weather this year and last.
However, there are other ways of supporting farmers through that. I do not think that we should allow those things to break our stride on the reduction and delinking of payments. The farming resilience fund that the Minister referred to is the sort of proposition that I would dearly like to see in a unified advice system across the board for farmers—one that takes account of advice not just on transition but on all sorts of things that we are expecting, asking and incentivising farmers to do. I am very old so I remember ADAS. Bring back ADAS and modernise it to deliver for the future because at the moment farmers are sometimes bamboozled by the range of advice that they get.
In terms of the immediate financial pressures on farmers as a result of the climate and weather, there needs to be a stand-alone fund that does not get bound up with the delinked payments issue. I hope that we will see the Government’s backbone in continuing to implement delinking as fast as possible until we get to the point where ELMS is indeed the name of the game and there is no other.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I can ask simple question. I very much welcome the fact of the transition from basic payments to SFI. Let us be quite clear: there has been a heck of a lot of uncertainty during that process, which now hopefully is more concrete, so that everybody knows the direction. I welcome the number of farmers who are now involved in SFI. Coming back to the question about the environment and the objective of bringing back nature into the countryside, how does Defra intend to assess whether these various SFI programmes have been successful, so that they can be modified in future to make sure that they achieve the goals that we all want them to achieve? That is what I would like to understand as we move into the future. Given the flexibility that SFI gives in terms of various individual incentives within it, how do we assess that, how do we manage it, how do we calculate it and how do we change it into the future to make sure that effectiveness is still there?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we have real concerns and questions in relation to these regulations. This instrument was debated in the Chamber of the other place. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This instrument sets the percentage reductions which will be applied to delinked payments in England for 2024. Delinked payments were introduced on 1 January 2024 in place of Direct Payments to farmers under the Basic Payment Scheme … in England … As part of moving away from the Common Agricultural Policy, the Government has been gradually phasing out Direct Payments in England. It is doing this over an agricultural transition period (2021 to 2027), as provided for in its Agriculture Act 2020”.
We support the overall approach, so we will not be opposing the SI, but we have concerns about the process of transition of farm payment mechanisms in general, the resultant department underspend to date and the impacts that these are having on farmers, their economic welfare and, in many cases, their very economic survival.
The debate today so far has largely mirrored that which happened in the other place, most people being supportive of the long-term transition and policy objectives, but equally being deeply concerned about the implementation of that transition. These changes need to be assessed against the broader implementation of the whole package of measures. The truth be told, our farmers are really struggling to survive financially.
As has been said, we have had one of the wettest winters since 1836. In many cases, winter and spring crops have not been planted and livestock farmers have also suffered. The NFU farming confidence survey, published just a few weeks ago, showed that mid-term confidence is at its lowest since records began in 2010. Because of a lack of confidence, production intentions are plummeting within all farm sectors. That cannot be good for farmers or our food security. Also, the relentless wet weather has caused farmers real hardship: 82% of respondents to the NFU survey said that their business had suffered, which cannot be good either. We are increasingly seeing the impacts of climate change and I ask the Government and the Minister to be more flexible and responsive to the impacts of climate-related events on our farmers. The Government must recognise the role that farmers play in flood prevention and adequately reward them for the important work that they do in mitigating floods and protecting us from further flooding.
We have this £200 million underspend in Defra and are now four years into a seven-year transition under the SFI. The NFU survey also found that profitability had fallen for 65% of respondents. We have this big period of transition, weather events and real economic hardship for our farmers, so questions must be asked about the impact of these regulations against this overall background.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that
“compared to applying no reductions at all, the 2024 reductions set in this instrument will release around £970 million to £1,010 million”.
These are huge amounts of money, and we are worried about the impact of this change. The Government must be in possession of an overall impact assessment of the transition to ELMS to date, but this information has not been published. I ask them to be more open and flexible with the information they provide.
The Minister in the other place said of the overall budget that it is the same cake and that budgets are not being reduced. Against this, some of the slices have not been eaten because there were underspends, the department is undertaking new and more complex sets of measures around supporting farmers to undertake environmental stewardship, with a greater number of schemes being developed overall, and new organisations are now eligible for payments. Added to this, we have had the rise in inflation, which means that the budgets were not as large as set out.
All of this is adding increased financial impact; farmers are being asked to do more and there are more schemes, so the money is being subdivided to a greater extent. Given that no impact assessment is included with this SI, how does the Minister expect us to make adequate judgments about the money being provided and the decisions that lie behind that? What is the factual basis for the figures the Government have put forward? How confident are they that they have the right figures, that they are set at the right rates and that they are capable of achieving the policy objectives?
Finally, what is Defra doing to improve the situation for our farmers? What assessment has it made of the overall support that farmers need and how best it should be provided at speed and at scale? What other problems has it had to date with the implementation of the present system? What is being done to support small farmers and tenant farmers, in particular to make applications? The Minister proudly stated that half of farmers have made applications; by that same logic, half have not engaged with these schemes as yet, so how can we do more to bring them into these schemes and make them work more effectively?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we do not oppose this SI, as we did not oppose the agricultural transition plan, but we think that the implementation of ELMS and the agricultural transition away from the BPS need to work much better and the Government need to look at how they can provide better support for farmers while this transition takes place. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked specific questions about small farms and tenancies; they are having particular challenges, so it would be good to hear from the Minister on that.
We have heard a lot today about how climate change continues to threaten farmers’ livelihoods. I am sure the Minister is aware that the NFU has suggested delaying ELMS while certain things are sorted out. While we have some sympathy because of the struggles farmers have had recently, delaying the implementation of ELMS and the phase-out of basic payments is not the solution.
Policy-driven agricultural practices have been one of the single biggest drivers of wildlife loss in the UK over the past 50 years. We are concerned that, if you start delaying the ELMS rollout, all you will do is create more uncertainty at a time when farmers desperately need certainty. They need to be able to plan—and to plan to farm in a way that provides food but also benefits nature. As my noble friend said, we will not reach net zero or be able to tackle species decline and biodiversity loss without the widespread adoption of nature-friendly farming practices. We have also heard that the biggest long-term risk to our food security comes from climate change and environmental degradation. That is why it is important that we get these schemes to work effectively for farming.
My understanding is that there is almost a £1 billion funding gap for agriculture to meet existing nature-recovery and net-zero targets. I do not expect the Minister to pull £1 billion out of his back pocket, but it demonstrates that this is a huge problem that needs addressing. Instead of doing what the NFU has suggested and pausing ELMS, have the Government thought about using the emergency financial measures available to them in Section 21 of the Agriculture Act? There are powers to add an additional emergency fund on top of SFI for farms that are suffering the greatest climate damage. Have the Government looked at that as a way of supporting farmers? Given the terrible weather we have had, including flooding, would that be an option?
I want to look at some of the farmers’ concerns, because the NFU is clearly not happy with the way things are at the moment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about many of the concerns in the NFU’s latest annual farming survey, which gives a good overview. It shows the lowest level of confidence in at least 14 years, and extreme weather and the phasing out of subsidies are cited as the primary drivers. Tom Bradshaw, the new president of the NFU, said his concern was that,
“if members don’t have confidence, then we as a country can’t deliver food security”.
That is a real worry.
One factor in that is the weather, about which we have heard a lot, but what was quite striking about the survey was that mid-term confidence had been hit harder than short-term confidence. That is striking because it shows that farmers are losing trust in the Government’s ability to support them through this transition period and during the challenges of climate change. Will the Minister comment on that? How are the Government working to bring back farmers’ trust? It is very important.
On the weather, analysis by the non-profit Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit forecast that crops could be down by nearly one-fifth as a result of the wet weather, and that it was likely that prices for bread, beer and biscuits, for example, would rise. Has Defra made any forecast of the impact of continued bad weather on inflation and on harvests, for example?
The NFU is concerned that the combination of the BPS being down by 50% and all these extra pressures will mean that farmers are more likely to borrow. Borrowing is more expensive, and the NFU is concerned that, as Tom Bradshaw, put it, we are facing
“the perfect storm of events”.
This is about looking at the bigger picture of how the Government will support farmers. What steps are they taking, or proposing to take, to support farmers with those extra costs?
We know that red diesel has been a particular problem, but I am not expecting the Minister to answer the difficult questions around red diesel today. I have spoken before about the benefit that family co-operatives can bring when costs are high. Have the Government looked at that, particularly around investing in new machinery, which can help to mitigate some of the difficulties that farmers are facing?
Finally, we completely agree that we need a fairer system of payments based on the principle of public support for public goods, which ELMS is bringing in, but the Government need to grasp that more must be done to make the system work much more effectively than it does at present for farmers and the environment.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and I welcome the strong level of support across the House, largely, for these measures.
I start by addressing one or two of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She touches on a common theme that comes up when I am out and about. I was at the Chelsea Flower Show this morning and there were a few farmers there—not many, but a few. The issues are about what is going on and where the money is going. The same amount of money is available today as there was yesterday and will be tomorrow. It is £2.4 billion each year over the course of the Parliament, so there is not less money available.
To anyone who has been in receipt of the basic payment scheme as—full disclosure—I have been for probably 40 years, it is a pretty blunt instrument. You get your cheque. There is a little bit of cross-compliance. I received mine in Scotland. It came in two tranches: one at the year end and one about six months after the year end. For anybody who feels that transitioning away from the BPS is somehow bad for cash flow or bad because there is less money in the pot, they have misunderstood what is going on .
The issue of confidence is critical. For sixty-something years—I cannot remember the exact number—if you have been a farmer, you have been used to one system. You farm, you get your BPS payment. If you were interested in other stuff, you could get into an agri-environment scheme, but they were pretty challenging to get into and pretty expensive to join; they really only suited the larger landholdings.
This is a significant shift away from that, but I get that any shift is challenging. Looking at my own farm arrangements, I find myself wondering how we are going to make all this work. Instead of just getting the money, you have to think about what you are going to do. It is public money for public good, so it is a proper shift in mindset. When you get that big shift, it does knock confidence. I am acutely aware of that. It means that people have to think totally differently about their farming operation.
If I am absolutely blunt, that is exactly what ELMS is designed to do and should do. The way that we have been farming has not been overly helpful to productivity or to innovation and—as I think all of us in this Room would collectively agree—it has been deeply unhelpful for the environment. To me, this change is absolutely welcome and necessary but I know that it causes a bit of stress and strain. That is one reason why it has been spread out over a seven-year period.
Farmers are amazing; they are incredibly resilient, but they are also incredibly resilient to listening. It is not as if this has come as a shock to anyone. We have been advertising it on the front page for a number of years now but, of course, this year is the year when it starts to really bite. If you have not been paying attention, you are going to feel some financial pain. We cannot hold everybody’s hand in this space. A huge amount of effort and energy has gone into consultations and into all the prototypes for the SFI modules. A huge amount of consultation has been done with the industry. Defra teams and Ministers have gone to agricultural shows; they have gone around the block telling everybody, “You have to pay attention; there is change coming”. But, as with all things in life, sometimes you start to pay attention only when it starts to hurt the wallet.
I know that there is a degree of concern and a degree of change but, as I think everybody recognises, this transition is long overdue. We really need to get on with it, so I am grateful for the overwhelming support. This is something that we should plug on with.
I will try to answer a few specific questions now. I was asked about financial support for farmers in the event of a crisis or financial emergency. In the event of an exceptional market disruption, the Government have powers to act to support farmers by making a declaration under Section 20 of the Agriculture Act 2020. These powers are intended to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets where there is an adverse effect on the price achievable for one or more agricultural products. We have seen some pretty big shocks over the past few years, some caused by the weather and some caused by world events. The Government continue to keep this measure as a backdrop. I know that we look at it and think about it, but we have not got round to using it yet. I hope that it is a rainy day one that never has to come out.
Quite a lot of questions were asked about the rationale for delinking. I hope that I covered a lot of this in my opening comments but, broadly speaking, it is vital that we continue gradually to move away from untargeted subsidies as planned because these payments have inhibited productivity improvements and are, I believe, fundamentally unjust. The scheme that we have now delivers a much better outcome and will deliver a much better outcome in the long term.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether this is the right time to go through a reduction in the BPS, given the weather and other activities. The Government recognise that many farmers are facing challenging conditions—not least the extreme wet weather, which was referenced several times during the debate and has affected enormous parts of the country—but cancelling the planned reductions to delinked payments is not an effective way of addressing these challenges or setting businesses up for a successful future. The longer we hang on to this, the longer we hold everybody back. These payments are untargeted, so increasing them does not direct support to those who most need them. In fact, you do not have to be a farmer to be in receipt of delinked payments now; if you have retired from farming, you will still get what you were due. Perpetuating that is not a helpful way of addressing either today’s issues or the issues that will undoubtedly come in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a couple of questions about tenant farmers and small farms. This is a challenging area but, on the basis that the basic payment scheme paid you for the chunk of land that you owned, the smaller the chunk of land, the less money you get. This transition allows you to earn more money on a smaller farm, by picking up the delinked payments and engaging with the SFI options. Again, I appreciate that this is challenging because you have to think about what you are doing and you will probably have to make some adjustments to your farming model but, as I have said, this has been signalled to the farming community—small farmers, tenant farmers and large farmers—for a long time. It will take a little time for it to bed in. The money is available; you just have to work out how to go and get it. The money is there. Noble Lords look as though they do not believe me, but it is. The options and choices are there. You have to go out and engage with that.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what had been done about an impact assessment. One has not been prepared for this instrument because it is not a regulatory provision. However, the Government have already published evidence providing in-depth assessments of the impact of removing direct payments. This includes the 2018 and 2019 farming evidence compendiums, our 2018 assessment of the impact of removing direct payments, and the 2021 and 2022 Agriculture in the United Kingdom evidence packs. If the noble Earl wants more information on that that I can supply, I would again be delighted to do so.
Earl Russell (LD)
No evidence has been published on the implementation of the transition to date. There was no evidence in this pack on the impact of these changes. From my point of view, it made it quite hard to assess the changes.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
It is pretty early days in this transition, so I am not anticipating that we would have that evidence. We do a lot of consultation directly with farmers and with the industry through organisations such as the NFU, and we have developed a new food index to look at how that might be impacting food security, so quite a lot of measures are evolving and coming through. I would suggest that it is a little early to try to measure impacts at this stage.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson was keen to understand what consultation we are doing with industry and how we are working with it. Have I got that right?
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for asking. What I am really trying to say is that we have here a unique instrument that can use various elements of the SFI to get the sort of environmental improvement goals we all want. How are we assessing them so, that over time, we make sure that this state aid, in effect, that we are giving to farmers is used effectively to achieve what we want to achieve? How does that assessment work—not now, but as we start to move through the implementation?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful clarification. There is a lot in that, and if I may I will write to him with the details rather than go through them all now.
Unless anybody has anything further they would like to ask, I think I have covered most of the questions. I believe—and the Government are right behind this too—that this instrument is essential for our agricultural reforms. We must press ahead as planned so that we can fund our schemes that support farmers to be resilient and sustainable over the long term.
Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I am sure that many noble Lords will agree that hedgerows are precious features of our landscape, enriching our environment and wildlife. Many of our wild birds depend on them, including red-listed birds such as the linnet and the yellowhammer. Hedgerows also help food production by supporting pollinators, providing windbreaks and shelter, and protecting the soil. I am therefore pleased to bring before this Committee this statutory instrument, which proposes further to protect our hedgerows. The instrument establishes by legislation a common approach to managing hedgerows on agricultural land in England. It builds on the existing legal protections for some hedgerows, which will remain in place.
In proposing this legislation, we have listened to the views of many who cherish our hedgerows, including many farmers. I thank those who responded to our consultation on protecting hedgerows; their insights have enriched our understanding. We received almost 9,000 responses, which we have considered carefully. The responses showed how much hedgerows are valued. There was strong consensus from environmental and farming stakeholders alike that hedgerows should be protected in domestic law in a similar way to the previous hedgerow management rules provided by cross-compliance.
That is what this statutory instrument does. It aims to provide a familiar baseline for hedgerow management. We want to make sure that everyone knows what is expected and is supported to follow good practice. As a safeguard, we are also making sure that there are clear, proportionate consequences for the small minority who might choose to ignore it.
I know that these rules are simply a reasonable minimum which most farmers have been practising for many years. Farmers are the guardians of our hedgerows, protecting, planting and maintaining them for generations. I thank them for their continued efforts to help wildlife thrive on their farms, alongside food production. We trust them to continue to do the right thing. In fact, many are already going further than required by these regulations. We have seen strong uptake of options to manage and further improve hedgerows under our agri-environment schemes. I am delighted to report that there are already more than 20,000 agreements or applications in place, contributing to the management of over 60,000 miles of hedgerow in England. We look forward to working in partnership with many more farmers to manage and improve their hedgerows in future.
The purpose of these regulations is to protect hedgerows in order to support biodiversity, benefit the environment and enrich the landscape. They will make sure that all farmers are treated fairly by upholding common rules for managing hedgerows, and they will provide clarity on what is expected. The regulations govern the management of “important” hedgerows on agricultural land. Broadly, this means hedgerows which have a continuous length of at least 20 metres or which, if shorter, meet another hedgerow at each end. They do not apply to hedgerows within or forming the boundary of a dwelling house. Because the regulations apply to all important hedgerows growing on agricultural land, they will bring into scope some people who were not subject to cross-compliance, such as those who chose not to claim any direct payments or who have farms under five hectares in size.
There are two main requirements under these regulations. First, cutting or trimming hedges will be prohibited between 1 March and 31 August inclusive. This is to protect hedge-nesting birds and their habitats during the breeding season. There are some exceptions to this rule to give farmers and others flexibility where needed. The second requirement is to establish and maintain a two-metre-wide buffer strip alongside the hedgerow. This will protect the hedgerow and its root system from the effects of cultivation and the application of fertilisers or pesticides. Subject to certain exemptions, these activities will not be allowed within the buffer strip. The requirement for a buffer strip will not apply to fields which are two hectares or smaller.
We recognise that people may need time to establish their buffer strips where they do not already have them in place. We therefore propose that, in cases where a field has no buffer strip and is in crop production on 1 July 2024, the requirements will not come into force until that crop has been harvested. In all cases, the exemptions are needed to accommodate the practicalities of farming, or for health and safety-related reasons. They are largely the same as under cross-compliance. They are in place to ensure that we have the right balance between hedgerow protections and effective farming.
The regulations will be enforced on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Rural Payments Agency. Although the rules themselves will be familiar to many farmers, there will be a different approach to enforcement, with the emphasis being on being fair and proportionate. The Rural Payments Agency will take a primarily advice-led approach to enforcement. This has been shown to be the best approach for bringing farmers into compliance in other regulatory areas. However, the Rural Payments Agency will also be able to use a range of civil sanctions and criminal proceedings for the worst-case scenarios. Such action will be proportionate to the damage caused.
Subject to parliamentary approval, detailed information on how the regulations will operate will be provided once the statutory instrument has been made. The Rural Payments Agency will also hold a public consultation on its proposed enforcement policy. I know that it is committed to taking a modern, pragmatic and proportionate approach, with advice and guidance at the forefront.
Although these regulations govern the management of hedgerows on agricultural land, we recognise the value of hedgerows in other locations. Officials are therefore working separately with stakeholders to consider how to support the sustainable management and protection of hedgerows more widely in future.
In conclusion, this statutory instrument will afford fuller protection to one of our countryside’s greatest assets, the hedgerow. That will, I hope, be widely welcomed. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have only one small question for my noble friend the Minister, as we do not have too many hedgerows in north Yorkshire; we mostly have stone walls, which we could have a separate debate on another time.
I am intrigued by the Government’s response to questions posed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report. It transpires that the Government are now bringing within the remit of cross-compliance farms of less than five hectares but larger than two hectares. For what reason are we going down that path? Obviously, these are quite small farms. The fields that we used to claim on when we owned a couple of fields would have fallen into this category, I think. I no longer have such an interest, but I wonder why we have gone down the path of including farms of between two and five hectares. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that this seems like a lot of administration for such small farms?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I have been having sleepless nights about this, noble Lords may be pleased to hear. I was always a great fan of cross-compliance. It was quite a low-key instrument; nevertheless, it could be deployed. Of course, hedges are vital for wildlife and for carbon. They provide linear routes through our landscapes and join up patches of habitat. Filling the gaps in hedges, for example, is really important, for all these reasons.
Turning to my anxiety, it took ages to establish whether there was going to be a statutory instrument to fill the gap left by the demise of cross-compliance, and it then took some time for that to come forward. In a way, my great regret is that we have not used this opportunity. For heaven’s sake, the benefits of leaving Europe are few enough, but improving the situation for hedges would have been one of them. I would have preferred it if the Government had removed the three existing exemptions: for fields under two hectares, for hedges younger than five years and for the no-cutting period. When you look at the consultation, you see that there was not really much support among the farming community for retaining them. This could have been an opportunity absolutely to re-recognise the value of hedges, particularly in fields of under two hectares, and the importance of hedges younger than five years having protection from the beginning.
Apart from lecturing the Minister on this and lying awake at night worrying about it, I simply want to ask the Minister for four things. First, will he re-examine these exemptions? We have this wretched statutory instrument, and let us get the damn thing in because, at the moment, there is no protection for these hedges; but there is an opportunity here to improve on what Europe is doing and re-examine the exemptions.
Secondly, there should be a real proposition to extend the no-cutting period beyond even that in the instrument. My own wildlife trust, of which I am patron—I declare an interest—the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, has done a big hazel dormouse project that shows that there are multiple active nests during the period from September to October. If hedges are cut at that point, it prevents the population really thriving, and this is a very threatened species.
Maintaining hedges and not cutting them for even longer provides valuable berries and other food for winter wildlife and, as the Minister said, for farmland birds that are really in decline, such as the turtle dove, linnet, cirl bunting and yellowhammer. Bedford used to be the yellowhammer capital of the world, as far as I could tell, and you would be very hard put to find one at all now. In these species, late broods are disproportionately important. If they can get a third brood away, the population has a greater chance of increasing rather than standing still or declining. Again, extending the no-cutting period is something farmers would appreciate.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to think about two matters not connected to hedgerows, but whereby we lose as a result of losing cross-compliance: water body buffers and soil erosion conditions, which are absolutely vital. They are hot in the public mind at the moment, particularly in the light of water pollution. Will he undertake to look at them and produce statutory instruments to reinstate them?
Lastly, I know that the Minister likes to tell me when I ask him things that are not particularly germane to the subject in hand, that are not his brief or are above his pay grade—or he will have another way of sending me away with a sore heart—but I hope that he might bump into his DLUHC colleagues and look in a concerted way at not just hedgerows that are subject to agricultural practice but those threatened by development. I know that one should not take personal examples as the norm, but I cannot help feeling that, in both the planning applications against which I have fought in the last two years, the local planning authority chose to ignore the hedgerow regulations in the planning advice. It destroyed hedgerows that not only are vital for carbon and wildlife but have huge historic lineage. If he were to bump into the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in order to tell her that, it would be extremely helpful.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as laid out in the in the register. I congratulate Defra and the Government; a lot of thought has gone into this. It was said that we have not had any regulations protecting hedgerows since we came out of cross-compliance, but I would just like to big up farmers, I suppose. Years and years ago, nearly every single hedge would be cut every year. Then, they were encouraged to cut them every second year; then, a further development was to cut one side a year and maybe leave the other for three years. Now, a lot of farmers in the regenerative movement and others are barely cutting hedges. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that provides many more berries, habitats and suchlike. So, the fact that we have not had any regulations for six months or so is not the end of the world; I do not think we have lost any great hedges.
I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggesting that we should continue not cutting hedges after 31 August. Two or three weeks later and we will be in autumn; all nesting birds will have nested well by then.
My question is very simple and follows on from what the two noble Baronesses said. It is about really small fields; I am talking now about private householders. While all the farmers are obeying the law and not cutting between 1 March and 31 August, you can drive out anywhere in the countryside or in small towns and villages and you will see plenty of householders cutting their own garden hedges. So, does this rule apply to them? If it does, I suspect that it will be very hard to enforce. I am sure there are plenty of gardeners becoming more aware of the importance of their hedgerows as habitats for nesting birds and suchlike, but I would be very interested to have an answer on this if my noble friend the Minister has one.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, and I will come back to a particular regional issue in a minute.
I agree with the Minister on the emotion and feeling concerning hedges. Cornwall was one of five—I think—pilot local nature recovery strategy areas. We went through a long process of consultation with the public on the priorities for local nature recovery and habitat. Hedges came out top by far. People feel very strongly about them emotionally, but exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, they are an essential part of our rural habitat, particularly in connecting areas of environmental importance.
I want to ask some straightforward, short questions on issues that I did not understand. First, the instrument refers to “the Regulator”. Maybe the Minister explained this, but I am not clear: who is the regulator? I presume that this comes back to one of the Acts referred to in the statutory instrument.
Also, who is the enforcer? I was quite surprised to understand from the Minister that the enforcer is probably the RPA, which has a role in payments for SFIs and some other Countryside Stewardship schemes. I am not sure about that, but there is some confusion over environmental regulation and who things should be reported to. Occasionally, it is Natural England but usually, strangely, in relation to most environmental and countryside regulations, it is the police.
As the noble Lord just said, farmers are very good at complying with such regulations because they value their own hedges. If a member of the public happens to see someone transgressing them, who should they telephone or get on to? Is it the RPA, the police, or Natural England? This is something we are going through in Cornwall, making the position clear on environmental infringement. I would not expect this to be a huge issue, but who should they go to?
My final question is on a matter very close to our hearts in the far south-west: Cornish hedges, which are a hybrid between the stone walls that you might find in Yorkshire and hedges as we would normally understand them. They are the key way to create field divisions in Cornwall. I do not quite understand whether Cornish hedges are included in this selection.
I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, particularly regarding the exemptions. I cannot understand the five-year rule. It seems to me even more vital that young hedges are protected, so I encourage the Minister to bring forward yet another statutory instrument to change that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome these regulations. This instrument was noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Hedges are a crucial part of our historic landscape, living landscape and biodiversity, so anything we can do, cross party, to improve and promote them is extremely important.
These draft regulations propose new legal requirements for the management and protection of hedgerows on all agricultural land in England. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the new rules will “broadly replicate” the previous cross-compliance requirements under the EU’s common agricultural policy, which linked the management and protection of hedgerows with subsidy payments.
The cross-compliance system ended on 31 December 2023, as part of the Government’s wider agricultural reforms in England and the transition to domestic schemes after Brexit. This instrument will finally close the gap in protections since 31 December 2023, requiring farmers and land managers to maintain green-cover buffer zones of 2 metres from the centre of the hedgerow, prohibiting cultivation or the application of pesticides or fertilisers and reintroducing a ban on cutting or trimming of hedgerows between 31 March and 31 August to protect wildlife during the bird nesting season.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reports that it asked Defra whether any cross-compliance requirements would not be replicated, and the department replied that the SI was described as “broadly” replicating
“because it is not an exact replica of those rules”.
The Minister has spoken to the fact that the SI extends the scope of the requirements to some hedgerows that did not fall under the previous cross-compliance rules. Cross-compliance rules applied only to those farmers in receipt of the common agricultural policy direct payments.
Under this SI, the requirements on hedgerow management will apply to all agricultural land, as defined, including some land which was not subject to direct payments—such as allotments and land with horses—and, as we have heard, farms of less than 5 hectares which had previously been exempt from cross-compliance. As a result, the SI in effect offers greater compliance for our hedgerows.
The broadening of hedgerow protection is welcomed; indeed, the consultation showed 95% support. However, will the Minister confirm that that understanding of “broadly” is indeed correct? Further, as has been mentioned already, paragraph 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“These requirements will protect hedgerows that are deemed ‘important’ in this instrument for the purposes of the power to regulate in respect of hedgerows in section 97 of the Environment Act 1995”.
Will the Minister explain the meaning of the word “important” in this sentence? I ask the Minister to consider, as others have mentioned, the exemption of fields under 2 hectares and hedgerows less than 5 years old and the possible need to extend the cutting period. Will he keep them in the department’s sights to see whether these regulations will, in time, need further reform or strengthening?
The SI covers only hedgerows on agricultural land, as defined. Do the Government have any intention to extend these protections to hedgerows managed by local authorities, such as on golf courses? A lot of our hedgerows are not on farmland; they are also in other places.
Regarding paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, can the Minister give a clear indication of when he expects the department to publish guidance on enforcement, and what information and funds will be disseminated to ensure that it is understood and properly enforced? Will he provide some estimate of the proposed cost of fines based on the financial benefit derived from any offences under the SI?
Finally, paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the SI will come into force “the day after” today. I welcome that, to minimise the gap in compliance. Is the Minister aware of whether there has been any damage to our hedgerows as a result of the gap in the legislation? Has the department done any checks on that? If not, will it do so to see whether any damage to hedgerows has happened in that period?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I welcome these regulations very much. I am very glad that the department is taking its responsibilities to hedgerows seriously, but I think we could be encouraged to do a little bit better than the EU. I echo what noble Lords have said about extending the period, perhaps, or encouraging alternate sides of the hedgerow. Are there are any plans to do so? I say this not just because of the shelter they give wildlife or the food for birds over the winter but because there are some birds, such as the blackbird, that can have a late brood in August. After 31 August, these fledglings may seek shelter on the ground beneath the hedgerows. I think that maybe we could think of extending the period in certain parts.
I also echo the question about whether there is any requirement on local authorities; will the regulations extend to local authorities or just to privately owned land? I leave it at that, but I would be very grateful to hear any thoughts.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome this statutory instrument. We have heard that a regulatory gap arose when cross-compliance was withdrawn at the beginning of this year. Our concern is that the SI was not progressed more quickly, because the no-cutting period it covers is from 1 March to 31 August, so cutting has been permitted that is not going to be permitted next year and has not been permitted in previous years, so getting this new system in place as quickly as possible must be a priority. I was interested in the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about whether there is any evidence of what damage has been done in the meantime and, if so, what will be done to mitigate that.
My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said that this is a bit of a missed opportunity because we could have done better than the former EU protections, and she went into some information about that. We have heard that the main issue is the three exemptions from the former cross-compliance—fields under two hectares, hedgerows younger than five years and exemptions to the no-cutting period—so I will not go into detail around that. Despite the fact that some noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, who is no longer in his place, mentioned that farmers and landowners on the whole follow best management practice, and we do not want to undermine the work that farmers do, the exemptions should have been carried across wholesale into the new regulations because otherwise hedgerows are not protected. It is important that we have those protections in place in law for sound environmental reasons.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned enforcement. The SI embraces a different approach to enforcement that we have been seeing across farming more broadly. In other words, it is now advice-led, which will improve trust and drive better outcomes. Interestingly, the SI allows a defence of mistake when regulations have not been followed, whereas cross-compliance always said a breach is a breach, even if that breach was a mistake. I think we would in principle support that because there is no point in punishing farmers if they have made a genuine mistake, but it takes more time and resources for the Environment Agency to implement the new approach. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked who enforces this. My understanding is that it is the Environment Agency, but perhaps the Minister could confirm that. How is that slightly more complex enforcement going to be resourced and managed? One of the reasons for asking is because new data has shown that the majority of deadlines that were issued as part of this new advice to farmers to improve the environment were missed. It is just about making sure that it all comes together and works effectively.
Martin Lines, from the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who we all know well, said in an article that he thinks large food corporations bear significant responsibility for this. Does the Minister agree with that? Where has the evidence come from?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Again, I thank all those who contributed because, from my perspective, this has been a really interesting debate to listen to.
I start by picking up on the issue of ash trees, disease and stuff like that. Like the noble Baroness, I take the train—up to and down from Scotland most weeks. If you look out, you see that things are really horrifying right now. All the leaves are out, and there is dead tree after dead tree. It illustrates the importance of our wider biosecurity. I know that the BTOM has not been to everybody’s approval. Frankly, as we all know, if you are in government, you cannot get this right whichever way you go because some people think that you have not done enough and others say that you have done too much. However, this is a really important issue; on ash trees, it is just a horror.
Keeping some of the pests and diseases that affect our flora and fauna out of the UK is absolutely key. If noble Lords get a chance to go to the Chelsea Flower Show, I recommend that they go to the APHA site. It is based on Asian hornets and is absolutely incredible. It just shows you what we are up against every day of every week. At this time of year, everything is coming alive, and it is all on its way over here. The Defra team and the wider Defra family do an unbelievable amount of work to stop a lot of this stuff coming in. I forget exactly what the cost of ash dieback across the country will be, but it is in the tens of billions; it is going to leave great holes in our hedges and in our woods. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, makes a great point: what are we going to do to fill that gap? Perhaps we need to start thinking about that more.
I was really interested in the debate started, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this conflict between farmers and environmentalists—if I may phrase it as crudely as that. Several speakers implied that, because we have had a few months without these regulations, somehow we will be ripping out hedgerows two to the dozen, because we could do that without the regulations. I do not understand that mindset at all; I have never come across it anywhere. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has; we could perhaps have a conversation afterwards it that is happening, but I have never come across it anywhere and I think most farmers would take proper exception to it being implied. Again, I would be delighted to have a wider conversation.
To answer the specific point, I have heard nothing to suggest that any farmer would remove any hedgerow. On the contrary, there has been a huge increase in people wanting to do better, which is where the farming community comes from.
However, the debate was interesting, because it touched on a few other issues about exemptions, exceptions and so on. There was talk about why we are not protecting young hedges, as if not applying the buffer zone would have a negative impact on young hedges. I do not know if your Lordships have ever planted and looked after a hedge, but it takes quite a long time to get settled in and a lot of careful work each year to keep it there. Buffer zones would overwhelm a young hedge; the weeds would overwhelm it and you would get a properly scrawny hedge with high leaf cover because the understorey would have been taken out completely. I appreciate that some of the exceptions may be counterintuitive, but it is important to do the homework and understand the reasons for some of these things before suggesting that they are somehow improper or not correct. People put a lot of effort and energy into this sort of stuff, so it is perhaps good to appreciate that more widely.
Soil erosion and water body buffers were other issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others raised. Perhaps I could take them both away, come back with some more information and write to her.
There were quite a lot of questions on people cutting hedges in their gardens. Why can they do that when farmers have to obey the rules? How does that extend to golf courses, public authorities and all the rest of it? Again, this is a pretty challenging area. We do not live in a police state; we are trying to do our best. Education, not enforcement, is the best way of solving this problem. We are consulting on wider issues with hedges. We are just about to start that consultation, which will be an interesting exercise, because the practicalities of enforcing against someone cutting their garden hedge are pretty challenging and I am not sure that we want to get into that space.
A number of noble Lords raised specific issues with the timing of when you can cut a hedge and when you cannot. It is a trade-off between farming and the wider environment. Farmers have other things to do and, by the time we are into September, they are planning for next year and have a lot of other tasks. Sometimes there is a little gap when this can be done. I do not have information on the specific example of a dormouse, but 99% of species have fledged and gone by early September.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I think the noble Lord needs to look at the latest information about the impact that climate change is having on extending breeding seasons. It is notable; I will send him some.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I have not looked at that and I appreciate that these dates are moving, but we have to start somewhere and those dates have been chosen for the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, quizzed me on two-acre fields or less, and why they might be exempt. I hope everybody can understand that, if you have a smaller field, taking up a two-metre buffer zone around the edge of it will have a disproportionate impact. The Government recognise that and it came through pretty clearly in the consultation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Just to clarify, the question was why under five hectares was being brought in under the de minimis rule.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
That was to try to include as many of our precious hedges as we can; that is still quite a big space. Again, through the consultation, it did not seem to cause a great deal of alarm, so it seemed perfectly sensible to include it.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked a number of questions about who is accountable, who is the regulator and who is the enforcer. The regulations will be enforced by the Rural Payments Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Rural Payments Agency has a history of enforcing the hedgerow maintenance requirements under cross-compliance rules. It is well placed to develop and implement the new enforcement regime for all these regulations. The RPA will be taking an advice and guidance-led approach to enforcement.
On his supplementary question of who you should ring if you are driving along and you see someone doing damage to a hedgerow, I guess that question has always been there. Presumably, people will ring the police in the first instance if they see something going wrong, and they will guided by them to the appropriate agency. In this case, it is the RPA.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, enquired about the definition of “important” hedgerows. The definition used for these regulations is designed to allow them to replicate as closely as possible the requirements for hedgerow management under cross compliance. For this reason, it was not practicable to use the same definition as is used in the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.
There were a number of slightly more detailed supplementary questions on which I will write to the noble Earl.
I am grateful for the thoughts and questions raised in today’s debate. They underline the value that so many of us place—
Lord Teverson (LD)
Forgive me—I do not want to take up the time of the Grand Committee or the Minister; we have taken up a fair bit of time. However, I would value a clarification on Cornish hedges, which are very specific, at some point.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My apologies—I think I can answer that question. Those are not covered by these regulations but they are being consulted on under the new ELMs model, so they will be included there.
In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will support these important regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Procurement Regulations 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument represents a significant legislative step in implementing the Procurement Act 2023, which seizes the opportunity following Brexit to develop and implement a new public procurement regime for more than £300 billion-worth of public contracts. The new regime helps deliver the Prime Minister’s promise to grow the economy by creating a simpler and more transparent system that will deliver better value for money, reduce costs for business, especially small business, and improve the public sector. I thank colleagues across the Committee for the work that we did together on the Procurement Act.
These regulations bring to life and set out the practical detail necessary for the functioning of many of that Act’s provisions. Many of the measures set out the detail required by the Act to enable contracting authorities to conduct their public procurement in an open, transparent and informative manner. These include the content of various notices that will be used to communicate opportunities and details about forthcoming, in-train and completed procurements. Such contents would typically include the contact details for the contracting authority, the contract subject matter, key timings for the procurement process and other basic information about a particular procurement that interested suppliers would need to know. The provisions also cover the digital measures that authorities must follow when publishing notices, such as putting them on a central digital platform and what to do in the event that the platform is unavailable.
The transparency measures will help to open up opportunities with the public sector to a greater range of businesses, helping drive down price and increase innovation. They will provide contracting authorities with the data they need to collaborate better, drive value for money and identify cost savings in their procurements, and they will give Ministers, legislators and auditors detailed information to monitor for signs of waste and inefficiency.
Other provisions to supplement the Act include various lists in the Schedules so that procurers can identify which obligations apply in a particular case. These include a list of light-touch services that qualify for simplified rules and a list of central government authorities and works which are subject to different thresholds. The regulations disapply the Procurement Act in relation to healthcare services procurements in scope of the NHS provider selection regime introduced in January this year. These enable the procurement of NHS patient treatment services, such as NHS paramedical services or cancer treatments, to be governed by the free-standing regulatory scheme that was specifically designed for those services.
The regulations also set out how devolved Scottish contracting authorities are to be regulated by the Act if they choose to use a commercial tool established under the Act or to procure jointly with a buyer regulated by the Act. They also amend the Act to provide that reserved Northern Irish private utilities are not required to publish preliminary market engagement notices. This is because the Government do not wish to regulate the procurement of private utilities any more than is necessary. The regulations apply to reserved procurement in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and to procurement by a transferred, that is to say devolved, contracting authority in Northern Ireland. The Welsh Government have laid similar secondary legislation which will apply in respect of devolved procurement in Wales and elsewhere if the devolved body carrying out that procurement operates mainly in Wales.
The Government have consulted fully with stakeholders throughout the reform process and we published our response to the formal public consultation on these regulations on 22 March 2024. The consultation evoked a good response from the various representative sectors and confirmed that the proposed regulations generally worked as intended. Many stakeholders urged that certain matters be clarified and explained in guidance and training, which is a key part of the implementation programme that we are rolling out across the UK. We have listened to feedback and our response confirms a number of areas where the consultation led to technical and drafting improvements.
Contracting authorities and suppliers have made it clear that they will need time once this instrument has been laid to adapt their systems and processes before we go live, so the Government have provided six months’ advance notice of the new regime before the regulations come into force on 28 October 2024. Noble Lords should also be aware that the instrument has been corrected to remove drafting references and a couple of typographical errors which crept in during the publishing processes. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
From the attendance, we have established that more people are interested in hedgerows than procurement. I have participated in all of what I would call the post-Brexit plumbing legislation. Although this was not the most controversial part of that legislation, it has certainly taken a long time for us to get here. The Second Reading in your Lordships’ House was just five days short of two years ago, and we have to wait another six months for these rules to be implemented, so it will take two and a half years.
Hopefully, we have improved it. As some noble Lords will remember, the Minister was at that time a Back-Bencher, before she was propelled meteorically to her current role. I thought this correction was an homage to the original Bill when it was published. It arrived very quickly, with hundreds and hundreds of government amendments, which is part of the reason why it took so long for us to get here. But we have got here. One important thing that the Minister touched on, which was stressed very early in the process, was the central importance of the central digital platform. It would be helpful if she could confirm that that platform is 100% ready to go—I think we would all hope so.
In Regulation 11, the list of the “connected person information” is huge. Although the Minister said that this makes it simple for smaller companies, it will require a great deal of effort initially. Can she confirm that this is a one-off effort that those companies have to make? Will this central digital platform be able to replicate that information—copy and paste—or will people have to enter the same information, as they do now on a variety of digital platforms, often handfuls and sometimes dozens of times? Can the Minister confirm that that is how the new system will work and that it will work that way on day one?
Contracting authorities are clearly vital and their understanding of this big set of rules will be central to the functioning of this. Can the Minister tell us in some detail how they are being brought up to speed with what is required of them to make this work? In particular, how will they bring SMEs into the picture, where they have not been before? How will the contracting authorities engage SMEs? How will SMEs know that they are now in with a shout and have an opportunity? What information will go out to our SMEs so that they can properly participate in public procurement? The Minister did a lot of work, as both a Back-Bencher and a Minister, to put these rules in place, and it is important that her work is now properly propagated out to the market.
I should remember the answer to this, because I am sure we went into it, but utilities are treated substantially differently and there are different processes here. The Explanatory Notes say that we will create a “utilities dynamic market”. I do not have the faintest idea what that is, so can the Minister please say what it is and why we should celebrate it?
At the end of her speech, the Minister talked about the position of the NHS. She would be surprised if I did not bring that up. Perhaps she tried to pre-emptively head it off at the pass. There was a lot of debate and my noble friend Lady Brinton very much led on that. We were not happy, in a sense, with the way that health services were disapplied.
Regulation 43 talks about the disapplication of “regulated health procurement”. That is not the phrase that the Minister just used, so can she again define “regulated health procurement” for the record? She listed the fact that there is a custom-made process for those services in the NHS, but we should not be too complacent, because the first test of the new NHS rules on competition and procurement found against the NHS. The rules that were being vaunted just now are not being used properly within the NHS. The first review panel set up to oversee commissioning decisions found against the commissioner and advised it to abandon its procurement of ADHD services; it was the Cumbria integrated care board that failed to do this properly.
I know that the NHS falls under a different department, but the Cabinet Office is uniquely interested in procurement right across government. There should be no complacency about the system that is now being used with the NHS. The experts on procurement exist within the Cabinet Office and I would like the Minister to say now that the Cabinet Office will engage those experts to advise health boards on how to use their own rules properly—otherwise, we will waste a ton of money on appeals and rulings against health boards. It is quite clear that they do not have the capability to apply their own rules and that they need help. They will not get that from their own people, because it is not there; the expertise for procurement is within the Cabinet Office. So I want the Minister to say that it will step in and make sure that health boards know how to apply their own rules. With that, as it has been a long time coming, let us get this going.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we supported the introduction of the Procurement Act and we recognise that, following our departure from the EU, the opportunity arose to reshape the way that procurement is regulated in the UK. There are some steps that we particularly welcome, such as the transparency measures in the central digital platform, and steps to make procurement more straightforward for smaller businesses and social enterprises.
However, as my friend Nia Griffith MP, the shadow Minister in the Commons, said when this was discussed there last week, we maintain the view that this Act was something of a missed opportunity. Can the Minister outline for us what, in this new flagship procurement legislation, would prevent scandals such as the PPE VIP lane from happening again in the future?
I listened carefully to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about NHS procurement and the need to share the expertise of the Cabinet Office with the Department of Health and Social Care. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that, as it speaks to issues with working across government and between departments, which we understand can be tricky. However, in this instance, there seems to be a special role for the Cabinet Office to assist in preventing problems from arising in the future. We never want to see a repeat of the situation in which friends and party donors are given the first bite of the cherry, while decent, skilled local businesses are denied the same opportunity. It is difficult to see anything in the regulations that would specifically prevent these problems, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister. I assume, because I expect she was asked this repeatedly during passage of the Bill, that she can outline her Government’s position on this point.
Although we are disappointed on that specific issue, we hope that the Act serves what is probably a shared aim across all parties: to simplify and encourage more involvement from businesses that are the backbone of our economy, especially in the regions and nations of the UK where access to government contracts has been more challenging. We want to see wealth shared more fairly across the country, with businesses that employ local people and spend in their local economies given the same chance as other large businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I well remember moving from poacher to gamekeeper and working across the House to try to improve what was a very important Bill, not least because of the scale of procurement that it reached. Indeed, the Act embodies our ambition to open public procurement up to a more diverse supply base, making it easier for new entrants such as small businesses—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly mentioned them; indeed, all speakers mentioned them—and social enterprises. Remember that we added social enterprises during the passage of the Act, as well as measures to improve prompt payment for small businesses—those help small businesses—and the transparency of opportunities on a single platform. The Act also enables basic supplier details to be submitted only once, which picks up on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
In response to expert discussion in the House, I introduced additional measures during the passage of the Act. These included a new duty on contracting authorities to have regard to the particular barriers facing SMEs and to consider what can be done to overcome them, as well as 30-day payment terms on defence and utility contracts and through the supply chain. We removed unnecessary obstacles relating to audited accounts and insurance as conditions of participation—the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, put down amendments on those issues, I think—which can prevent SMEs winning public contracts.
The Act introduces a new centralised debarment regime, including a public debarment list, and allows the Government to investigate supplier misconduct, including taking action to protect the public supply chain. Of course, the procurement review unit will manage the new debarment regime, including investigating suppliers, while the new national security unit for procurement will manage the investigation of national security-related debarment cases. Importantly, the PRU will also oversee compliance with the new regime and will have the power to investigate non-compliance. These reforms will shape the future of public procurement in this country for many years to come, ensuring a modern and flexible procurement regime that will deliver better outcomes for taxpayers, service users and business.
I turn to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. In respect of the information that suppliers have to provide for connected persons, I am happy to advise that, as long as the information remains consistent, suppliers will have to supply this information only once when they register on the online system, which they can do at any time. When bidding for a procurement, they will need merely to confirm that the information they previously provided in respect of connected persons is still current, in the spirit of One Login.
A key objective of the Act and regulations made under it is to reduce the burden on suppliers by enabling them to store core supplier information in one place; that is called the supplier information service. The core information will then be provided to contracting authorities by each supplier who wishes to participate or bid. This reduces the time taken by suppliers to bid for public procurement opportunities by ensuring that common data can be submitted efficiently and effectively, without having to duplicate core information. This is of real benefit to business, particularly SMEs.
A utilities dynamic market is a pre-approved list of suppliers from which utilities can call off. Unlike a regular dynamic market, contracts are advertised only to members of the market. The online system will be operational and ready for use when the new regime comes into force on 28 October. We are working with e-procurement system providers to ensure their readiness. New notices will be phased, with the timings set out in the commencement regulations, which will be made shortly and will set out when relevant obligations will take effect. This reflects consultation. The phasing of the notices has been designed so that notices used in the planning, tender and award phases of a procurement will all be available from the outset. There will be a natural lag until later notices are required, so those will be brought in in phases.
I also mention the work that the Cabinet Office, which obviously co-ordinates all this, will do to support the new regime. It took me through it this morning. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was interested in the detail. There are four key elements. First, there are knowledge drops, which are a range of on-demand presentations providing an overview of all the changes in the legislation.
Secondly, there are e-learning modules, which consist of 10 one-hour modules and conclude with a skilled practitioner certificate. This core training product is open to all staff from contracting authorities and named individuals who regularly undertake procurement activity on their behalf. I will take away the point that was made about health experts and see whether it is possible for them to access some of this training material, as that seemed a good point to me.
Thirdly, there will be an advanced course of deep dives—a three-day intensive course for a smaller group who have completed the e-learning modules. They are the advanced commercial practitioners who will need to become experts. Fourthly, we are supporting communities of practice, building on good online practice, where practitioners can support each other by sharing, discussing and reflecting on best practice and the challenges and opportunities within the regime.
Noble Lords will know of my passion for helping small businesses. Clearly, we will keep an eye on the training, which starts with the contractors, to make sure that we get feedback from small businesses so that we know that the regime is working well.
The concept of dynamic markets is a good one. It means that suppliers can know in advance that they will be eligible to bid. You will get several suppliers who can all bid, and it makes the system quicker and more efficient, without undermining the safeguards that we need.
The Procurement Act has improved and strengthened safeguards, with, for example, the ability in Section 42 for the Government to set out in regulation specific public contracts that can be awarded directly for a limited time for the protection that might be needed. There are new transparency notices in Section 44, as detailed in Regulation 26, and more detailed conflict of interest provisions, including the preparation of a conflict assessment under Section 83. We discussed this at great length because we had the backdrop of PPE, and I remember well how we learned from that experience. That is one of the reasons why there are lots of different transparency measures and controls in these regulations. Even if we had to move to direct awards because of some national crisis, the controls would be applied in an appropriate way. We have tried very hard to work at that.
On healthcare, where I very much understand the noble Lord’s point, I should offer to write because he raised a point about a Cumbrian example that I am not familiar with. I made it clear at the beginning that I very much understood that in some areas, the NHS will be doing its own thing, but in other areas such as the construction of hospitals, it will be subject to the broad procurement rules. I have also said that I will take a look at ensuring that the health side takes advantage of the excellent training and online briefing that the Cabinet Office team has worked so hard on.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her point on the NHS and the health service and I look forward to receiving that letter.
There are just two things. I asked a specific question about the readiness of the central digital platform. I listened very hard indeed. I turned my hearing aid up, and I did not hear the Minister say that it is ready. In fact, I heard I heard her say that the department is working with contractors, and then she started talking about phases. That worries me, because of the centrality of this system in order for the Procurement Act to work. Can the Minister give some more detail on that? When will it be 100% ready?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was trying to be open and honest, as I always am, by emphasising what will be clearly ready and where we are bringing other things in in phases. The first stages will obviously be ready, and that is why we are bringing the arrangements in at the end of October, which fits into our deadlines, and then there will be other material coming through. However, with luck, the system we have set up for online briefing will ensure that people know where they are, and I think it will be like other policies I have been involved in. You get a sort of bell curve. To begin with, the new and innovative people use the system; and then gradually, as more material comes on and it gets around that actually, it is really good, you will get more people coming in and more SMEs. I am very keen to work with them to make sure that the share of the cake that SMEs have in procurement, which has gone up in the past couple of years, will continue to rise, and rise very substantially.
I repeat that the online system will be operational from 28 October. The notices will be phased, and timing will be set out in commencement regulations. Obviously, the notices required from 28 October will be available and ready to use. That confirms what I have said, but it gives the extra information that there will be commencement regulations. We will make sure that noble Lords who are interested are aware of them when they are finalised.
I repeat my thanks to all involved in the work. Actually, there is a succession of Ministers whom I have to thank. There are noble Lords right across the House who have been hugely helpful by challenging us and supporting us when we are right. I also thank the officials because it has been a very, very long slog. The new procurement regime starts on 28 October, and after that they will obviously have even more to do. Thank you very much. Please join me in supporting the regulations.
Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today amends the 2009 court martial rules by introducing a new procedure for the court to view sentences under new Sections 304D and 304E of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
With the leave of the Committee, I will set out the provisions to which the statutory instrument relates. Section 304D enables a person who has been sentenced by the court martial to have their sentenced reviewed to take account of assistance that they have given, or offered to give, to an investigator or prosecutor under an agreement of the Director of Service Prosecutions. A case may be referred for such a review only if the Director of Service Prosecutions believes such a referral to be in the interests of justice. The review in court may reduce the sentence in return for the assistance given or offered.
A person who received a sentence that was fixed by law—for example, a life sentence for murder—may have that sentence reviewed only if they pleaded guilty to the offence for which they received that sentence. A review may further discount a sentence that has already been discounted or reduced if the person sentenced gives or offers to give further assistance. Conversely, Section 304E provides for the sentence of a person to be reviewed if that person received a discounted sentence in return for assistance offered to an investigator or prosecutor and then failed to give that assistance.
If the review in court is satisfied that the person knowingly failed to give the assistance, the provision allows the court to increase the sentence to take account of that failure. However, it can be increased only up to a term not exceeding the level that the court indicated would have been the sentence had there been no agreement to provide assistance. Again, a case may be referred for such a review only if the Director of Service Prosecutions believes such a referral to be in the interests of justice. These provisions closely follow those contained within the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which applied to the civilian criminal justice system.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the right of appeal contained in both 304D and 304E, providing for appeals for any decision coming out of a sentence review. This appeal mechanism is available for a person whose sentence has been reviewed as well as the Director of Service Prosecutions who may also appeal against a decision on review. The Armed Forces (Appeal Against Review of Sentence) Regulations 2024, which were laid before Parliament on 13 May and is subject to the negative procedure, regulates Section 304D and 304E appeals.
The statutory instrument is somewhat technical in nature. It inserts a new Part 14A into the 2009 court martial rules to set out the basic court rules governing review of sentence proceedings. It also notes various technical amendments to the general provisions of the court martial rules so that they apply to review of sentence proceedings. For example, Rule 6 of these rules amends Rule 23 of the 2009 rules, so that if the court martial dealing with a review of sentence proceedings decides to substitute the original sentence with a new one, that substituted sentence must form part of the record of proceedings.
As your Lordships will see, the changes are technical, but they are needed to ensure that Sections 304D and 304E work as intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I respond to the regulations by saying that I very much support the proposals. I do so having compared the process for court martial with that for discharge from the Royal Navy on medical grounds. The latter is the most inhumane and unfair process that I have ever come across. I ask the Committee’s leave to bear with me for a few moments so that I can put on record why I am unashamedly using this opportunity to speak on court martial to alert the Minister to the truth about the process applied to serving personnel who may not be operating at full capacity in the Navy due to an illness, an illness that was most likely contracted or occurred while in service.
The key point is that a court martial allows serving personnel to be represented and the opportunity to make his or her case to rebut the charges in person. In contrast, the Royal Navy’s employability board acts behind closed doors, even when someone has asked, with detailed reasons and letters of support from others within the Navy and the medics, for his or her case to be reviewed. Instead of an interview with serving personnel in person, in the first instance, the board sends out what it calls a signal, which means an alert for a line manager to call an individual and say, “You’re discharged”. The line manager then informs that individual that they are discharged and because the line manager most probably does not know what the process is because he or she has not been told, he or she unknowingly gives the individual incorrect advice about an appeal process and timing.
No reasons or explanation for the discharge are given at that point, so an individual who wishes to appeal that decision is up against a time limit and cannot know what they are appealing against. Eventually—too late—a letter couched in the most appalling, unpleasant language arrives in the Navy post. It basically writes someone off, even if that individual has skills, experience and capabilities of which we know the Navy is in dire need. The result is that years of training, service, commitment and adaptability are wasted, and an individual who has served his or her country is devastated, on the floor. No one has even bothered to sign that letter.
If the individual asks for their case to be reviewed and submits detailed reasons, again, there is no interview by the employability board and no consideration of a possible transfer to other branches to utilise experience and capabilities, attributes that may be supported by others in the Navy who work with and know the applicant. No reference is made where an individual who has moved heaven and earth to return to 100% fitness, most probably at their own expense, confirms a marked improvement or an expectation of full recovery in the short term. No reasons are given in the event that the review is unsuccessful. Another signal just goes out to the line manager stating “no change”.
Will the Minister therefore take time to meet me so that I can share in more detail this unacceptable and frankly shocking truth? I believe it sends a terrible message, not least to all those who have signed up to the Armed Forces covenant. In a court of law, that message would not stand up to the most basic principles of transparency and fairness, coupled with the accountability of the board.
I close by confirming that no armed forces personnel, serving or veteran, are aware of my decision to make this statement today.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness’s speech. I hope that she has my success in dealing with the Navy. Many years ago, I put down a Question to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who was then in the Ministry of Defence, about the practice of marching the defendant in a court martial into the court at the point of a cutlass. I thought that that was perhaps not appropriate when there is the presumption of innocence and that it was not appropriate in our day and age. Between putting down the Question and getting the Answer, the ancient custom was abolished for all time.
It is a privilege to be debating with the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I am sure he does not remember this, but we last exchanged words at the gate of his home, Minto House in Scotland. He may remember that I expressed my huge admiration for his ancestor, the first Earl of Minto, who was a very liberal governor-general of India and a wonderful politician for whom I have the greatest respect and about whom I have written a lot. So it is a pleasure to be in the noble Earl’s company again.
I declare an interest as the president of the Association of Military Court Advocates, although I am not speaking on its behalf and the views I express are not the considered view of that association.
As the noble Earl said, this draft SI derives from Sections 304D and 304E, which were inserted into the Armed Forces Act 2006 by the Armed Forces Act 2016. That was eight years ago, not now, so perhaps the Minister can explain why it has taken eight years for the appropriate secondary legislation to be put in place.
Section 304D applies where the review is to consider a reduction of a sentence for co-operation or assistance. Section 304E applies where a person has been given a discount on sentence but has failed to co-operate. In my experience in the Crown Court, the common law position was that, where a convicted person wished to take advantage of any assistance he may have given or was offering to the prosecution, a “text”—it was commonly called that—was prepared by the police or the prosecution and handed to the judge in chambers. This was a secretive procedure, and usually the defendant had to rely upon the good faith of the police or the security services. He did not see the text and the judge did not refer to it in court. Your Lordships will appreciate that giving assistance to the investigating authorities is positively dangerous for a person who has been sentenced and is serving a prison sentence.
This clandestine procedure was given statutory force in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, as amended by the Sentencing Act 2020. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum does not refer to the 2020 Act, and I wonder whether it was prepared in 2016, in the light of the Armed Forces Act, prior to the amendments to SOPA.
The civilian provisions in SOPA introduced the possibility of a review of a sentence after it had been passed and while it was being served. They involve a careful series of steps to be taken by prosecutors, and the consideration of a number of factors by the court. To qualify for a review of his sentence, the offender may offer to give King’s evidence, as it is called, in a subsequent trial of his associates, or he may simply provide intelligence of their activities, or both. In most cases, the anonymity of the prisoner is maintained for obvious reasons. Copious and lengthy guidance notes for prosecutors are published by the Crown Prosecution Service, covering a variety of topics, including the criteria for allowing a review, the obtaining of a written agreement, the conduct of interviews, the need to inform the police or other investigating authority of the proposal, the documents to be supplied to the court and so on. My first question is: will the Service Prosecuting Authority or the Director of Service Prosecutions rely on those guidance notes, or will specific Service Prosecuting Authority guidance be published?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my entry in the register of interests, specifically my roles with the Royal Navy. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to this piece of secondary legislation. Subject to what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, this is straightforward and I do not plan to delay the Committee for long. As my friend in the other place, Luke Pollard, made clear, His Majesty’s Opposition do not object to this legislation, but we do have some questions pertaining to the detail and government policy.
The outlined rules are not controversial and Labour Party policy is clear that we would like to see more, not less, criminal activity explored through the civilian courts—not least murder, manslaughter and rape. Given that these amendments bring the service justice system further in line with the criminal justice system, is it not time that MMR committed in the UK by service personnel should be included in the civilian justice system? This is all the more important given recent scandals.
Can the Minister expand on the decision to limit the jurisdiction of these amendments? Why do they not apply to Gibraltar? There is a growing body of Armed Forces legislation that applies to UK personnel everywhere except Gibraltar. Why should offences committed in Gibraltar be treated in a different and out-of-date fashion, not in line with what we now consider to be best practice?
The Minister in the other place, Dr Murrison, was asked to expand on the rationale of the eligibility criteria. He opted not to do so. Can the Minister assure the Committee that consideration will be given to previous service when considering the eligibility criteria? Will relationships built during years of service but not at the time of the alleged offence be considered? This is not in the Explanatory Memorandum. What about the role of sustained joint operations? Will people who serve in a sister unit still be eligible to sit on a relevant court martial?
Broadly, this is a welcome update. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those points of clarification. Before I finish, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for raising the challenges surrounding medical discharge. I am sure the Minister heard her testimony and will seek further details on the circumstances that she raised.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friend Lady Buscombe for her unsettling but powerful speech. I am more than happy to meet her and discuss in full detail the points she raised. Given the conversations we have had in the Chamber about forces numbers, recruitment and retention, it is extremely disturbing to hear that this is dealt with, as she said, in an inconsiderate and inhumane way. It is not acceptable and we will take that up.
I will probably catch most of the questions. I do not think I am particularly suited to the issues in law that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised, so, if I may, I will write in full detail to him about them.
The question of why it has taken so long has been addressed, but I fully agree that eight years is a very long time to get to this point. There has been activity for some while but there has been a certain amount of toing and froing and the process could have been speeded up. As I said, we are not intending to alter the process; we are just following up the existing one. That is one of the key points.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked how this will work in practice. It is important to note that a review itself is not an appeal against a sentence but an entirely separate process that takes place because new circumstances have arisen. The review process will not be inhibited by the fact that the Court Martial Appeal Court may already have heard or decided against the original sentence or whether the sentence was varied on appeal. Again, it is a separate process. I fully understood the noble Lord’s point about the sensitivity of some of these issues concerning whether these reviews should take place in person rather than virtually, on Zoom. We will certainly consider that.
Although the equivalent measures in the criminal justice system are rarely used, they are still an important feature of the justice system, as noble Lords will agree. There will be cases where the evidence from a witness or offender/defendant could be crucial but fears about self-incrimination might stop an individual coming forward and providing essential information. As with any case, prosecutors need to consider competing public interest issues, which, in these types of cases, include issues relating to the victim of the original offence.
The commencement of these provisions from 2016 is well overdue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, this brings a sensible improvement to the service justice framework. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to speculate on how and when these provisions may be used in the future.
The Armed Forces Act does not extend to Gibraltar, so the statutory instruments made under the Act do not extend there either. The extent is simply the jurisdiction in which Armed Forces legislation forms part of the local law. Gibraltar is referenced as an exception, as Armed Forces legislation extends to all other British Overseas Territories. I do not know—I will find out and write—but I imagine that it is a historical quirk from some point in the past.
Finally, the whole question of MMR is contained within this, and it is an extremely important and valid point. We are trying to align these amendments with what is currently in the civil criminal law.
I hope the Committee will agree that, although these measures are technical, they are necessary to improve the functioning of the military justice system, and I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.
Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Roborough
That the Grand Committee do consider the Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this SI forms part of the Government’s ambitious programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services and to replace areas of assimilated law, formerly known as retained EU law, in financial services with an approach to regulation that is tailored to the UK. That includes the EU law relating to securitisation. In January this year, Parliament agreed to establish a new legislative framework to replace the assimilated securitisation regulation of 2017. This included revoking regulations from UK legislation to enable the UK financial services regulators, the PRA and the FCA, to make rules for securitisation. This framework will come into effect from commencement on 1 November 2024.
Occupational pension schemes are also subject to securitisation due diligence rules. Occupational pension schemes are supervised by the Pensions Regulator. However, the Pensions Regulator does not have equivalent statutory rule-making powers to the PRA and the FCA and so cannot make the necessary rules for occupational pension schemes. These rules need to be created in legislation instead. Therefore, this instrument restates due diligence requirements for occupational pension schemes which invest in securitisations. HM Treasury’s approach is necessary to avoid a regulatory gap after the coming into force of the revocation of the securitisation regulation of 2017 and to ensure consistency in due diligence requirements for institutional investors, whether subject to forthcoming FCA and PRA rules or supervised by the pension scheme regulator.
This instrument maintains the Government’s existing approach whereby most rules governing occupational pension schemes investors are set through legislation. Legislating for these changes now has allowed the Government to reflect the outcome of the regulators’ consultations and final policy views on due diligence requirements for other financial services firms. The approach also ensures that occupational pension schemes face the same rules as other firms. These restated due diligence requirements include targeted adjustments to ensure that they are more principles-based and proportionate—for example, streamlining the amount of information required to assess risks and clarifying responsibility for due diligence requirements where investment decisions are delegated. This should reduce regulatory burdens on occupational pension schemes and support their participation in the UK securitisation market.
This SI designates the FCA as responsible for supervising any occupational pension schemes that are acting as originators, sponsors or special purpose entities for securitisations. This aligns the supervision of occupational pension schemes with other firms which are undertaking these activities. In practice, HM Treasury envisages that the impact will be minimal as neither my department nor the regulators is aware of any occupational pension schemes engaged in these activities. However, the Government wish to anticipate the possibility and deal with it.
This SI also makes two changes to make the investor protection framework in the UK more effective and competitive. It restates the prohibition on transacting securitisations through securitisation special purpose entities in high-risk jurisdictions. These are the three jurisdictions subject to FATF measures, namely Iran, Myanmar and North Korea. The SI modifies the prohibition in two ways. It expands this restriction to investors in securitisations as well as originators and sponsors of securitisations. However, it streamlines the requirement, reducing regulatory burdens by removing a redundant prohibition on engaging in securitisations in jurisdictions which do not comply with certain OECD model tax agreements. This also removes ambiguity from the requirement.
HM Treasury published a draft SI and policy note on these changes in July 2023 which received generally positive industry feedback on the principles-based approach to restated provisions. Together, the changes made by this SI will ensure the consistency and integrity of UK securitisation regulation for institutional investors in securitisation, whether subject to regulator rules or restated provisions. The changes also ensure that the UK’s requirements are more proportionate, streamlined and principles-based, whether for due diligence requirements on occupational pension schemes as institutional investors or for compliance with prohibitions on securitisations in high-risk jurisdictions. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this SI and will support it today. Its provisions are clearly necessary and are mostly explained clearly in the accompanying documentation. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could say a few words about commencement and address a few questions.
Two provisions seem to come into force when the instrument is made, and the rest on 1 November later this year. As I read it, this arrangement aims, in essence, to correct a mistake in January’s SI and to give the regulators time to introduce the envisaged new rules on the repeal of existing EU law on 1 November. Is that correct? I would be happy to wait for an answer.
We have a few questions arising from HMT’s policy note of July last year, dealing with this SI. In paragraph 4.8, HMT says that
“the FCA will be provided with a specific rulemaking power to make due diligence requirements for small, registered UK AIFMs who are institutional investors”.
What progress is being made in this area? When can we expect to see the necessary draft SI?
I turn to paragraph 4.13, which explains that,
“where an OPS delegates its investment management decisions and due diligence obligations for investing in a securitisation to another institutional investor (whether they are another OPS, an FCA firm, or a PRA firm), sanctions for failure to comply would be imposed on the managing party, and not the delegating party”.
This does not appear to work the other way round. Paragraph 4.14 says:
“Where an institutional investor who is an FCA firm or a PRA firm delegates its investment management and due diligence obligations to an OPS, sanctions for failure to comply would not be imposed on the OPS as the managing party”.
Does this not let the OPS off rather lightly? Why should it not operate to the same standards of due diligence as FCA and PRA firms?
Paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17 deal with matters to which the FCA and the PRA must have regard. Paragraph 4.16 says that
“the Sec Reg contains a requirement for the originator, sponsor, or original lender of a securitisation to maintain a material net economic interest in the securitisation of at least 5% … Once the Sec Reg is repealed, the FCA and the PRA are expected to make rules covering some of the same areas, such as risk retention, for different sets of firms”.
It explicitly acknowledges:
“This risks fracturing the regime which currently exists and increasing complexity”.
The next paragraph, paragraph 4.17, proposes what seems to be intended as a remedy. It acknowledges the importance of the regime being “clear and coherent” and says that
“this SI requires the FCA and the PRA to have regard to the coherence of the overall framework for the regulation of securitisation when making rules relating to securitisation”.
It is not immediately obvious that this rather loose and third-order requirement will prevent the risk of fracturing the current regime and increasing complexity. Replacing a simple, generally applicable risk retention scheme by a layered and necessarily more complicated scheme seems a retrograde step. Can the Minister say what the current thinking is and, if we remain committed to this approach, why?
I acknowledge that I have asked some rather detailed questions. Of course, I would be happy if the Minister were to write to us in response.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this SI and setting out its purpose. I welcome him to his place.
As the noble Lord noted in his opening remarks, this statutory instrument forms part of a wider programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services. We support this SI as it closes a potential gap in regulation. We believe that it is part of an important package of reform aimed at developing in our country a securitisation market that contributes to growth in the real economy.
I have just two questions. First, I understand that the FCA and the PRA expect to consult on further changes to their securitisation rules in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025. Is the Minister confident that those timelines will be met? Secondly, in the event of a Dissolution of Parliament, will the regulators be under any rule-making restrictions during the regulated period? Does the Treasury have a clear schedule of SIs that require consideration by Parliament in the remainder of the current Session? I thank the noble Lord in advance for his answers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I will try to answer some of the detailed questions that were asked as well as I can but I will have to write on some of them, I am afraid.
Let me first respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. On timing, we expect that commencing the regulations on 1 November will give the industry time to prepare for the PRA’s and the FCA’s new rules, which regulators will consult on. There will be no further legislation. The regulators are consulting on rules to complement the securitisation SIs.
This will not specifically answer the question on risk retention but the UK’s approach currently aligns with the recommendations from the International Organization of Securities Commissions on; we therefore consider this to be best practice internationally at the moment. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s question went further than that, so I will address that.
This SI represents an important step in finalising the UK’s new financial services framework for securitisation. It complements the Securitisation Regulations 2024 by ensuring consistency on due diligence requirements for all firms participating in the securitisation market. It restates an important prohibition on securitisations in high-risk jurisdictions. The SI was scrutinised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which made no comment on it and did not draw it to the special attention of the House. A de minimis impact assessment was published alongside this SI; it indicates that, on an ongoing basis, the SI should reduce occupational pension schemes’ compliance costs by making the rules more proportionate.
I will need to reply to the noble Lords, Lord Livermore and Lord Sharkey, on some of their detailed questions but I thank both of them for contributing to this debate, which I hope the Committee has found informative. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, to put this SI into context, in order to place many manufactured goods, ranging from toys to machinery, on the market in Great Britain, manufacturers must ensure that products comply with the requirements of product regulations. Following EU exit, many EU product regulations were integrated into UK law, and we introduced the UK conformity assessed regime—UKCA—as our product regulation approach in Great Britain.
Since 1 January 2021, UKCA has been in use alongside recognition of the EU’s CE and reversed epsilon markings. This recognition of the EU’s CE and reversed epsilon markings is due to end on 31 December 2024, meaning that manufacturers of products in scope of this instrument would have no choice but to meet UKCA requirements to sell their products in Great Britain legally. The Government know that businesses currently face increasing burdens, with cost of living pressures and global supply chain challenges. As part of our smarter regulation programme, we are looking to minimise regulatory burdens where feasible to reduce business costs and help grow the economy. That is why we are introducing this instrument to continue the recognition of EU requirements using powers under the retained EU law Act 2023.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this important announcement. I do not think that the Minister was in your Lordships’ House when we discussed the retained EU law Bill. If he was, he was very wise not to be on the Front Bench at the time. As your Lordships will recall, we were marched forcibly three-quarters of the way up the hill only to be marched back down again.
This statutory instrument is very much indicative of the position that we arrived at after we had marched back down the hill and is infinitely more sensible than where we would have been had we enacted the original retained EU law Bill, and for that the Government and Ministers need some credit.
I have a slight concern—I may have misunderstood. My understanding is that the deadline for recognition of CE is pushed to one side and that CE will be recognised indefinitely, except the Government retain the right to impose non-CE regulations if they decide that they want to do so. That leaves an air of uncertainty, so it would be interesting to hear a response to that.
The Minister hinted at the overall future of CA. Industry has been pushing hard not to have a dual standard, and the department has done well to bow to that. However, the point that was not being made—which we were trying to make at the time—was that it would be expensive. It is good to hear that it would have cost half a billion pounds for industry to conform to that and it is glad that it did not have to do so. Why are we retaining CA? How much resource will the Government commit to the process of having a separate standard, even though the market will inevitably drive most of the players into the CE camp for accreditation? I would like some more clarity around the future of CA.
The Minister mentioned the product safety review. I think we would all like to know when it will be published, as it was promised some time ago and is still not among us. It would be really interesting to know when it will be. I have one final question around Northern Ireland. My assumption is that this solves any potential cross-border issues between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but could the Minister confirm that?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and setting out its purpose and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution. I, too, was not in the House when the retained EU law Bill was debated, although I read sections of Hansard in preparation for today’s debate.
It would be churlish of me not to welcome this instrument, which effectively extends indefinitely the looming deadline of 31 December 2024—a deadline already extended twice since it was first legislated for in 2020. Business will welcome this move. It will save it time and money by not having to comply with two different and, in some cases, largely completely overlapping regulatory regimes. Consumers will welcome this move too. It removes the potential double whammy of higher prices and less choice for GB consumers that would have resulted from some manufacturers deciding it was not worth their while or the cost to meet the additional bureaucracy of the UKCA regime.
Of course, the Government have welcomed their own move. It is estimated that this SI will save businesses more than £500 million in the next decade, as the Minister stated. At the risk of being churlish, I must observe that attempts to present this as an example of their being a great friend of business stretch credulity somewhat. One would not herald the captain’s decision to change course at the last minute to avoid sailing into an iceberg that everyone else knew had been looming for a long time as a “titanic success”.
This instrument will mean that businesses can now use either CE or UKCA markers when placing goods on the GB market—although not, of course, in Northern Ireland because of its unique situation. The Venn diagram of the CE regime and the UKCA regime will become concentric circles, with the former completely enclosing the later. Despite this, paragraph 6.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The UKCA requirements which are not, however, treated as being satisfied by the above steps are the manufacturer’s obligations to … Draw up a UK Declaration of Conformity … and … Apply UKCA product marking”.
Perhaps the Minister can explain why this remains necessary for goods which are sold in the GB market. Is this not a textbook example of meaningless rubber-stamping?
Not unrelated to this, what is the Minister’s response to conformity assessment bodies that have raised concerns with the Department for Business and Trade that demand for their services in respect of the UKCA mark will fall due to this statutory instrument? How does he intend to work with the sector to support a domestic route to market for relevant UKCA marked products?
Finally, as the Minister knows, SMEs are always at the forefront of my concerns. They will have been disproportionately affected by the costs of now unnecessary preparation for conformity to a regime that was due to come into force in less than eight months’ time. While we welcome this SI, can the Minister say if there has been any assessment of the costs that will already have been incurred across different sectors, especially those with longer lead times, and SMEs in particular? There seems little value in trumpeting potential savings if the businesses that may have benefited have already scaled down, or even closed down, their export capacity.
While we welcome this sensible SI, I do hope the Minister can illuminate the Committee with answers to my questions.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Leong, for their contributions. No, I was not here at the time of REUL, but I have been involved its implementation in the last 12 months at the Department for Business and Trade, and I am very proud to say that 1,400 pieces of legislation have been revoked—about 20% of the statute book. I am also very proud that we in Britain are taking, as usual, a pragmatic approach: where we can use the same legislation to effectively adopt sensible regulation, we can do that at the same time as repealing those we want to remove from the statute book. On the question of how long this will last, this is an indefinite extension, but it will be a dynamic situation going forward; it does not imply automatic divergence or indeed convergence in the future. We will assess that regulation by regulation and, in doing so, will therefore get the benefit of choosing the best route for our businesses.
Let me respond to the question of why we are retaining UKCA, raised by both noble Lords. The Government are committed to making sure that UKCA remains a viable route for businesses to sell products in Great Britain. It is important that we have our own approach because, as I said before, we may need to do something in the future that we consider to be in the interests of UK businesses and consumers that may require some divergence from the EU. We will cross that bridge when we get there. We are already, for example, using our current autonomy by having the UKCA regime introduce digital labelling, which is giving us and businesses more flexibility. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I can also confirm that this means we will recognise CE in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the majority regulations, again making it easier for businesses to sell products across the whole UK market.
Turning to the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, about the conformity assessment market, we have put in place a regime that we will build in future, but we will continue to work with UKAS to understand the capacity of the conformity assessment market and make sure there is sufficient capacity to ensure that the domestic route to market is still available. Although in the short term, it may require a less immediate standard, that capability will build in the future as we move forward.
To give a high-level summary, this legislation will provide industry with a path of certainty and clarity to continue placing goods on the Great British market, removing the 31 December deadline. It will reduce duplicative costs, as we have said. It will save UK businesses a significant amount of money over the next 10 years. We think that approximately 9,600 UK manufacturers will benefit from reduced conformity marking and labelling burdens, and some 2,000 UK manufacturers will not need duplicative conformity assessments. This has come about as a result of close engagement with industry. We are listening to what industry, large and small, has said; that is the role of government. We will continue to take a pragmatic approach to improving regulation in order to benefit businesses and consumers, while maintaining our commitment to high levels of protection for UK consumers.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked about the quantum of continued public investment in CA, and whether the Minister can give an idea of how much investment will be going into what may become a dwindling standard going forward.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The noble Lord also asked about the date of review. Those are two technical issues on which, if he does not mind, I will write.
I beg to move.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Retirement of a Member: The Earl of Sandwich
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Earl for his much-valued service to the House.
Hate Crimes Against Muslim Women
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to reduce hate crimes against Muslim women and to what extent their plans involve engaging with diverse Muslim women’s groups across the country.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register, particularly as the CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
My Lords, anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. From ensuring the safety of worshippers and working with the police to supporting victims, we will continue to take swift action to address anti-Muslim hatred, and this includes safeguarding Muslim women. We are committed to tackling anti-Muslim hatred through a co-ordinated cross-departmental effort. To this end, we will provide £117.6 million to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools across the country until 2028.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank the Minister for meeting me last week, when I shared concerns about Tell MAMA, in that Muslim communities do not have trust and confidence in Tell MAMA. I have written a letter to the Government with 31 questions about Tell MAMA, and the Government have not answered them. When will the Government answer my questions in full, and when will Tell MAMA’s data be made available in full? When will Tell MAMA’s poor governance and the quality of its work be assessed? When will its funding be reviewed? It gets around £1 million a year, and no one knows what it does with this money. Why the lack of transparency when it comes to Tell MAMA?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
We have funded Tell MAMA since 2012 to monitor and support victims of anti-Muslim hatred. Tell MAMA is subject to internal grant funding review processes and due diligence checks. This is the case for all funded partners’ processes before any funding agreement can be processed annually. Therefore, Tell MAMA engages regularly with DLUHC officials monitoring its progress. Relationships with all government-funded partners are kept under constant review, and we will ensure that concerns around any governance or accounting matters are considered. Given that many of the noble Baroness’s 31 questions raise such concerns, it would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically at this time, but I will revert to her privately.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, British Muslim women have borne the brunt of the sharp rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, but there are well-established women’s groups that have been at the forefront of providing follow-up support for many who do not feel able to report some of these crimes to the police or even to other groups, including those mentioned today. Have there been any reviews or evaluations, particularly of Prevent funds that could be redirected to Muslim women’s groups and organisations that have years of experience in providing support and education for women and their families?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that there is extensive engagement to understand the issues affecting British Muslims, including Muslim women. Only last week the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, met a small group of community stakeholders, including Muslim women, specifically to discuss community cohesion and hate crime.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, it pains me to stand up on this Question, particularly when we are talking about an organisation that should be dealing with monitoring anti-Muslim hatred. I am grateful to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for giving me sight of her Question and of the letter she sent to my noble friend’s department. To some extent I bear responsibility, as I was there when the organisation was set up. There are deep concerns about its finances, governance, associations and connections, including with the now-defunct Quilliam Foundation—which has associations with think tanks in the United States that are peddling anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia—and with people whom successive Home Secretaries have excluded from the United Kingdom. These are really serious allegations about an organisation that is there to protect Muslims in the United Kingdom. I urge my noble friend to look at these matters seriously. It is important that organisations funded by the Government to protect British nationals of whatever faith have the confidence of the communities they seek to protect.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness, and all the speakers so far, that I have taken up this matter since I came into this position. The department is being asked to investigate and look at all the matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and others.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Warsi, I am also aware of many of the allegations in their questions. I have worked with Muslim women for subsequent Governments for at least 26 years, while I have been in the House and long before. What assurance can British Muslim women take from a prolonged absence of any meaningful engagement or action to address their experiences of discrimination inside, outside, at work and within the institutions that serve them?
With regard to the comments the Minister made about the amount of money available, there is an incredible disconnect between what she said and the experiences of women’s organisations up and down the country.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I would like to reassure the House that we have conducted extensive engagement over the last year in particular. The DLUHC Secretary of State hosted a round table with Muslim experts in late 2023 to hear of their experiences and feedback. Ministers have also conducted visits to a broad range of community groups to increase understanding and to see the valuable work that many Muslim community groups are doing. We are engaged in these matters, and this is one of many things we are doing to try to combat some of the issues that Muslim women in particular are facing.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as the shadow Faith Minister, I hear increasing reports when I meet faith communities that their members are feeling unsafe in our country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Muslim women—especially hijabi women—are very often on the front line of Islamophobia on our streets.
The Government have refused to bring forward a new hate crime strategy, even though the old one is four years old and out of date, and we are seeing soaring levels of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Can the Minister tell the House who the Government consulted before making their decision? Did they meet with the Muslim Women’s Network, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, or any other women’s faith organisations to hear their experiences?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
His Majesty’s Government have publicly confirmed, in response to Parliamentary Questions laid previously, that they do not intend to publish a new hate crime strategy. However, we remain committed to protecting all communities from crime and we have a number of programmes in place to do so. For example, the Government have worked with the police to fund True Vision, an online hate crime reporting portal designed so that victims of all types of hate crime do not have to visit a police station to report. We also fund the national online hate crime hub, a central capability designed to support individual local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. This is a cross-departmental piece of work. We are working with every department to try to make sure we cover all bases.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, is it not important to ensure that young Muslim girls know how they should be treated when they are in the community, and where they can go for help? One of our best academy trusts is Star Academies, which runs Muslim faith schools. In light of the problems that have been outlined, can my noble friend perhaps beef up the teaching and the education in our schools to ensure that young Muslim people know where to go for help and what their expectation of how they are to be treated should be?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness. The Department for Education, the Home Office and all sorts of other departments are involved in this programme. It is really important that we make sure that everyone has the necessary skills to deal with this appropriately.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I recently read a report saying that more and more Sikh women are wearing turbans and are often the victims of hate crime as well. Are the Government engaged with any programmes or funding for Sikh women who are the victims of these hate crimes?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will check for the noble Lord what specific engagement there has been. I am aware that there is cross-faith group engagement—particularly by my noble friend, the Minister sitting alongside me—for all religions and all groups, including women from those faith groups.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the action the Government are taking to ensure much greater integration. My concerns are disadvantaged women in society and their access to health. Can my noble friend tell me whether they are looking not only at hate crime but at access to NHS services?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My noble friend raises a valid point. It is really important that, in all walks of life, nobody feels they are being discriminated against. It is therefore important to make sure that everybody has the necessary skills to raise their concerns and that there are avenues available to do so. I will raise this with my noble friend the Minister for Health to make sure we cover it adequately.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock? She asked what specific groups the Government have been consulting with. In the Minister’s replies to the noble Baroness and to me, she said that the Government are meeting with a small group of Muslim experts. Who are these experts and groups? If she does not have the answer, can the Minister write to me? There are a number of Muslim Peers in the Chamber right now, and I am pretty sure that none of us knows who on earth the Government are talking to.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I do not have a list with me, but it is an extensive list. I undertake to speak with the noble Baroness as to the extent of the engagement.
Armed Forces: Land War Readiness
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of land war readiness of regular and reserve troops across the armed forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, our Armed Forces are at all times ready to protect and defend the UK, and we continue to meet all operational commitments, both at home and overseas. The global security environment is undoubtedly challenging, and that is why this Government have committed to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, including a £10 billion investment in the UK’s munitions infrastructure. We are also heavily investing in equipping and modernising both the Regular Army and the reserves. By 2026, the Army will have built the foundations for the force of 2030, with readiness and resilience fit for the next decade.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my registered interests. The House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report earlier this year, exploring our readiness for war, was scathing. The committee found that while our operational readiness is proven, our war-fighting readiness is in doubt and our strategic readiness has no measurable outcomes. All services are currently deployed above their capacity with significant capability gaps and have failed in their recruitment targets in every year since 2010. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Haythornthwaite review and promised a detailed response this year. Given the current recruitment and retention rate crisis across all services and the impact on our ability to deploy, when can we expect a detailed plan from the MoD?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am sure I do not need to tell anybody in this House that defence is an active, changing situation, and we need to change to events and threats as we see them. As I said, we invest significantly in Armed Forces readiness and will continue to do so. The Royal Navy has 22 ships—now nearly 28 ships—on order. The RAF has greater lift capacity than at any time, and the British Army was deployed in 67 countries last year. While there is a lot to do, if we think about the international, multinational operations that we are engaged in—Prosperity Guardian, Shader, Kipion and Steadfast Defender, to name just a few—let alone delivering vital aid in Gaza, we should be rightly proud of all their efforts.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. Neither the first nor third division can deploy as a division without large elements of the reserve, and it is a misnomer that all the Regular Army is at higher readiness than the reserve Army. There are even elements of the Army Reserve which are at higher readiness than parts of the Regular Army. Indeed, for Op Tosca in Cyprus, three of the last rotations of our peacekeeping mission have been delivered by the Army Reserve. With this in mind, will my noble friend welcome the fact that this year, for the first year, the Army Reserve budget is protected, meaning that it is not subject to in-year savings measures and enabling it to ensure that it can meet its readiness?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making an extremely important point, particularly about the financing of the reserves. We should never forget that reserves are essential on and off the battlefield. It is all very well relying on the first echelon, but without the second and third echelons in place and working like clockwork, there will be trouble down the line. The value in which reserves are held is extremely high and I am delighted that they are so ready.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that the RAF is stronger than ever before. Is he aware that 80 years ago, on D-day, 1,000 C-47s carried our paratroopers to the coast of France? In a fortnight’s time, on the anniversary, there will be a commemoration service. Have the Government managed to find a second plane to drop the paras in France for that commemoration, or can we take it that there will be “up to” two planes?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We are all sitting here because of the success of D-day. The 80th anniversary commemoration is an extremely important moment. As I said in my response to the last question, the RAF is fully employed elsewhere, as are all the other forces. The Government and the Ministry of Defence are working hard to ensure that there are sufficient platforms for an appropriate remembrance to be carried out.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one essential requirement for an effective land war fighting capability is to have enough people to man the existing posts within the force structure. Last year, the outflow from the Army far exceeded the intake. A very large proportion of potential Army recruits give up because the process takes far too long. There are also many medical rejections, some of which seem rather baffling. I know of one case where an athletic young lady was refused because she had broken her leg some years previously. Given the importance of manning the force structure, is it not time that the military, and the Army in particular, focused much more on how to get people in, rather than how to keep them out?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I cannot but agree with the noble and gallant Lord. It is obviously extremely important to maintain the correct numbers and have the recruitment and retention process running as smoothly as possible. We are making improvements to recruitment, and I am delighted to say that things are speeding up. We are taking quite a broad look at some of the medical requirements now. I am not aware of the broken leg example, but it is indicative of some of the challenges that we have faced in the past.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we have seen from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza that, if Britain did become involved in a land war, it would look very different from any war that we have ever fought in the past. The skills that our troops will need are changing all the time, as the Minister has alluded to, but we will have 9,000 fewer troops to work with by 2025—a policy that my party would reverse. Are the lower numbers compatible with the greater skills that we would need to fight a modern land war?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the question of absolute numbers must be overlaid with that of capability. There is no question that we do not need the numbers that we have required in the past. In fact, the First Sea Lord has mentioned that modern warships will have fewer fighting troops on them. I fully agree on the challenges that we face with the existing numbers. War fighting readiness obviously involves modernisation and mobilisation of conventional forces, as well as upgrading nuclear systems. It also involves intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance capabilities, electronic warfare, signals, intelligence, cyber and electronics. It is a very broad base so, to the previous question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the breadth of recruitment needs to be very carefully looked at.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, there are 280 regular chaplains serving in the Armed Forces, including more than 150 from the Church of England, and they are working closely with the wider Church to build strong partnerships, which would be essential in the event of a major deployment. Their work is for the whole Armed Forces and the families who would be left behind, irrespective of faith. Does the Minister agree that chaplains continue to play a crucial role in the life of the Armed Forces both at home and when deployed in conflict zones?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I apologise to the admiral; I am sure his time will come. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government website details on our reserve situation are curiously uninformative? They do not make a clear distinction between the regular reserves and the Army reserves, which are two separate concepts and have been for the past 10 years. They do not make clear how many of our units are high-readiness or how many are combat ready. Will he encourage his colleagues to provide clearer information online about the state of the reserves, and give us more information on how we are developing a new relationship between our reserves and regular troops of a kind that is being rapidly developed by several of our NATO allies?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly take a look at the website and ensure that it is made a lot clearer on what the differences are. As regards valuing the reservists, I can assure the House that the Ministry of Defence values them extremely highly and will continue to make certain that the level of readiness is appropriate.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve awareness of, and services for people with, inflammatory bowel disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
NHS England’s national bladder and bowel health project is delivering better care for people with inflammatory bowel disease, with a focus on developing clinical pathways. Additionally, NHS England aims to reduce variation in care for people with inflammatory bowel disease through its Getting It Right First Time gastroenterology programme. To raise awareness of IBD among GPs and other primary care staff, the Royal College of General Practitioners has produced an inflammatory bowel disease toolkit.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned variation in care. He will be aware that over half a million people in the UK suffer from IBD and that the actual quality of care is very varied throughout the country. For instance, the overall waiting time for new patient appointments at gastroenterology clinics varies between one week and 27 weeks, with a big impact on the outcome of the care the patient receives. My understanding is that there are IBD national standards but that they are not adhered to. Can the Minister tell me why that is, and when will the Government insist that the NHS gets the variation of care down to at least an acceptable limit where good-quality care is guaranteed to all patients?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct. I spent time with the clinical lead in this area this morning; there is a Getting It Right First Time pathway and it is clear that the initial cohort of 25 hospitals have shown real progress in this area. That is being rolled out across the pathway—we have now had cohorts 2 and 3 doing it—so we should see those improvements happen across the board. However, it is my job as a Minister to make sure that that happens.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Getting It Right First Time review that the Minister mentioned recommended increased access to endoscopy services over six and seven days and with extended hours. These are especially important for people trying to manage a bowel condition and work. Is the Minister satisfied with progress since that report in 2021 in terms of the availability of these services at weekends and in the evenings?
Lord Markham (Con)
I think there are two things. One is the CDC programme; the 160 centres and 7 million tests that we have rolled out are now very much helping in that space. However, it is also about making sure that the right people get the tests. On the question of awareness as well, we now have these faecal tests—a bit like bowel cancer screening—which can tell with 90% sensitivity whether you have inflammatory bowel disease or irritable bowel syndrome. With one, you absolutely need to see a specialist for endoscopy, while with the other, you do not. Telling the difference is key.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that a number of people, increasingly women, are being wrongly diagnosed with IBS when in fact they have an underlying cancer condition? How does he imagine that we can rectify this situation?
Lord Markham (Con)
For the benefit of the House, I would say they are often confused. Irritable bowel syndrome is suffered by about 10% of the population while inflammatory bowel disease—we are talking about Crohn’s disease and colitis—is suffered by less than 1% of the population. The key thing is trying to understand the difference between the two; as I say, we have this poo test, for want of a better word, which can do that. With people who test positive, you absolutely need to get them into that screening programme and get it right the first time, so you can pick up those problems and things such as cancer.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, more years ago than I care to remember, I was a gastroenterologist and saw many patients with inflammatory bowel disease. We were desperately seeking a cause or causes and we did research on infectious agents, unsuccessfully. Can the Minister update us on where research into the causes of these diseases is going? It has been going on far too long.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct. This is an area where we still need more knowledge. We have spent about £34 million in research in this space over the last few years, but there is still a lot that we are learning. I can say freely that if there are good research projects there, the resources are available to make sure that they are funded, because we need to learn more in this space.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, many health authorities are sending out these tests to people. What percentage of these tests—“poo collections”, to use my noble friend’s words—are not being returned? It could be relatively high, particularly if we are not explaining the difference between the two types of illness.
Lord Markham (Con)
As described by the clinical lead in this, these really are game changers, so getting them back is key. I do not have the figures to hand as to the amount that they get a response from but, in the case of the bowel cancer screening, many of us will be aware that there has been a whole programme which has been very successful in getting those poo tests measured and responded to. We need to learn the same lessons in this area.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests. To achieve the best outcomes for complex conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, there is a requirement to ensure that patients are managed by properly skilled multidisciplinary teams. Is the Minister content that, with all the workforce pressures that exist, we are investing sufficiently to develop those teams to ensure the best clinical outcomes?
Lord Markham (Con)
The long-term workforce plan sets this out. We are getting a good response in terms of filling up the places. We have about 98% or 99% of the training places filled. The challenge is that this service, more than anything else, suffers from the highest burnout. That is the area where we are struggling to fill the places. Therefore, we are trying to ensure that this scarce resource is used by people and that this early screening test is used so that people can see who they really need to see.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to appoint a senior official to take responsibility for home care medicine services as a way forward to address awareness of coeliac disease and Crohn’ disease. Will there be a periodic update of data on how home care medicine services are functioning and a date for commencement of that data?
Lord Markham (Con)
We had a very good debate on this a couple of weeks ago. All noble Lords accepted that it was a bit of a Cinderella service at the moment, but vitally important to a lot of people’s everyday well-being, so I am happy to do that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister monitoring what is happening in Europe and the US to see whether we can learn any new lessons from the research programmes that are being carried out there?
Lord Markham (Con)
The Getting It Right pathway was very much informed from that best practice around the world and, in the last year, NICE has approved four new drug treatments. We are trying to look at the best medicines around the world. One of them, risankizumab, has resulted in a 44% reduction in the disease—so, yes, we are trying to learn from the best in the world.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about awareness. We know that certain communities are vaccine hesitant or less aware of some of the conditions and less likely to come forward. What lessons have been learned from some of the other programmes? Are there communities that are underrepresented for this? What efforts have been made to learn from other programmes to make sure that those communities come forward?
Lord Markham (Con)
First off, it is trying to learn the lessons: the best parallel that I have so far is around the bowel cancer screening and that faecal screening programme. The real thing here is the difference between the 10% of the population who suffer from irritable bowel syndrome, a lot of which is diet-based in terms of the cure, and the 1% which really is serious in terms of inflammatory bowel disease. That is where we need the education and awareness.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has twice mentioned the bowel cancer screening programme, which I think is universally accepted to be very successful, and is also very reassuring to those people who are part of it, whatever the outcome of the tests. He will also know that that screening programme and others drop people once they reach a certain age, which coincidentally is the age at which they become more likely to develop the cancers that the screening programme is intended to detect. Do the Government have any plans to increase the age up to which people can be routinely included in bowel cancer screening and other screening programmes?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. In this and other areas, we are guided by the science; we have been guided by the science on the advice to date. I will go back and ask for the latest thinking on that, and get back in detail in writing to the noble Baroness, but, generally, being guided by the science will be the approach.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and indeed the question from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I understood that there was a link with a weakened immune system. I wonder if that is still an active field of research. Is there any update the noble Lord can provide? Many people, for other reasons, are diagnosed with weakened immune systems.
Lord Markham (Con)
These are all areas we are trying to find out about, such as Crohn’s and colitis. The trouble is that this whole area has a big field within it. The honest answer is that it is not absolutely understood, hence the need for research on what is causing this in the first place. As I say, we have spent quite a bit on research, but more needs to be spent on understanding the real issues. If the research projects are there, we will happily undertake them.
Leaseholders: Management Companies
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make it easier for leaseholders to change the management company that delivers services to them, other than by increasing transparency.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my relevant register of interests and the fact I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill makes it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold or exercise the right to manage, allowing them to take over management of their buildings themselves and directly appoint or replace agents. Of course, Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager if there has been significant management failure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill before your Lordships’ House must rank as one of the most disappointing pieces of government legislation in recent years—and it is a competitive list. There have been nearly five years—not five weeks or five months—of hype and promise, and extraordinarily little action from the Government. When can we expect action to regulate management companies, along the lines of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and when will the Government deliver the promises they have repeatedly made but are just not delivering?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have been very clear, and the Secretary of State was very clear, that we cannot support establishing a new regulatory body at this time and through this Bill. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are there to protect and empower leaseholders, along with existing protections, and work undertaken by the industry will seek to make property management agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Property Institute. The Government keep saying that they do not have time to implement RoPA; I do not believe it, and they could if they wanted to. In the meantime, at the request of people in the industry, I chaired the committee that set up a code of conduct; is there nothing the Government could do to at least endorse or make that code of conduct mandatory? That would help in making sure that all managing agents work to a high level.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work she has done with her group on codes of practice. We have said that we will consider any code produced by her steering group, and come back to the House.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority, in a recent report, was very concerned about the increasing practice of major housebuilders charging all the residents on new estates for common amenities such as roads, lighting and playgrounds, services traditionally provided by local authorities and paid for by council tax. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will ensure that prospective residents will be aware of the way that their new estate will be managed and the actual costs and services they will have to pay for before they buy? Does she agree with me that there is little justification for these residents to have to pay twice?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill the Government are legislating to make sure that freehold home owners who pay estate rent charges have the right to challenge the reasonableness, and to go to a tribunal to appoint a manager to manage the provision of those services, along with the transparency that they will also have in those charges. We are also carefully considering the response to and the recommendations of the CMA report published in February.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in conditions where leaseholder landlords living overseas remain uninterested in block management—their only interest being the rent—where in the Bill is the legal obligation on managing agents to supply management committees with the valid names and contact details of these overseas landlord owners, enabling the seeking of their support for an RTM? Where, with notice, absentee landlords fail to indicate whether or not they support an RTM, surely their interests should simply be ignored. Indifference should not block progress.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are looking more closely at this issue, because the noble Lord is right—sometimes it can be more difficult. We have also recognised the participation rates, which can be affected by foreign owners. We have listened to the arguments raised in Committee and by MPs in the other place, and we will continue to consider the issues raised.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent of a stratagem whereby companies have acquired freeholds with the intention of removing the leaseholder occupants by undertaking works on the properties that the leaseholders cannot possibly afford to pay for? By these means the freeholder expects to compel the occupants to sell up. What redress is there against this stratagem?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not aware of this strategy on the part of freeholders, but I will look into it and come back to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, every day we see horror stories in the press of crippling increases in ground rents. After the Recess we go on to Report of the Leasehold and Reform Bill, but so far with no update from the Government on the ground rent consultation undertaken by them some time ago. Can the Minister tell us just what the proposals will be on ground rent?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not expect the noble Baroness to expect me to tell her that at an Oral Question, but the Government have been consistent that they have concerns about existing ground rents, and the adverse impact that ground rents have on leaseholders. We have consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents in existing leases. That consultation closed on 17 January and the Government will respond to it shortly.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am looking at the text of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I am trying to be helpful to my noble friend the Minister. In Scotland the management company is call the “factor”—a name that can conjure up nightmares or pleasant dreams depending on the experience. In 2011 we passed the Property Factors (Scotland) Act, one section of which allows home owners to make an application to the Homeowner Housing Panel for a determination of whether their property factor has failed to carry out their factoring duties, or failed to comply with the code. I wonder whether there is any useful guidance in that for my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think what my noble friend is suggesting is what we have in Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager—or “factor”—if there has been significant management failure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, over the last few years the Member for Surrey Heath in the other place has made some absolutely wonderful statements, promises and claims and given interviews on all sorts of things we all support. Why did none of them make it into the Bill?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord opposite. I think many of those things my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said have made the Bill, and I know from talking to him that he wishes he had more time and more capacity to do more.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one pithy slogan that has come from the Government is that those who pay should have a say. I could not agree more. Will the Minister agree that, ultimately, the best solution for giving a say and empowering leaseholders would be ensuring that they have right to manage? I am not going to nag about this Bill, but does the Minister not agree that the best way of empowering for the future would be that all new flats are sold as commonhold or at least with a share of freehold? Even if this Bill cannot deliver because the Minister does not have time, and because of the complications that have been alluded to, would it not be resolved by having a sunset clause that would guarantee that this will happen in the future, so this Bill could at least leave that as its legacy?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I can only reiterate what I have said many times at the Dispatch Box: the Government remain committed to the widespread uptake of commonhold for flats. We have stopped commonhold for houses in this Bill, and we will set out our next steps in due course.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware just how difficult it is to get rid of an incompetent management company? Such companies hide behind the excuse that they cannot get permission from all the people in the building. It is high time we dealt with this problem and stopped this terrible situation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree that if you have a bad managing agent, it is not acceptable for any leaseholder. But, as I said, you can use Section 24. We are making it better with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about issues he may have encountered.
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill
Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Business of the House
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That Standing Order 38(4) (so far as it relates to Thursdays) and (5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the session so far as is necessary to enable notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House to have precedence over other notices and orders on Thursdays.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Would the Leader of the House be willing to discuss with his colleagues in the usual channels a debate on the ongoing review into the Code of Conduct? As noble Lords will know, the Conduct Committee is conducting a wide-ranging review of the code, and the outcome of its deliberations will affect all Members of this House. It is therefore very important that the committee can hear views from Members from across the House before it concludes its inquiries and reports.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I want to raise an issue about the progress, or lack of it, of Private Members’ Bills—a subject on which I have had some interest from time to time—and, in particular, the disparity between the time given to these Bills in the Commons and the time we give to Commons Bills here in the Lords. The Chief Whip has just read out seven First Readings of Private Members’ Bills. Last Friday, we had four Second Readings of Private Members’ Bills allocated time in this House. Seven Private Members’ Bills that started in the Commons have already had Second Readings this year. Of the Bills that we have sent to the Commons for their First Reading, of which there have been four, none of them has had any progress in the Commons whatsoever. If we look over a broader spread, it is almost ridiculous: I think it is almost entirely accurate that some 300 Private Members’ Bills have started in this House in the last seven years; only three of them actually reached the statute book. It becomes a pretty spectacular waste of time to try to add something to the statute book if you start it in this House.
I simply say to the Leader, while he is here: surely if a Bill gets through all its stages in this House, we should expect the Commons to give it a chance of something above zero, which is what it has at present, particularly in view of the fact that we are pretty generous in the time that we allocate. These are all desirable Bills; I am not criticising any of the Bills: the ones that got a Second Reading on Friday were excellent, as are many Private Members’ Bill, but our generosity towards Commons starters ought to be more closely matched by the time the Commons gives to Private Members’ Bills that are Lords starters.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, many noble Lords might have some sympathy with some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, but I must remind him—we all are conscious of this—that the procedures of the House of Commons are exclusively a matter for that House itself. I am sure that Members of the House of Commons read our Hansard assiduously and will take note of what the noble Lord said.
So far as this House is concerned, we sit on Fridays from time to time, obviously, to take Private Members’ Bills. We will continue this convention until the summer. I can tell the House that we will sit on Friday 14 June, and on 5 and 12 July to take Private Members’ Bills. So far as my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is concerned, we will seek to make progress. I am sure she will be happy to discuss any individual request, but obviously the House of Commons is the guardian of its own procedures.
On the point my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach raised, I am grateful to him for giving me notice that he intended to do so. Other noble Lords have also made views known to me on this subject. The Chief Whip and I have taken the liberty of discussing this with some colleagues in the usual channels and, of course, with my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, the chair of the Conduct Committee, in whose work I think I fairly say the House has the fullest confidence and trust.
I am pleased to say that we can enable a debate of the kind that my noble friend asks for on the Code of Conduct review in time for the conclusion of the evidence-taking part of the review, and this will be scheduled for 10 June in Grand Committee. The Motion will be neutrally worded to enable all Members to express their—no doubt varying—views before the evidence-taking period concludes. The purpose must not be to rake over the coals of specific cases but to assist the review and assist Members by enabling discussion of the principles and actualities underlying the Code of Conduct.
Media Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(4A) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) When determining the number of hours OFCOM consider appropriate under subsections (1) and (3), they must ensure that the number of hours would result in at least 50% of programmes broadcast, measured both by hours and expenditure, being made outside of London and 16% from the nations of the United Kingdom other than England, in proportion to their relative populations.””
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 16 and 17 in my name and in doing so I declare my interests as laid out in the register as a board member of Creative Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, who has added her name, has asked me to apologise to the House as she cannot be here in time today due to a prior engagement in Northern Ireland, but she wanted me to indicate that the points I will be making have her strong support from a Northern Irish perspective. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for their support, which is greatly appreciated.
Never before have I stood up in this House and felt such a weight of responsibility on my shoulders. My amendments have the backing of all three devolved Administrations, the screen agencies of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, industry bodies from across the nations and regions as well as countless numbers of independent production companies. The noise outside this Chamber and outside London is deafening, and it is united.
The Media Bill is to be welcomed, and I know the Minister and the Secretary of State—and, indeed, all of us—wish it to pass quickly. However, if it passes unamended, it will have ignored the vibrant but delicately balanced screen ecologies in the nations and regions of the UK, and it risks removing the foundations upon which those thriving screen sectors have been able to build: namely, commissions from PSBs, the very channels for whom representing the lives and experiences of the nations and regions of the UK should be at their heart.
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 68 million people currently live in the UK. About 10 million people live within the M25, but, like much of our politics, our media can often be seen as being too London-centric. My amendments seek to ensure that public service broadcasters provide a suitable range of programmes for the roughly 58 million people who do not live in London, and that a proportionate share of those programmes are made outside London by the talented people who live and work all across the UK. That these should be measured by both hours and expenditure would ensure that PSBs did not simply fulfil their regional quotas with low-value daytime live discussions.
Section 287 of the Communications Act 2003 required Channel 3 to provide a sufficient amount and a suitable range of regional programmes, including news and current affairs, regulated by Ofcom quotas obligated by its licence. If it were not for those quotas then the plurality of news in the nations and regions provided by ITV and STV, in addition to that of the BBC, would be lost. Equivalent requirements and national and regional quotas apply to the BBC under the BBC framework agreement.
The BBC and Channel 4 have already responded to criticism that they do not reflect the public they serve by moving part of their workforce outside of London to regional centres in Salford, Leeds, Bristol and Glasgow. During the debate around the proposed privatisation of Channel 4, its chief executive, Alex Mahon, speaking at the opening of the channel’s new studios in Leeds, argued that privatisation would inhibit the channel’s plans to expand outside London and help the levelling-up agenda. Ms Mahon led a campaign against privatisation by declaring that Channel 4 was “for all the UK”, and regional producers in the nations and regions stepped up to support it. However, as soon as privatisation was taken off the table, Channel 4 abruptly stopped developing its commissioning capacity outside London, recently making its most senior commissioner in Leeds redundant and losing one of its small Glasgow-based commissioning team.
Ofcom requires that the BBC must ensure that in each calendar year at least 16% of the hours of network programmes made in the UK are made outside England, and at least 16% of the BBC’s expenditure on new network programmes is applied across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is in line with the three home nations’ share of the population. My amendments would simply extend those requirements to all public service broadcasters, ensuring that these public assets deliver fairly for all the UK.
If we do not have such regional quotas then we risk not having any of the production centres of which we are so rightly proud, and in that case Amendment 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, becomes somewhat academic. As much as I wish to support him in requiring Ofcom to ensure that the out of London nations and regions production criteria support inward investment in regional production centres, while encouraging the pipeline of talent from across the UK to thrive, without national and regional quotas the only option to fulfil any regional out of London production would be by brass-plating.
Channel 4 is a commercially funded but publicly owned PSB. It does not produce regional news content as ITV and STV do, but to date it has played an extremely important role in the success of the UK’s creative industries, pioneering innovation in, investing in and stimulating the production sector and acting as a world-leading accelerator. However, despite Channel 4’s “for all the UK” campaign, it has had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Ofcom into accepting the rise of its out of England quota to only 9% in 2020, and it has recently argued for that 9% minimum to sustain across the next decade, on the basis that producers outside London are too small.
This Bill will remove the existing publisher/broadcaster restriction and give Channel 4 valuable new flexibility to make some of its own content. While I understand the Government’s desire to ensure that Channel 4 is able to grow and better compete in the age of streaming giants, they are giving away the very thing that makes Channel 4 unique among PSBs, at no cost to the taxpayer but of considerable importance to the regional creative economy and independent production sectors. They are doing so without demanding anything in return. As a publicly owned PSB with its own stated strong commitment to represent the whole of the UK and to stand up for diversity across the UK, surely the Government must ensure that Channel 4 fulfils this remit for the benefit of the UK as a whole, supporting the sustainable growth of the industry outside London and across all four home nations.
My amendments do nothing other than echo the voluntary commitments that Channel 4’s chairman and chief executive have already made. In November last year, Sir Ian Cheshire issued a statement saying:
“Channel 4 remains entirely committed to its presence, programme-making and impact across the Nations and Regions. This includes its commitment to regional producers, voluntary investing 50% of its commissioning budget outside of London”.
I am asking the Minister therefore to write this voluntary commitment into the Bill, along with a separate nations’ quota in line with that of the BBC. According to the independent producers’ industry body, PACT, increasing these quotas to 50% outside London and 16% outside England would cost Channel 4 only an additional £136 million over 10 years—just over 2% of its anticipated budget for new programmes across the next decade. The benefit to the creative economy across all the UK, to British audiences and to Channel 4 itself would be significantly higher.
Channel 4’s resistance to increasing national and regional quotas to match the BBC’s has caused what I can only describe as a real stushie among the independent producers, the freelance TV talent, the devolved Administrations and the screen agencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, all of whom have written to Ofcom—and I am delighted to see its chairman in his place—and made public their desire for national and regional quotas and their support of my amendments. I am grateful to the three screen agencies—Screen Scotland, Northern Ireland Screen and Creative Wales—and PACT, as well as the many independent producers who have engaged with me and many other noble Lords in preparation for this debate, and who recently felt so strongly about this that they made the effort to come to the House to brief us in person. I can only apologise to them that voting on the safety of Rwanda rather truncated our discussions on that day.
The independent producers who recently wrote a public letter to Ofcom, urging it to reconsider the lifting of the current production 91% “made in England” production quota for Channel 4, are long-term, trusted suppliers of Channel 4, ITV and the BBC, as well as Netflix, Disney+, Sky, Amazon and National Geographic among many others. They cannot be dismissed as being “too small” for the PSB broadcasters to work with. The key to fostering and safeguarding the regional TV production sector lies in securing network commissions, not just ad hoc regional talent and skills schemes.
Quotas work. Both the BBC and Channel 4 have met them regularly and this has fostered significant economic and creative growth across the UK since 2003. Quotas are critical to ensuring that the infrastructure of the thriving creative industries that have been so successfully built up over the last two decades is maintained and not jettisoned. Quotas are essential to ensuring that our PSBs truly reflect, on-screen, the voices and stories of the people they serve throughout the different parts of our United Kingdom. This is in the best long-term interests of those broadcasters. If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendments as tabled today, I ask him and his team to work with me and the regional agencies to ensure that the commitment to representation throughout the UK for public service broadcasting is reflected robustly within the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I agree with very many of the points she made, particularly the emphasis that she has. I wish to speak to my Amendment 54, which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, whose support I welcome. It proposes a new clause entitled “Evaluation of nations-based production”, and was tabled by my colleague Hywel Williams MP in Committee in the other place but did not get debated.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I am also an officer of the Channel 4 APPG.
I am pleased to have put down my name to Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I very much support the principal aim of these amendments, which is to push content commissioning towards the regions and nations. I will also focus my comments on the publicly owned Channel 4.
These amendments complement my amendments in the previous group, which demanded more support for small independent television producers. The majority of SMEs are in the regions and nations, which Channel 4 should support. In doing so, it will support SMEs. These small companies are the lifeblood of the television production industry. They are often in areas where stories and lives are not covered by the mainstream media. It is in these places that the untold stories from an underserved audience will spring. After all, fresh ideas and stories from places overlooked by the metropolitan-based companies are surely central to the PSBs’ remit.
The production base in the nations and regions has come a long way in the last 20 years. With the growth of STV and the establishment of a Channel 4 lifestyle programmes production base in Glasgow, there has been a big increase in the number of people employed in the industry in Scotland, but the regional hubs in Cardiff and Scotland are struggling in the present climate. Now is the time for Channel 4 to play its part in the continued expansion of production talent across the industry.
It is a long-held view by many in the industry that it is expensive to commission from the nations. They say that staff have to be sent up from London, with all the extra costs that incurs. Surely, the response to that is to ensure that Scottish and Welsh independent companies are commissioned. They will employ producers and talent they know and trust, who will most probably be local. They will carry out post-production locally and employ indigenous Scots, Welsh or Yorkshire editors, graders and sound engineers in facilities houses based near them. The aim of these amendments is to build a big enough indigenous talent base that local staff can be employed and their work can go some way to reflect the parts of the United Kingdom they live in.
The present crisis of commissioning in the industry, for both scripted and unscripted programmes, has meant that not just small companies but medium-sized companies are closing. As a result, the Scots, Welsh and regional facilities houses are also closing and struggling. The lack of work has meant that people are leaving the industry, and the promises of expanding production bases in the regions and nations are dying. At this rate, the naysayers in the industry will be right: it will be too expensive to produce programmes in the nations and regions, because talent will have to come from London and the south-east, if not from abroad.
In my speech on the first day in Committee on the need for Channel 4 to focus on commissioning from SMEs, I read out the channel’s submission to Ofcom for licence renewal, which claimed that the smaller scale of the production sector outside London meant that the companies in the regions and nations were not able to develop or realise big ideas. This statement reflects badly on Channel 4’s view of television production in the parts of the country affected by Amendments 16 and 17. Not surprisingly, Scots indies responded that, far from being unable to develop and deliver big ideas, they were capable of making programmes for the biggest streamers and broadcasters in the world. I can say from personal experience of working with American commissioners that they are very demanding. If a company can supply a streamer or an American broadcaster, it can almost certainly supply Channel 4.
However, unfortunately, while those international commissions prove that the indies in the nations have talent and capacity, the revenues generated from them are not sufficient to sustain the production bases. They often pay a straight production fee with little back end, unlike the terms of trade that British channels use when dealing with indies, guaranteeing them the back-end revenue to build their businesses.
The letter by the Scots production companies continued:
“As a publicly owned public service broadcaster with a stated ‘strong commitment to represent the whole of the UK’ and ‘to stand up for diversity across the UK’, Channel 4 must fulfil its remit for the benefit of the UK as a whole and support the sustainable growth of the industry outside of London”.
The CEO of Channel 4, Alex Mahon, responded shortly afterwards, in April this year, when she told the Creative Cities Convention in Bristol that there had been questions about making the quota bigger. She said:
“We will try and do more because we need to think more carefully about how we represent people on air. It is time to make that shift to support companies more sustainably”.
Since then, Channel 4 has issued a statement to me, saying that
“we are announcing that we would support, in principle, a managed timely and carefully considered increase in our commitment to programme making in the nations”.
However, Channel 4 did not go any further on the detail of this proposal, or reveal by how much it would increase its spend in the nations and regions. It is leaving it up to Ofcom to decide the appropriate quota.
Once again, Parliament is leaving an important decision to be made by Ofcom. As Bills pass through this House giving Ofcom increasing power, it is beholden on us parliamentarians to give the regulator guidance. Parliament, not Ofcom, should decide the national and regional quotas for content commissioning. We must do what we can to encourage one of our great public service broadcasters to stand by its chief executive’s words, to support companies more sustainably and to increase the quota to the nations beyond 9%. I ask the Minister to support the figure of a 16% quota in the nations and 50% outside London.
Channel 4 reset itself in 2020, with the slogan “4 All the UK”. At the time, Ofcom increased its quota for the nations from 3% to 9%. However, now is the time to go further. Channel 4 aims its commissioning strategy at fewer, bigger, better programmes. I ask noble Lords to consider where that leaves the middle ground—the hundreds of hours of television annually filled by content with a medium spend. These companies are the backbone of the industry outside London and are suffering from the present commissioning strategy. As one of the leading figures in Scottish television, Alan Clements, who runs the independent production company Two Rivers Media, said:
“If you make your corporate slogan 4 All The UK, then you really need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk”.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 16 and 17, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, to which I am pleased to have added my name in support.
Our country is one of diversity. The four nations that make up the UK include many regions, each with its own culture, sense of humour, accent, concerns and interests. As public service broadcasters are owned by the whole of the UK public, it is important that they truly reflect the public they serve in all their regional diversity.
I regrettably could not be present for the first day in Committee to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, seeking to ensure that our PSBs reflect the diversity of this nation through the protection of Gaelic broadcasting, which is part of the wider landscape that these amendments speak to. I hope that I will be present to express my support on Report.
With Channel 4’s current quotas, 91% of its production is reserved for England and 65% for London. Its London-centric attitude to production is confirmed through its claim that
“the UK production sector continues to be significantly smaller outside London … there are fewer production companies, often smaller in scale, and therefore with less capacity to develop creative ideas and produce them”.
Along with independent production companies across the country, I dispute this. The BBC has not faced difficulties adhering to its higher regional quotas, and indeed demonstrates that significantly expanding production networks outside London is possible and yields positive results that attract interest and further investment.
Ensuring support for the creative sector outside London requires intentionality. New and smaller production companies cannot grow without regular and sustained employment. Implementing quotas would ensure that these businesses receive regular income in the longer term, allowing them to grow while nurturing local talent and skills.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, outlined in her excellent speech, quotas work. The BBC now aims for 60% of its TV production to take place outside London by 2027-28, and its production bases in cities throughout the country demonstrate how the industry is capable of diversifying its production locations, employing staff from local economies. These amendments would simply place the same quotas on other public service broadcasters.
In March the Government confirmed funding towards the development of Crown Works Studios in Sunderland—a very welcome investment. The potential for the north-east in this sector is at last gaining recognition. It should be partnered with legislation to ensure that studios outside London, such as Crown Works, are fully utilised by public service broadcasters. With Northumbria University ranking second in the Guardian’s latest university league table for film production, our region is not lacking in talented, skilled and creative minds in this sector; what is lacking is opportunity. Those who want to pursue a career in broadcasting are being pulled away from the region to London, taking their skills with them. Those who remain in the region face a lack of opportunity. For many, their talent and potential are left unfulfilled. These amendments seek to change this narrative.
By placing a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that PSBs produce 50% of their programmes outside London and 16% outside England, in proportion to each UK nation’s relative population and measured by both hours broadcast and expenditure, these amendments would equitably spread opportunity across the country’s regions. The different regions and nations throughout the UK are rich in creative skills, and we are all left poorer if we continue to neglect them.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is of great importance to the independent television production sector in Wales. Amendments 16 and 17 relate to how much commissioning is done outside of London by channels 3, 4 and 5. Amendment 54 relates to the issue of brass plating. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for tabling these amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 54 and support all three amendments, as do my colleagues on these Benches.
Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru represents the independent sector of Wales and is made up of some 50 companies of varying sizes. They produce content for BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky. They also produce almost all the original television and online media content for S4C. Their continued success helps the Welsh and UK economies. They do, however, rely on the continued support of our UK public service broadcasters, including Channel 4, which has brought greater resource to working with TV production companies throughout the UK in recent years. Over the last five years, the resource from Channel 4 has never fallen below 54% in the commissioning of out of London hours, and never below 45% in spend. Channel 4 has committed to a future level of 50% of spend and hours outside of London against the 35% requirement in its licence, and has created hubs throughout the UK to enable this. There is nothing to indicate that it will deviate from this commitment.
I can understand the disappointment felt by many in the sector who have learned that Ofcom has not opted to raise the out-of-London quota from its present level of 35% in its proposed new licence for Channel 4. It appears that Ofcom perhaps does not recognise that Channel 4 has changed its commissioning structure and approach. This failure to recognise the reality of Channel 4’s current out-of-London commissioning commitments leaves the independent television production sector in Wales in a quandary. It believes that the 35% quota level set by Ofcom is not fit for purpose.
The reality is that Channel 4 has, over the last five years, achieved a level of out-of-London hours commissioned of between 54% and 66%. To retain the 35% level within the new licence is very much in direct contrast to the current reality. Amendments 16 and 17 would put a commitment in the Bill to the 50% figure for hours and spend by Channel 4.
Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, deals with brass plating and calls for a new clause to be inserted after Clause 36. This new clause would protect Wales’s production companies. These companies are set up by local production and business talent, have their headquarters in Wales, employ locally and spend in their communities. However, the present situation allows a TV company from outside Wales, or any of the devolved nations, to establish a small satellite presence in the nation in order to win a network PSB commission and qualify for the out-of-London commissioning quota. This, of course, is what is referred to as brass plating.
Welsh independent production companies acknowledge that the aim of the present system is to grow production services around the UK and that, in so doing, it seeks to ensure that a wide range of voices, stories, talent and perspective is delivered to UK audiences. But there are concerns within the sector in Wales that brass-plating has a number of downsides, which have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. First, the profits from the production flow back out of Wales, leading to less investment in the sector in Wales. Secondly, talent ends up being recruited from outside Wales, limiting the opportunities for Welsh production talent to work on UK-wide and international shows. Thirdly, in some cases, the programme will have less of a Welsh identity or even make factual errors.
Amendment 54 ensures that there are clearer guidelines as to what constitutes a substantive base in a devolved nation, that there is a commitment by a production company to remain in the nation for a specified amount of time and whether a production company has had a presence in the nation for at least 36 months. The independent television production sector in Wales is clear that these amendments are not a deterrent to inward investment. That inward investment is welcome, but on its present basis it encourages a hit-and-run approach by companies from outside Wales and puts Welsh independent production at a disadvantage.
Taken together, these amendments seek to regularise how much commissioning is done outside London and seek to create a more level playing field for those independent production companies operating in the devolved nations.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I support all three amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and agree with almost all that has been said already. I apologise to the Committee for having been unable to speak at Second Reading, so I shall be brief.
This amendment seeks to ensure that production companies which claim to have a base in Northern Ireland, Scotland—and of course Wales—in order to win their share of out-of-London commission, do genuinely have a base in wherever they claim to be. Naturally, the focus of my concern is for the impressive TV and film production sector in Wales, although my comments could apply equally to the other devolved nations.
There are some 50 TV production companies in Wales active at any one time, making shows for all the UK public service broadcasters, including the Welsh language channel, S4C, so very useful for us Welsh learners, with or without its subtitles. Some are also involved in international coproduction and commissions. Indeed, Cardiff is the third-largest production base in the UK.
Indigenous TV production companies invest heavily in the Welsh sector, spending in the local economy, training and developing staff as well as investing in facilities. For example, Rondo Media recently partnered with S4C and Creative Wales to set up the Aria Film Studios in north Wales. We also have Wolf, Dragon, Swansea’s Bay Studios and Gorilla—there is a theme here—Wales’s largest post-production company, based in Cardiff Bay. This makes it all the more the important that brass-plating—that is, as we have heard, companies setting up a small satellite presence specifically to win a PSB commission—is prevented.
Although Ofcom already publishes guidelines which set out three criteria, any two of which should be met to qualify, it is felt that although the letter of the guidelines might be being followed, perhaps the spirit of them not so much. This amendment is not intended in any way to inhibit inward investment. It is more designed to ensure that there is a clearer guideline as to what constitutes a substantive base in terms of the company being well established in Wales. This means not only that more talent can be homegrown, but that the profits from Welsh productions may flow back into the sector in Wales, providing a virtuous circle. It might also have the additional benefit of ensuring that mistakes are not made in relation to Welsh culture, nor stereotypes reinforced. I wholeheartedly support all these amendments.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I will not repeat the excellent arguments that she and her co-signatories and indeed others around the Committee have already made. I would like to briefly underscore one important aspect of her amendments: the importance of regional production and commissioning in levelling up opportunities for creatives and communities.
On the first day in Committee, I spoke to my Amendment 2, which aimed to recognise and enshrine the symbiotic relationship between public service broadcasting and the broader stimulation of a thriving creative economy across the UK. What gets shown on screen is a very important part of that, and Amendments 16 and 17 would help to ensure that programmes indeed reflected the lives and concerns of communities across the UK, as the first clause requires.
The impact of the amendments goes beyond what is seen on screen; they would also impact what we see on the ground—marked regional inequality in the creative industries, which has worsened since the pandemic. The policy and evidence centre’s 2023 report, Geographies of Creativity, revealed that the concentration of the UK’s creative industries in London and the south-east remained unvaried throughout the pandemic. The same cannot be said about the creative industries outside that area. The north-east presents a particularly worrying picture, as it experienced a growth rate of 81% between 2011 and 2019, the highest across the country, but the most severe decline during the pandemic. The region’s share of the UK’s creative economy was 1.9% in 2011, rising to 2.7% in 2019 but falling back to 2% in 2022. The pictures in other regions outside London and the south-east are not dissimilar. That data tells us something compelling: while the creative industries hold immense economic potential across the UK, that economic potential is at risk without adequate support and protection.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 16 and 17, introduced persuasively by my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and, not least, to add another Scots voice to the many Welsh voices that we have heard already.
The independent production sector has naturally been concerned about the implications for Channel 4’s commissioning role of the removal of the existing publisher-broadcaster division. However, following the decision not to proceed with privatisation, providing Channel 4 with the flexibility to make its own content is a logical step that deserves support. As my noble friend made clear, one of the strengths of Channel 4 is its commitment to represent the whole of the UK in all its diversity. It would be a backward step if, in giving Channel 4 greater flexibility, its role as an innovator and investor, stimulating the production sector in all parts of the country, was compromised. We often question whether our news media organisations sufficiently reflect the full diversity of the UK, and the same concern exists for the making of programmes. That is why we ask the BBC to meet quotas for network programming outside England and in each of the home nations.
As we have heard, there is tremendous creative talent outside the M25, including a vibrant sector in Scotland. That is also why some of the biggest global brands commission programmes from independent producers in the nations and regions, as indeed Channel 4 has done historically. However, if in this new world producers in the nations and regions are to remain at the forefront of the minds of Channel 4 commissioners, quotas as proposed by my noble friend are a proven means of providing them with the right incentives without unduly constraining Channel 4’s future room for manoeuvre.
Channel 4, while commercially funded, is a public asset. I believe that quotas are a proportionate measure to reflect its special place in our media landscape. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to work with my noble friend Lady Fraser to provide the reassurance that the independent producers in the nations and regions are seeking.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, one of the great values of Committee stage for Ministers and regulators is that it gives them a warning of trouble ahead if they do not listen to what is said during it. This debate has been a very good example of that. I do not think Parliament is satisfied yet that we have the balance right in the ecology that we are trying to create.
It is interesting to remember that our broadcasting system is a child of Parliament and not of government or regulators. Over the last 100 years, Parliament has tweaked the market to do various good things. It created a national broadcaster under royal charter; most social historians would say that the BBC as created did much to unify the nation—it certainly brought certain accents to the fore, such as those of Wilfred Pickles and JB Priestley, which had not been heard before in London.
We are at a kind of turning point again. Of course, we are going through a revolution, the management of which is perilous for many in the major companies. As has been said in some of the briefings to us from ITV and others, the more we put demands and conditions on public service broadcasters, the more difficult it is for them to compete. It is about getting a balance right between the benefits we get and the benefits we give to PSBs and their ability to compete in this rapidly changing world.
I went to the meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, organised, and it was very interesting to hear the passionate interventions from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. However, as has also been said today, the development of talent outside London has also been significant. I still think of myself as coming from “Granadaland”; it is very difficult now to realise just what an impact Granada had on the north-west and on its confidence. In a way, there was no great plan, but it was a magnificent piece of genius to create ITV as a federation of regional companies, and from those regional companies came many benefits.
I am not sure how deeply Willie Whitelaw and others thought when they created Channel 4 and gave it that commissioning role, but it has certainly had a massive impact on the creative sector. I want us to make sure—this is the only intervention I make on this—that the Minister accepts the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and that Ofcom, if it is listening, also realises that there is deep concern in Parliament that what comes out of the Bill retains what has been one of the great benefits of our development of the media, which is that we have found, nurtured and developed talents in the regions. The real danger in saying that we are going to concentrate on big productions and so on is that we get the bland and the international, and not what has been the great benefit of the development of our television and our broadcasting—the talent and the voice of the regions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has been a fascinating example of how the nations and regions are well represented in the Committee. We have heard contributions from Wales, Scotland, Newcastle and across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, argued very persuasively that quotas work. These amendments are aimed in a targeted and precise way at the hours and expenditure on programmes broadcast that are made and produced outside London. Amendment 17 additionally reflects this by reference to
“the nations of the United Kingdom”.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to ensure that there is a proper evaluation of companies that claim to operate in the nations of the UK by reference to criteria based on staff numbers, a published commitment to remain and a background of time spent in that nation.
We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy and offer our encouragement and support to the principle behind these amendments. The last 20 or so years have seen, as we touched on in earlier debates, the growth of production outside London. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, regional production was a great strength of the federated ITV companies. Their big opportunity in the late 1950s and 1960s led to such great companies as Granada Television and Harlech Television. Surely the latter is the only time that a Lord has given his name to a TV company, but the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—who is in his place—was clearly a pioneer. Independent production companies now work from all over the country; although some of them are suffering the difficulties that have developed from the direction of travel for advertising revenue, that is one of the great strengths of our media landscape.
The Government have chosen to change the way in which the provider of a licensed public service channel delivers its regional production quotas. The key question for the Committee and the Government to consider is whether the percentages set out in the amendment are the right ones for Ofcom to work to and how best to ensure that the necessary flexibility is retained within the quota system. We see regional production in the context of reflecting the diversity of the nations that make up the UK—diversity in a wider sense—and the need to reflect better our rich regional cultural diaspora, which a number of noble Lords have made wonderful reference to this afternoon.
It is also important to ensure that we recognise the value that TV production can bring in levelling-up. Why should TV production be concentrated in the wealthier parts of the UK and overconcentrated in the south-east and London? There are big disparities in regional wealth in this country—some of the biggest, largest and most extensive across Europe—and TV can do much to address that. To their credit, the PSBs have all made attempts in the last decade or so to decentralise production and bring about a transformed media landscape—Channel 4 in Leeds and Glasgow, the BBC with its MediaCityUK, and ITV devolving some of its production and major locations. As legislators, surely our role is to strengthen and enhance this. For that reason and others, these amendments are very welcome. I hope that the Minister responds positively to the spirit of these amendments.
On the issue of regional TV and its importance to production, has the Minister given any thought to the future of the 34 hyperlocal TV services licensed by Ofcom? These small operators were enabled by Labour’s Communications Act 2003, but they are not included in the definition of public service channels. These small channels do an important job in local news production at a time when, as we all know, local news is diminishing. Collectively, their reach is considerable, with over half a million viewers. Is this omission an oversight by the Government? If it is, would the Minister agree to meet and discuss this with representatives of the local TV companies to see what can be done to reinstate their public service broadcasting designation? I appreciate that this is not an amendment before us this afternoon, as no such amendment has been tabled, but debates on the Bill might be the opportunity to give a little sunshine to local TV companies and for the Government to put that on record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I hear often talk about how we need an assembly of the nations and regions, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, we have had a great display of that today from your Lordships’ Committee, with contributions from across the United Kingdom.
As I set out on our first day in Committee, His Majesty’s Government are committed to stimulating growth in our world-leading production sector throughout the length and breadth of the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, there is a long and proud tradition of that happening across the UK; he gave many examples from Wales, understandably, and pointed to the north of England as well. We have this month lost Gudrun Ure, who played the eponymous Super Gran—a production I enjoyed in my childhood, made by Tyne Tees Television and filmed along the north-east coast in Whitley Bay, Cullercoats, Tynemouth and many other places. It was a powerful example of the emotional pull of TV production in inspiring tourism and encouraging people to visit but also in bringing production closer and, I hope, awakening sparks in people wherever it is made.
As noble Lords have alluded to, it is important to point out that the picture at the moment is a strong one. In 2022, all of our public service broadcasters exceeded their regional production quotas, and some significantly so. We have seen good and significant growth in production outside England and outside our capital. Production spending in Scotland is now worth over £266 million, supported by developments including Channel 4 opening one of its creative hubs in Glasgow in 2019. Television production in Wales continues to make impressive strides forward, with the proportion of hours of BBC content produced in Wales increasing year on year, in part thanks to major productions such as “Wolf” and the rest of the menagerie of animals that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist mentioned. Northern Ireland’s production industry is making a significant contribution, as shown by the rise in hours of content produced there and broadcast on public service broadcasters, which has increased consistently over the past five years. The BBC, Channel 4 and Channel 5 all increased their production expenditure in Northern Ireland in 2022. The growth in production outside London in recent years is a great success story, and our public service broadcasters have been one of the significant contributors to that growth.
We are also encouraged by commitments to go further, such as the BBC’s pledge in its BBC Across the UK strategy to increase its production expenditure outside the capital to 60% by 2027, and Channel 4’s pledge to continue to spend 50% of its main channel commissioning budget outside London. However, it is right that we keep this progress under review, and I welcome the opportunity we have had to debate these issues this afternoon, thanks to the amendments that have been tabled in this group.
Let me start by addressing Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and acknowledge the support that she expressed on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Bill outside the Chamber. The regulatory system proposed in the Bill will continue to support the success of the industry in several ways. The Bill is explicit in Clause 1 of its intention to recognise the need for programmes produced outside London through our new public service remit. Underpinning this is the detailed system of quotas on which this amendment focuses. This system already creates the mechanisms to hold public service broadcasters to account, and the success of the UK production sector demonstrates this.
The level of these quotas is set by Ofcom, which has broad powers to amend them as it sees appropriate. Should the success of the UK production sector not continue, Ofcom has the power to take action. It could, for example, increase regional production quotas over time, in much the same way as envisaged by the amendments that my noble friend has proposed, or it could tie the quotas to population shares. I can see why it might be tempting to pre-empt or constrain Ofcom’s consideration of these matters and to legislate directly as these amendments suggest and as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, set out in his contribution.
I agree with the noble Viscount that there is an important role for Parliament. We are all grateful that the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in your Lordships’ House and is in his place to hear these debates. Even if he were not a Member of your Lordships House, Parliament has the opportunity to express its views directly and indirectly through the Select Committees and through my department. I hope the noble Viscount would agree that it is also important that Ofcom can act with agility in this dynamic and often fast-changing sector.
It is essential that Ofcom has the flexibility to calculate regional quotas on broadcasters independently, weighing the evidence and balancing the different equities in the sector. That approach allows Ofcom to alter quotas smoothly over time to react to developments that it sees. As the financial position of both the public service broadcasters and the sector more broadly changes over time, we want Ofcom to be able to take this into account and adjust quotas accordingly, without the need for primary legislation on each occasion.
However, I reassure noble Lords that I, and my colleagues in DCMS, have heard the strength of feeling on this issue from the sector, particularly in relation to Channel 4’s “out of England” quota, which is set at 9% of eligible programmes and expenditure. I note that Ofcom is currently consulting on the terms of Channel 4’s next licence, which will come into force from 1 January next year, and also that Channel 4 has said that it would support a managed and carefully considered increase to its programme-making commitments in the other home nations. His Majesty’s Government look forward to the outcome of the licence renewal process and seeing how the sector’s concerns have been addressed.
For our part, the Government will continue our broad support for the screen industries across the United Kingdom through generous tax reliefs, as we saw in the last Budget and previous ones, through investment in studios such as the Crown Works Studios, which the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle rightly reminded us of, supporting innovation and promoting independent content through the UK Global Screen Fund.
We want to see the production sector continue to thrive. When it comes to our public service broadcasters’ contribution to that goal, we believe that the existing system of regional production quotas, which, as I say, our public service broadcasters can and do exceed—some of them significantly—remains the best way to continue to drive the growth that we have seen in recent years in every part of the UK.
For these reasons, I am not able to accept the amendments that my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie has set out, but I accept the invitation that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reiterated on her behalf and, if I may, I extend it to the noble Lord, Lord Grade, or one of his colleagues at Ofcom, so that we can talk in more detail and, I hope, seek to reassure her further about how the existing system provides for the concerns that she has set out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a good point about Parliament being consulted. I wonder if the noble Lord could say something about how both Houses—and Select Committees—could be consulted and considered in the question of quotas and the distribution of regional production. I do think that is an important element of this debate, and I am sure noble Lords around the Committee will want to hear something positive on that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope the meeting I have just indicated I am very happy to hold will be an opportunity to do that, with representatives of both the Government and Ofcom present, and an opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions on the issues of quotas, and not just in relation to the Bill that is before us. As the noble Lord says, Select Committees on an ongoing basis allow for the scrutiny of Ofcom’s work.
Turning to Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I recognise the intention behind his amendment, which seeks to address concerns about the programmes that our public service broadcasters are counting towards their regional programme-making quotas. As he and my noble friend Lady Bloomfield said, this has been referred to as “brass plating”, and I am grateful in particular to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place for exploring this issue in its recent report, Broadcasting in Wales. As he noted, the trade association TAC has also raised this issue and has done so with my department directly.
My officials have raised the matter with Ofcom again following the publication of the Select Committee’s report. Ofcom has confirmed that, in order to qualify as a regional production, relevant productions must meet two of three criteria. These include the “substantive base” criterion, which is one of the focuses of the noble Lord’s amendment. However, productions are not able to rely on this criterion alone; they must also meet one of the two other criteria relating to production spending. Ofcom has also confirmed that it strengthened and clarified the requirements associated with the “substantive base” criterion when it updated its guidance on regional productions for public service broadcasters in 2019. This guidance came into effect for productions broadcast from 1 January 2021.
Having reflected on this advice, we remain of the view that Ofcom has the necessary powers to identify, examine and, if necessary, close any loopholes related to the regulatory regime for regional programme making. We do not, therefore, see the need to legislate in the area of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration he and his officials have given and the discussions that have taken place. Would he, however, accept that those at the sharp end have perhaps the most detailed knowledge of the problems that arise and the means used by some people using brass plating to get around regulations? Would he be prepared to meet some of these people to understand more directly the exact nature of this problem and some of the ideas they have that might be useful in overcoming them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Perhaps if the noble Lord has some examples, he might like to bring them to the discussion with Ofcom that I mentioned. It would be helpful for the regulator to hear, as well as for us in government as policymakers to understand and see, whether it is on the enforcement and assessment side or the policy-making side that we need to consider this further. I hope he will be able to join us for that.
Lord Empey (UUP)
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, assuming there are a few scraps left for the rest of us, could the Minister tell us what infrastructure role is played when the quotas are being assessed? Some infrastructure needs to be on a massive scale, even a national scale. To what extent is that taken into account when the quotas are being assessed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
To qualify as a regional production, at least two of the following three criteria must be met: a production company must have a substantive business and production base in the UK outside the M25; at least 70% of the production budget, excluding some specific costs, must be spent in the UK outside the M25; or at least 50% of the production talent, by cost, must have their usual place of employment in the UK outside the M25. Two of those three criteria have to be met for the assessment to qualify.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly used the opportunity to point to the importance of local television providers. The Government recognise the important role that they play, such as Latest TV in his home city of Brighton, in providing excellent local news and content, often to viewers who are digitally excluded. That is why we introduced secondary legislation earlier this month to give Ofcom powers to renew the licences for the local TV multiplex and local TV services. This legislation was informed by the results of a public consultation and will ensure that local TV services continue to receive the valuable regulatory benefits they have received since 2013. That includes not only access to and prominence on Freeview but prominence on regulated electronic programme guides for simulcast satellite, cable and internet protocol television services. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise that in the context of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Might the noble Lord be prepared to meet them at some point? That might have some value.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, either I or, I am sure, my colleague in another place who has direct responsibility for this, not just in relation to the Bill but more broadly, will be happy to speak to them further.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lord, I thank everybody from around the Committee who contributed to this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, I think we have given due warning of trouble ahead to the Minister. I am grateful for that. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, reminded the Minister of the very strong feelings in the sector across the nations and the regions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, despite the rosy picture we may be able to paint, there are marked inequalities in the system. To ensure that this moves in the right direction we need intentionality, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
I note that the Minister mentioned figures up to 2022 and the creative hubs in the regions, but they are no good if the commissioning relationships are not made from those hubs. I put to my noble friend that that is what the sector has been concerned about since 2022. Frankly, Channel 4 sees quotas as a target, not as a minimum—the figures from PACT show that it is just making it, year on year—so they do work and it is important that we build on what is there and do not jettison it.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his offer of further discussions with us and Ofcom, but I am mindful of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: where is the parliamentary scrutiny and where are we setting this? We have heard the strength of feeling. Do we really want to leave it to Ofcom yet again? As many Peers said, we need to ensure that the spirit, not just the letter, is setting the right direction. I thank the Minister for his offer of further talks. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that section 368J(4), (5) and (7) of the Communications Act 2003 applies for determining the qualifying revenue derived from a non-UK on-demand programme service.
“(aa) where it is a service that forms part of a designated internet programme service, it satisfies the conditions in subsection (2AA), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 5, add to the requirements for a relevant service which is part of a multi-service designated internet programme service (see section 362AA(10)(c), inserted by Clause 28).
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to address the government amendments which I have tabled in this group: Amendments 19 to 24, 27 and 28, and 36 to 41. These, although numerous, are all minor technical amendments to provide Ofcom with the necessary tools to ensure that the regime delivers for audiences. The amendments will close off any opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify. They will update the provisions on contract voiding and provide consistency in definitions, in line with changes that were made to the Bill in another place. They will enable Ofcom to specify that audiences should be able to continue to watch events from the beginning or to rewind while an event is in progress—perhaps including debates in your Lordships’ House—in its adequate live coverage regulations; and they will ensure that Ofcom has appropriate flexibility to determine any penalties. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords can support these amendments and I look forward to noble Lords making the case for the other amendments that they have tabled in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 25, 26 and 30, which are in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register: I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Media Group.
Whether it is Wimbledon, the Olympic 100 metre final, the Euros joy and World Cup despair of the Lionesses, or the optimism of the FA Cup, listed events have a special place in people’s hearts and memories—but how and when we watch these big sporting moments that can unite nations and encourage participation, social cohesion and pride is changing. Thanks to the listed events regime, devised in the mid-1990s, major sporting events are freely available to all audiences, especially those who cannot afford to watch sport behind a paywall—great if you can watch in real time on your TV, but currently there is no protection for digital on-demand coverage of these much-loved events. If no action is taken, anyone who wants to watch, say, Team GB on their tablet or smartphone or see the highlights could miss out, especially with events taking place in different time zones.
At Tokyo 2020, the gold medal-winning performance by BMX specialist Charlotte Worthington was watched by just 400,000 people at the time, as it happened overnight, but in the days that followed different forms of short-form coverage of the race generated nearly a tenfold increase in views; and, while the TV reach to the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham was about 20% lower than for the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games, there were around six times more on-demand views of digital clips. Soon, digital and on-demand viewing will be the norm for watching legends being made. Looking beyond Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032, could Great Britain’s medal successes be behind a paywall?
Now is the time to not miss the opportunity. The Media Bill offers a once-in-a-generation chance to protect these moments for all of us, however, whenever and wherever we watch, and I am seeking to bring the regime up to date to safeguard the future of listed events for the next generation. The new clause will give enhanced regulatory protection so that these shared national moments are available to us all, making sure the benefits of watching on your TV in real time are afforded to clips and highlights, and will allow for time-shifted viewing, enabling people to watch on tablets and smartphones; and it would secure, where possible, adequate digital on-demand coverage of listed events made available free of charge to us here in the United Kingdom.
Audiences are changing. For Wimbledon in 2023, BBC coverage was streamed 54.3 million times on iPlayer and BBC Sport online—a new record. The men’s singles final peaked at 11.3 million on BBC1, with streams up by 58% on iPlayer, and the women’s singles final peaked at 4.5 million on BBC1, with streams up by 85% on iPlayer. For the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup, 12 million watched England’s Lionesses versus Spain on BBC1, with an additional 3.9 million streams on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sport online. There were 25.7 million streams on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sport online across the tournament—a 75% increase on the 2019 World Cup.
It is not just the BBC that wants to see this. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently concluded that
“digital rights should be included as part of the listed events”
and an independent report commissioned by Ofcom last year concluded that
“as expectations about the availability of live and secondary coverage of sporting events of national interest changes, we think that the current linear TV-centred regime risks failing to take into account the increasing popularity of secondary coverage”.
We know the Government recognise the issue and consulted industry a year ago, yet nothing has been done. Please do not let this opportunity pass. The time to act is now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is a large group, as the Minister said in his opening comments, dominated mainly by government amendments. We are grateful to him for his explanation of the effects of the amendments, which we broadly welcome, although we have some questions about them. In particular, I would like a more precise understanding of the meaning of the Minister’s Amendment 19; I had hoped it might make our Amendment 29 irrelevant, but I do not think it does. All of us in the Committee are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling Amendments 25, 26 and 30, and I look forward to hearing something positive about them from the Minister.
We on these Benches have two amendments in this group: Amendments 29 and 31A. Amendment 29 would have one simple effect: it is designed to make provision for the coverage of listed events, which is not the same as live coverage. As the noble Baroness has explained, the position regarding the Olympics is, frankly, ludicrous: unless you are able to catch the live coverage of an event, you cannot view the same event on catch-up TV or in an edited highlights programme. Where the Olympics, a World Cup or similar events are in time zones that are 12 or 13 hours different from the UK’s, the position is even more ridiculous: sports fans are forced to become insomniacs—and worse—to watch blue-ribbon events within the Olympics programme. I am sure that was never the intention when the listed events regime was created, and I hope that we will hear from the Minister today that this peculiar state of affairs will be put right.
Amendment 31A seeks to insert a new clause. This reflects the concerns brought up by internet providers about the quality of listed events in the face of competing demands on our internet system. As we consider these changes to listed events, it is important that we also consider the audiovisual quality of digital delivery. Our frameworks must ensure good reliability to support a viewing experience worthy of the importance of these live events. Can the Minister answer the question that the new clause asks about how we ensure that listed events get their fair share of internet infrastructure as we see the digital share of television viewing rise further? That is especially true for listed events but it is worth asking more generally as well.
In the same vein, Amendment 30, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is of course one that we support, although it seems to be a more belt-and-braces version of our own. I am not wedded to a particular form of words, and if the noble Baroness has spotted a deficiency that requires plugging and her amendment achieves the same end as ours, we will happily support it at a later stage.
We are sympathetic to Amendment 31 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Cricket misses out in terms of coverage, and that is surely the minimum that we should expect for this much underrated summer game. Test and one-day format cricket have the ability to capture the national mood and imagination, and the nature and rhythm of cricket, with its rolling narrative, is surely worthy of a more advanced listed billing. I have never understood why test matches are not listed; the Ashes series, with its long national rivalry involving Australia, certainly should be. As a devoted cricket fan and participant in 60-plus seasons, I make a strong plea to your Lordships’ Committee to listen to this argument. I appreciate that my case is highly subjective but the recent Ashes series in the last 15 to 20 years have been compelling, and there is a compelling case for this event to be listed as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a series of issues around the importance of sporting events being listed as cultural assets. If you do not do it in a way that holds the full panoply of technology as it stands today, you are going to miss out on the principle. As somebody who lost quite a lot of sleep trying to follow the Tokyo Games, et cetera, I am slightly annoyed that I did not add my name to all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the importance of overnight digital and highlight coverage. Live is usually preferable but you will not be able to see everything. For events that have multiple sports, you should not be able to see everything; it is a chance to see sports you do not otherwise see. It is a chance to see the panoply of sporting events going on.
We really need an undertaking from the Government that they are going to take this seriously. Is it a step back to try to get your video recorder set for the right time? I do not know, but that is the alternative. You either make sure that this is available or you accept that people will miss out. Once you have legislated to say that they do not, you will make sure they do. Can we have an undertaking here? I prefer my amendment to the one from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this, but his amendment certainly would be better than nothing. However, I much prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
As to the one on cricket, I wondered whether the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would be containable, and it was not. I think that probably tells you why cricket should be there. Cricket is a major sporting event in this country. When the cricket team does well, the whole country has a lift. It is something unique; it is that bit of cultural capital that we keep. Anybody who doubts that, just go and watch what happens when we do well or badly. It is there; it fits into that structure. Other sports may do it, but I think cricket has a special place in the summer for this. Can the Government undertake to say how we are going to start to address this?
These are genuine issues, raised to make something that the Government have agreed to work. If we can get some firm commitment that they are going to take all these concerns and put them into something solid, I for one will have to withdraw on this; if not, we will be going back to it. We have no real choice. You are talking about sport’s place in our society as a cultural activity and something that touches the whole nation. If we are not going to do this properly, why are we doing it at all?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to express my support for Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I think she has captured, very importantly, how the character of watching major sporting events has changed over recent years, certainly a great deal since the Communications Act 2003, when I had the pleasure of working with Lord Puttnam and others in another place on that Act—the Standing Committee and the Puttnam commission—back then. Of course, when we are looking at listed events, people were understandably focused on the live coverage in those days because that was predominantly how people watched sporting events. That has changed and we must adapt the structure of the legislation to match that.
I will come on, if I may, to the difference between Amendments 29 and 30. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred kindly to Amendment 30 and I think there are advantages. I note that Amendment 29 somewhat suggests that the noble Lord and the Opposition Front Bench have started to write amendments a bit as a Government in waiting in a way in which we tend to see the Government thinking it a very good idea for Ministers to have the powers to do things however they wish. I think now the Opposition Front Bench wants to have similar sorts of powers—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
We are not in the habit of getting ahead of ourselves.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I know that the noble Lord is sticking to the line to take, and nothing is being taken for granted. I completely understand. However, he will understand why I favour the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson: because it incorporates the structure of this proper legislative reform in relation to on-demand services. It does not apply where somebody has access to on-demand rights and makes them available in a number of places to unconnected persons. That would not necessarily fall to be regulated because it is not exclusive, and the use of exclusivity is really important. It reflects what is done in relation to existing live events. Equally, if it is made available free to air or free of charge, it would likewise not need Ofcom’s permission; again, that is like live events.
The amendment very carefully addresses itself to the listed events—major events of national importance—where they are intended to be available on demand, exclusively by those rights holders only and by nobody else, and behind a paywall. This means, in effect, they are not available as most people would expect to see national events in the catch-up and on-demand world of broadcasting that we now live in. It is an excellent amendment and demands close attention by the Government. I urge my noble friend to consider whether this is now the time to make this additional change to the structure of the regulation of listed events.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, surely at a time when we want children to get away from the telly and actually do sports, it is right that they be confronted by sports that they may know nothing about. Was it not curling, whatever that is, which became very popular and captured the imagination? Most of us could not believe that there was a sport where you push something along in that way.
There is a serious point about how children and young people know what sports are there. It is a bit like the inscription by Orwell’s statue outside the BBC:
“If liberty means anything … it means the right”
to be confronted by opinions you do not like, or something like that. That must go for sports as well, but I really need to make a confession. I live in Headingley; I have never been. Cricket is one of those sports that I suppose some people like. I have never understood it, but I would rather go to curling.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate must be an expert with a broom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The House was stunned into silence by the revelation from the right reverend Prelate.
I thank noble Lords for the contributions they have made and the points raised on the other amendments in this group. We, of course, had a bit of a pre-match friendly during our debate on sport led by the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, on Thursday. Let me start with Amendments 25 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
The Government recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, and I know that she has had concerns about in particular the necessity of the new multisport provisions, whether “adequate live coverage” will meet the mark, and whether public service broadcasters will have the freedom to choose what they cover in the interests of their audiences. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to seek to offer her and other noble Lords reassurance on these questions.
First, on whether these provisions are necessary, the Bill introduces the concept of adequate live coverage for multisport events to ensure that partnerships between broadcasters which deliver for UK audiences can still go ahead in an age where dozens of sporting events can be taking place concurrently. We do not want inadvertently to create a regime which would prevent deals like the one currently in place between Warner Bros. Discovery and the BBC. Expansion of the scope of services covered by the regime to resolve the streaming loophole poses risks to these mutually beneficial partnerships between public service broadcasters and commercial broadcasters for multisport events. That is because the existing requirement for both parties to have the same coverage does not reflect the way that coverage is actually shared between them across different types of services.
There is no intention to weaken the public service broadcasters’ hand in negotiations, simply to ensure that partnerships between them and commercial broadcasters can function effectively to deliver the best outcomes for audiences and rights holders.
On whether “adequate live coverage” will hit the mark for audiences, it will be for Ofcom to make new regulations setting out what will be considered adequate. Following scrutiny and debate in another place, the Government amended to the Bill to set out the matters that Ofcom must take into account when defining adequate live coverage in its regulations. This is an example of Parliament giving direction to the regulator through legislation. This includes the forms of live coverage that would satisfy the interests of the public, and the desirability of facilitating arrangements which result in live coverage of listed events being shown on both public service and non-public service broadcasters.
To protect audiences’ interests, and in keeping with deals we have seen before, any partnership of this nature will require at least two live broadcasts on public service broadcasters. Ofcom is given the power to require more than two streams if it deems it necessary or appropriate, and it could also set requirements regarding the percentage of coverage or other considerations.
Finally, I think the noble Baroness, like me and others who have spoken, believes that it is vital that public service broadcasters continue to have the flexibility and editorial freedom to show the most incredible moments of these multisport events to public audiences. I reassure her and other noble Lords that the Bill enables Ofcom to require that “adequate live coverage” must allow the broadcaster involved to select what parts of the proceedings it wishes to show. It is vital that public service broadcasters maintain complete editorial control of live broadcasts when they enter partnerships so that they have the freedom to make decisions about what events to screen for the British public, and the Bill makes provisions for this.
For those reasons, I do not think that we need the amendments the noble Baroness has brought before us. However, I hope my words have provided reassurance about the checks and balances in place to deliver for audiences in the way she seeks.
Lord Addington (LD)
Is the Minister, in effect, saying that he is convinced that, under the current regime, catch up and clips will continue to be available, certainly when multiple sports are happening at different times? Will we get slightly better guidance on that? Will it be available for us to look it up and check on it—certainly before the next stage of this Bill?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, the Bill caters for the concerns that have been set out, but I will happily discuss that further with the noble Lord if on reflection he disagrees with the reasons I have set out.
I turn now to the noble Lord’s Amendment 31. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. We acknowledge the interest that fans have in watching the sports teams of our home nations compete. As noble Lords will appreciate, however, sports rights holders use income from the sale of broadcast rights for the benefit of the sporting sector more generally, so it is important that the regime continues to strike the right balance between accessibility and the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues which they can invest in their sports at all levels.
The Government believe that the current list of events works to deliver the best outcome and strikes an appropriate balance. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. I know that will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but it is why I cannot accept his Amendment 31.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me to say a bit more about Amendment 19. We have taken the opportunity, as recommended during the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill, to take steps to ensure that the streamer loophole is closed. This was a major flaw in the current regime which allowed for unregulated online services to acquire listed sports rights, while leaving Ofcom powerless to do anything. The current drafting therefore ensures that all TV-like services providing live content to UK audiences are in scope of the regime. Amendment 19, and Amendments 20 to 22, are technical amendments to future-proof the regime by closing off an opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify through the back door. The amendments tie qualification for the listed events regime to the way in which qualification for prominence is decided.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I get the sense that the Minister is sympathetic to the point we have made here and that it is more a question of timescale. If the Government are looking at this, what sort of timescale do they think would be right for them to ponder the question more widely?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am loath to set out a precise timescale, but the noble Lord is right: it is a matter of looking at this more fully, as well as considering the complexities of how it could be borne out if it were concluded that that were necessary.
I hope noble Lords will see, through the government amendments in this group, that we have worked with parliamentary counsel to respond to the points that were raised by the Select Committee and Members in another place about the scope of services to be captured by the regime. We have now closed the streaming loophole, which could otherwise have seen live coverage intended for UK audiences disappearing behind a paywall without the protections that the regime offers. However, as I have set out, it is a complex matter that needs a bit more thought. I am happy to set out some of that thinking and to allow officials to do so with the noble Lord if he would find that useful. For those reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will understand that we cannot support her Amendment 30.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has tabled Amendment 31A. I agree with him that it is crucial that audiences are able to view their favourite sports live in whatever way works for them, whether that is on a traditional TV platform or over the internet. However, as new technologies such as internet protocol television—IPTV—become more prevalent, we need to ensure that they continue to serve audiences. This amendment would ask Ofcom to review the delivery of listed events and other audiovisual content online, with a focus on how internet service providers can work with broadcasters to deliver IPTV. As I have said in previous debates, my department has an ongoing programme of work on the future of TV distribution. As part of this, we are working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider many of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has raised today, including the reliability and quality of content provision on IPTV. That work is also ongoing.
Ultimately, while I agree that the issues that noble Lords have raised are important ones, this is not a Bill which is focused on the UK’s digital infrastructure. By considering the issue with regard to only one internet service—namely, television—we risk taking a piecemeal approach to what is an important and broader policy issue. For that reason, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord’s Amendment 31A either. I commend Amendment 19 to the Committee.
“(2AA) The conditions are—(a) that the relevant service is provided by—(i) the BBC or a person associated with the BBC otherwise than with a view to generating a profit,(ii) the provider of a Channel 3 service, Channel 4 or Channel 5,(iii) S4C, or(iv) a person associated with a broadcaster mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) or (iii);(b) that, where it is provided by the BBC or a person associated with the BBC, the service contributes to the promotion of one or more of the BBC’s public purposes;(c) that, where it is provided by a broadcaster referred to in paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii) or a person associated with such a broadcaster, the broadcaster’s latest statement of programme policy under— (i) section 266 or 267 of the Communications Act 2003, or(ii) paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to that Act,states that the service will be used to fulfil the public service remit for the Channel 3 service, Channel 4 or Channel 5 or (as the case may be) S4C’s public service remit.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 3.
“(2C) Section 362AZ12(6) of the Communications Act 2003 (meaning of references to a person associated with a public service broadcaster) applies for the purposes of subsection (2AA) as it applies for the purposes of Part 3A of that Act.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 5.
“(vii) it is not a service of the kind described in section 362AA(10)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 (internet programme services which provide programmes by means of an on-demand programme service or non-UK on-demand programme service and at least one other service).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment secures that “relevant service” does not include a service falling within section 362AA(10)(c) of the Communications Act 2003, inserted by Clause 28 (multi-service internet programme services that contain at least one relevant service).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 21 at page 25, line 21, alter the definition of exclusively granting rights to include live coverage of a Group A event.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 21 at page 25, line 16.
“(d) at least two of the second and further services are television programme services,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows relevant services which are not television programme services to be part of the adequate live coverage of a listed event.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 22 at page 27, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a drafting error.
Baroness Thornton
“Review of broadcast content and Children’s literacyWithin six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how audiovisual content providers are supporting children’s literacy.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause aims to probe the Government’s intentions regarding proposals around automatic subtitling.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister clocked the reluctant withdrawing of amendments. Perhaps there is further discussion to be had.
I rise to move Amendment 35A in my name; I will address the other amendments when I have heard the discussion that takes place. This is a probing amendment, and the reason we have submitted it is that, during the course of this future-proofing Bill that we are discussing, while we are addressing the issues of young people and children and the changes in their viewing habits and what that might mean for their development and learning, a discussion about subtitling seems appropriate.
The context for this question is twofold. First, a recent study from YPulse found that more than half of young people prefer using subtitles. According to the survey, more than half of Generation Z and millennial media consumers prefer subtitles. Through anecdotal evidence, having millennial and Generation Z living in my household, I can say that this is certainly true. If you are scrolling through TikTok or watching Netflix with a young person, you might notice more words on the screen. The use of subtitles is on the rise.
Secondly, researchers posed the question, “How does turning on subtitles help reading?” Studies have shown that turning them on supports various reading skills, including building on children’s knowledge of words, acquisition of vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency and speed, and decoding skills. There is a campaign, which has been running for several years, that advocates for automatic subtitling on children’s television shows in order to promote literacy. That is why we would like to probe this further and raise those questions.
I understand the Government have considered this previously, and I want to probe further the Minister’s thinking on the subject and whether the department has considered alternative or related schemes to promote literacy in children and increase their vocabulary at an early stage. There has been research that strongly suggests that having automatic subtitling on children’s television helps to turn children into more proficient readers.
Young people—although not as young as I am talking about here—prefer to watch television with subtitles. A YouGov survey found last year that 61% of young adults use subtitles while watching television. Although an older audience may find it an odd way to consume television for those without hearing difficulties or who are learning a language, it does not appear to be something that young people are opposed to.
Have the Government considered targeting specific age groups who would benefit most from the change—for example, children who are just learning to read? Although we often talk about children’s television as a monolith, “Bluey” targets a very different audience from, say, “Blue Peter”. Would having subtitles for those at the early stage of reading be more appropriate than mandating the change across all ages? Is the Minister aware of any broadcaster or on-demand providers who have plans to implement such changes to their platforms?
If the Government come to the conclusion that it is not workable to make subtitles automatic, would they consider doing more to effectively promote awareness among families of the potential power of switching to subtitles? For example, has the DCMS or the Department for Education considered working with on-demand video providers to promote automatic subtitles on children’s shows in app, as part of their settings? I am thinking of an option that parents could turn on as part of parental controls. Could the DCMS work closely with the DfE to ensure that educators know the benefits and could pass them on to parents? Of course, watching television or films would never be a substitute for reading, but evidence shows it can be a useful and effective way to supplement it.
As so often with areas of policy that impact children, we need to think cross-departmentally about how best to promote their well-being and learning. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this point. On these Benches, we are simply interested in the department’s thinking at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to four amendments in my name in this group. Although there are four amendments grouped together, they cover three separate subjects, and I hope the Committee will forgive me if I go carefully through each of those three subjects.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I am very supportive of her Amendment 35. Perhaps like her, I have had communications over several years from the campaign, Turn On The Subtitles, which is doing extremely good work in drawing attention to the way in which putting subtitles on by default and allowing people to be able to turn them off if they wish has been shown to provide huge benefit to children’s learning of reading.
I also say a huge thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He and I had a brief chat the other day about his amendments. I went away and had to put a wet towel over my head in a darkened room to try to understand them, and I did not get very far. I am enormously grateful that, today, I understood the arguments that he is making. They are very much in support of my Amendment 70.
My amendment seeks to apply the Ofcom standards code—which, as we have heard, is described in Section 319 of the Communications Act—to all on-demand programme services, to ensure that there is a consistency in standards objectives across all platforms. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to find ways to bring the Broadcasting Code and the current tier 1 standards code into unison. The problem is that Schedule 7, as currently drafted, will apply those standards only to tier 1 services, leaving a wide range of on-demand services entirely unregulated. It is worth recalling that the senior executive in charge of implementing the first system of VOD regulation at Ofcom, Trevor Barnes, warned last month:
“The Culture Secretary is given very wide discretion to decide who is, and who is not, caught in the Tier 1 net”.
The amendment removes that discretion and, therefore, offers far greater public protection.
As we have heard, Section 319 encompasses a broad range of standards objectives, including protection for children and protection from material that might cause harm and offence, but I will focus on Sections 319(2)(c) and 319(2)(d), which require that news be
“presented with due impartiality and … due accuracy”,
and, further, that the special
“impartiality requirements of section 320”
be applied—namely, that every TV and radio service must preserve due impartiality on
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
Those requirements date back to the very beginning of commercial TV in 1954 and have ensured that we have had a highly trusted broadcast media environment that has, so far, resisted the kinds of disinformation and polarisation that is so prevalent in online information services. Preserving that trusted environment not only depends on Parliament legislating for impartiality but requires a regulator that is prepared to do its job robustly and to implement that legislation without fear or favour. For most of its 20 years in regulating the linear world, Ofcom has done just that.
But here there is a spoiler alert—I note that the current chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in his place, and I suspect that he will not be particularly comfortable with the view that I hold. I think it is a matter of concern that, more recently, Ofcom does not seem to apply those rules with the rigour that Parliament has required, particularly in respect of GB News. Two examples will illustrate the problem, but there are many that I could have given.
On 13 January, the GB News presenter Neil Oliver used his programme to link Covid vaccines to the non-existent disease of “turbo cancer”, a wholly fictitious medical condition beloved by conspiracy theorists. That kind of dangerous disinformation, which went entirely unopposed on the GB News programme, should have been a slam dunk for a regulator charged with ensuring both accuracy and impartiality on licensed broadcasters. A month later, after multiple complaints, Ofcom delivered its verdict:
“In line with freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters to cover controversial themes and topics … We recognise that these brief comments were the presenter’s personal view and did not materially mislead the audience. We therefore will not be pursuing this further”.
It did not even bother with an investigation.
Last month, the same presenter hosted a journalist, Jasmine Birtles, who suggested that action against climate change was part of a “depopulation agenda” designed to
“remove 7.5 billion people from the world”.
There was no contrary view from either the presenter or other guests on the show. What was Ofcom’s response? It simply announced on its website that the programme
“did not raise issues warranting investigation”.
When challenged, it responded that the views expressed on the show
“were clearly presented as a personal opinion, consistent with the right to freedom of expression”.
I suspect that we all support the idea of freedom of expression—it is an Article 10 right—but there is no conflict between that right and an impartiality regime that ensures that all sides of any controversial matter are freely presented. That is the law of the land, and it needs to be upheld in both the linear and on-demand worlds.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wanted to say anything further on the other amendments, but I am happy to come in now.
As noble Lords know, following extensive public consultation on the topic, the Government set out their intention to legislate to give Ofcom powers to draft and enforce a new video on demand code similar to the Broadcasting Code, to ensure that TV-like content, no matter how audiences choose to watch it, will be subject to similar standards. Many of the amendments in this group touch on that. In particular, all tier 1 services will have to comply with the new code. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the mainstream on-demand services will be under similar obligations as traditional broadcasters, while simultaneously ensuring proportionality in these requirements.
I will address Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, which would bring all UK on-demand programme services under Ofcom’s current Broadcasting Code, including special impartiality requirements for
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
The Government have been clear about the importance of ensuring that new regulations for video on demand services are proportionate and fit for purpose, and that they take into account the unique characteristics of an on-demand environment, which the Broadcasting Code does not. There are some key differences between linear and on-demand television, and there are some specific elements of the Broadcasting Code that would be less practical to apply to video on demand services. For example, the watershed, which limits material that is more appropriate for adults to be broadcast after 9 pm, would not be effective for regulating streaming services, because its content can be chosen on demand by audiences, rather than being broadcast live at a particular time.
That is why we are giving Ofcom powers to design a new video on demand code rather than simply bringing these services under the existing Broadcasting Code. Importantly, the Bill also sets out a proportionate and practical approach to bringing on-demand services under the new code, capturing mainstream streaming services which target and profit from UK audiences. There are already over 270 video on demand services notified to Ofcom, and many of these simply do not provide TV-like content or are not widely accessible. It is essential that we balance audience protection with freedom of expression.
Extensive public and industry consultation shows us that the smallest and niche services, such as an on-demand service for a particular football team, could be unfairly and unnecessarily penalised by a blanket approach, with little or no benefit to audience protection and at a risk to the service’s sustainability. The Bill has been designed to ensure that regulation can be updated to add further, or even all, video on demand services into tier 1, if that is considered appropriate.
I hope that this explanation reassures the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that the video on demand code will have similar objectives to the existing Broadcasting Code but will be tailored to take into account the particular circumstances of audiences accessing content in an on-demand context.
I turn next to Amendment 58 from my noble friend Lord Lansley, regarding protecting audiences from being exploited by subliminal messaging—I wonder if he was trying to tell us something.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank your Lordships.
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify on the record that the legislation as drafted will already enable Ofcom to draft the video on demand code to protect audiences from this type of harm. Ofcom is given an overarching duty to protect audiences from harm. The legislation does not need to list each and every potential type, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue for our consideration today. In addition, to further reassure him, on-demand programme service rules already specifically prohibit advertising which uses techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message subliminally or surreptitiously. These rules will continue to apply following Royal Assent to the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, began our debate on this group with her Amendment 35A regarding children’s literacy. The Government are committed to continuing to raise literacy standards, ensuring that all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can read fluently and with understanding. We are very proud of the leaps and bounds that we have made on this over the last decade and a half in government. By ensuring high-quality phonics teaching, the Government want to improve literacy levels to give all children a solid base on which to build as they progress through school, and help children develop the habit of reading widely and often, both for pleasure and for information.
My portfolio covers libraries, and I had the pleasure of asking my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton to conduct an independent review of public libraries, which of course begins with the importance of reading and literacy. We know that one of the most powerful engines of social mobility is reading for pleasure; I echo many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, set out in her speech. We are currently refreshing the Government’s strategy for libraries, drawing on some of the recommendations that my noble friend Lady Sanderson made in her independent review, based on the consultation, round tables and discussion that she had with people across the country, from the sector and beyond.
The Department for Education recently made an assessment of the evidence behind the Turn on the Subtitles campaign, which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. That assessment by the Department for Education concluded that the current evidence is inconclusive as to whether turning on the subtitles improves children’s reading. As the noble Baroness is aware, the Bill will look to improve subtitles provision on mainstream video on demand services. However, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we believe it should be the choice of parents and guardians whether their child watches television programming with the subtitles on.
We have discussed this with providers, which have been clear that the technology simply is not there in many cases to turn the subtitles on by default for specific programming, even for certain ages, as the noble Baroness suggests. Short of embedding the content with subtitles—in which case viewers would not be able to turn it off—and without the absence of conclusive evidence about the benefits, we do not think that would be appropriate. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to talk about the campaign and the analysis which we have made so far.
On my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 43 and 59, on prohibiting political advertising on tier 1 video on demand services, political advertising is a fundamental part of any democratic system and is an established way for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard in a cost-effective manner, thus contributing to a level playing field among campaigners of different sizes and financial means. Paid political advertising on digital platforms such as YouTube and Instagram has been used by campaigners and political parties of all colours for some time, and is not objected to by the majority of those who campaign in that way.
In contrast, the legal ban on paid political advertising on television and radio, currently regulated by the Communications Act 2003, stems from a long-standing tradition which continues to be supported across the political spectrum. In considering any changes to the rules governing political advertising, the Government think it essential to consult political parties and to achieve cross-party consensus on an issue which directly affects campaigners from all parties and other campaigning groups. Regulation must be balanced with the rights of freedom of expression and public debate, which are both crucial to a thriving democracy, and no such consultation has yet been undertaken.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can I ask my noble friend two quick questions? First, have the Government engaged in any such consultation with the political parties in anticipation of this Bill, with a view to inquiring whether the ban on political advertising for broadcasters should be included for tier 1 services? Secondly, did he not tell us that the tier 1 standards code is for mainstream on-demand programme services, which are in that sense comparable with what we see in the broadcasting environment, not the more peripheral and digital access providers such as YouTube and so on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is similar but different. We have not consulted the other parties on this issue, not least because my department does not have direct responsibility for the regulation of political advertising—that falls to others. Of course, we work across government on these issues, but the simple answer to my noble friend’s question is that we have not had that that consultation. On a matter such as this, it is important to do that on a cross-party basis and to try to seek consensus before bringing forward proposals, particularly in an election year.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
To clarify that, does that mean that the Government intend to have this consultation with the political parties about paid political advertising; in other words, are the Government thinking that they would like to change the rules and regulations?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
No, although if the other parties wish to talk about the matter which my noble friend has raised through his amendment, I am sure we would be happy to do so. However, without that consultation and cross-party conversation on it taking place, I would be wary of proceeding with it in the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again but as we are in Committee, perhaps I might be allowed just to press the point. Time is of the essence here. This is the Media Bill, and we anticipate that it should be enacted before the election. It could be brought into force before an election. We know that ITVX is in this position of providing what will be tier 1 services under the Bill, and that it has not excluded that it might take paid political advertising. That is quite a significant place for a public service broadcaster operating an on-demand programme service to place itself in. Is my noble friend saying that the Government are happy for this to happen, they are content for this to happen, or that they are simply not willing to do anything to stop it happening?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s second interjection allows me to clarify an important point on timing. If he intends for this amendment to be in effect before the next general election, I must say to him that that is highly unlikely. Even if cross-party consensus were reached swiftly and changes were made to the Bill, the provisions in Schedule 5 would come into force only following the drafting and implementation of the video-on-demand code, which is unlikely to happen before the next general election. He has raised an important issue, on which there needs to be cross-party consultation and consideration before anything is brought forward but, even if that happened very swiftly, it would be unlikely to be in place before the next general election. It is important to remember also that, during regulated election periods, campaigners are subject to campaign expenditure limits when promoting paid political adverts, which further protects the level playing field between campaigners, both online and offline.
Finally, Amendment 44, also in the name of my noble friend, would allow the Secretary of State to consider the purchaser’s commitment to the video-on-demand standards code in a media merger case involving a broadcaster. While I agree with his intentions of ensuring sufficient protections for audiences, I hope that I can reassure him that this is already sufficiently covered in the Bill, in particular and elsewhere. The Secretary of State already has powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in media mergers on the basis of a need for high-quality broadcasting and a commitment to broadcasting standards more widely. In addition, the Bill gives Ofcom the necessary tools to regulate video-on-demand services, including information-gathering and enforcement powers. Similar statutory sanctions such as financial penalties that can be applied to linear broadcasters by Ofcom will also be available to apply to on-demand services. So, for these reasons, I do not think his Amendment 44 is needed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am quite glad that I waited to make my comments until I had heard what the Minister and other noble Lords had to say when speaking to their amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster.
Let us first dispose of the probing amendment that leads this group. We have here a moving scenario about subtitles and we are just going to have to keep watch on that, because clearly the generations to come like subtitles on their television sets or whatever devices they are using. That is interesting, and I look forward to further research into how that might support educational purposes. I think we would all want that to happen. Some of the stakeholders have explained to me that the technology does not exist to do it easily.
Regarding the other amendments in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has surfaced several very important questions. In terms of political advertising, on this side we are not looking to have any consultation on this, but we were seeking some clarity about whether there was a loophole in this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, used those words—for the future. That question is still not answered, so we will need to watch that.
The main issue that these amendments, particularly Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, brought forward concerns robust regulators and scrutiny. What I am taking away from this debate is that there are questions about how Ofcom has conducted itself in recent times. Questions have been raised about how robust it is being, and about impartiality and those sorts of issues, and therefore the confidence that we need to have in Ofcom as we move forward with this piece of legislation. However, we will be coming on to that in later groups. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, put the case extremely well. We thought that his amendment, on the face of it, seemed a rather sensible move, so I suspect that we will return to discuss this issue in due course. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
(i) in relation to a financial penalty imposed under subsection (A1) or (B1), an amount determined by OFCOM to be the value of the rights to include coverage of the event in question in the relevant service at the time when the rights are acquired, and(ii) in relation to a financial penalty imposed under subsection (1) or (2),””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies the method for determining the maximum financial penalty that OFCOM may impose under section 102(A1) or (B1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996.
(i) for “section 102(1)” substitute “section 102(A1) or (1)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Clause 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendments to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 14, and at page 124, line 20, remove definitions of terms and are further to amendments made in the House of Commons.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 7.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 7.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“54 “(1) Section 310 (code of practice for electronic programme guides), is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Where a user interface gives access to one or more electronic programme guides, the practices required by the code must include the giving, in the manner provided for in the code, of such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate to electronic programme guides within the user interface (whether such guides are provided by the person providing the user interface or by other persons).(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), OFCOM may consider that different degrees of prominence are appropriate in relation to different electronic programme guides.”(3) Omit subsection (4)(f).(4) After subsection (8), insert—“(8A) In this section—(a) “user interface” means an electronic programme guide that, in addition to the facilities mentioned in subsection (8), includes a facility by which a user may find, select or access electronic programme guides;(b) for the purpose of the definition of user interface in paragraph (a), the description of a service in subsection (8) includes such services provided by means of apparatus.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to secure that OFCOM’s Code of Practice for Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) gives EPGs prominence. Subsection (8A) defines a user interface as an EPG that – in addition to a traditional linear EPG –includes access to EPGs. This definition would include the means of accessing EPGs, such as remote controls. This amendment requires one short consequential amendment to the definition of “television licensable content service” in section 232 of the Communications Act 2003.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 42, 50 and 51 in this group. I again draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests.
The UK’s public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—and national broadcasters S4C, STV, and MG Alba, play an essential cultural, economic and social role, supporting British democratic values and underpinning the UK’s creative economy. They produce high-quality, distinctive content, informing, educating and entertaining audiences across the UK. Audiences support this. Seven in 10 UK adults want to see UK life and culture represented on screen. A similar number think that PSBs deliver well on programmes made for UK audiences. Six hours and nine minutes is spent watching BBC TV/iPlayer on average per person per week, which is more than Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video combined.
Currently, prominence is one of the main regulatory benefits provided to the PSBs, but the existing regime has not kept pace with technological change. It applies only to linear channels—for example, BBC One—delivered through the channel menu, also known as the electronic programme guide or EPG. The Media Bill updates the rules so that they will apply not just to PSB linear channels but to on-demand services such as BBC iPlayer. This is hugely welcome, but there is further opportunity to ensure that PSB prominence arrangements are future-proofed and watertight, protecting access to the content that people love and enjoy for future generations.
Amendment 42 is on the prominence of the EPG. While the Media Bill seeks to ensure that PSB on-demand services will appear prominently on regulated TV platforms, and PSB linear services within the EPG will continue to benefit from the existing prominence regime, there are no protections for the EPG itself. A growing number of IP-only households watch videos via a broadband connection. This is expected to exceed 50% of total households by the end of this decade. All this has led to more people watching content on demand. It does not mean the end of linear, which remains the single biggest way that people watch video content and delivers 82% of audiences’ consumption of BBC TV content. The familiarity of linear TV will continue to make it a popular discovery route for audiences, even as they move away from digital terrestrial television.
The PSBs have responded to the continuing need for live TV by investing in an online linear solution freely, but linear TV is being eroded. The EPG has been downgraded within TV user interfaces and the linear schedule hidden away. This comes at the expense of PSB. In internet-only homes, without a linear programme guide, the BBC gets just 22% of our normal consumption. The current rules do not enable Ofcom to support audiences by safeguarding this popular and familiar way of watching TV. The Government should use the Media Bill to update the Communications Act 2003 to safeguard linear TV, an important and familiar viewing route. This would also support audiences as the digital transition continues. The amendment would require Ofcom to give the EPG itself the degree of prominence that it considers appropriate. This is in keeping with the existing linear prominence framework, with high-level legislation underpinned by Ofcom guidance and codes. This is a flexible and future-proofed approach.
Amendments 50 and 51 concern the definition of “appropriate prominence”. The Media Bill gives PSB on-demands appropriate prominence but does not define what this means, leaving it open to interpretation. Ofcom will be the regulator of the prominence regime and sufficient direction and clarity about the outcomes that Parliament wishes to see is crucial in order to allow Ofcom to implement the rules robustly. As recommended by the CMS Select Committee, the PSBs should receive “significant” rather than “appropriate” prominence. The best way to secure this is for the Bill to set out explicitly what “appropriate” means. A further amendment to the Media Bill should also set out more concretely the areas of Ofcom guidance that the application of appropriate prominence should cover: for example, search, recommendations and personalisation, acting as a further safeguard. I beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47 are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We had a bit of a knock-around on “prominence” at Second Reading—was it “appropriate”, “significant” or, as the right reverend Prelate ventured, neither? Indeed, he was right; the word itself should be enough, for the Oxford English dictionary defines it as
“the state of being important, well known, or easy to notice”.
We want the PSBs, on any screen that offers choices between PSBs and streamers, to be important, well-known, and very easy to notice. It is vital, as commercial operators do not always want us to choose the PSB, because their gods are commercial. As we know, things can get very small and difficult on-screen when customers choosing it means less income—think about how hard it is to find that tiny “unsubscribe” notice when we want to get out of emails from some commercial arrangement we no longer want. It is not in commercial entities’ interests to make life easy for us; that is why we have to mandate and prescribe “prominence”. We on these Benches do not believe it is sufficient to leave it to Ofcom to define. I have heard the arguments about “appropriate” being perfectly adequate, and we beg to disagree.
For clarity, I am trying to get across that we on these Benches believe that prominence must be defined in legislation to guide Ofcom, and not be left open-ended for it. That definition should be crystal clear: that in every and any situation where channel choice is being offered, the PSB logo or whatever should be of equal or greater prominence to any other choice offered on the electronic programme guides.
The dangers of not specifying what prominence means or seeks to achieve in the Bill could include a loss of funding. PSBs often rely on public funding or subsidies to fulfil their mandate of providing programming that serves the public interest; without prominence, they may struggle to attract viewership and advertising revenue, leading to financial difficulties that could jeopardise their ability to produce the sort of high-quality content we want them to. PSBs may find it challenging to reach a wide audience, particularly in a crowded media landscape where viewers have numerous options for their entertainment; that could lead to a decline in their influence and relevance, making it harder for them to fulfil their role as a source of impartial news, educational programming and cultural content.
The public service mandate could be undermined, as PSBs are tasked with providing programming that serves the public interest, including news, current affairs and educational content. Without prominence, they may struggle, and their content may be overshadowed by commercial broadcasters or streaming services prioritising profit. It could also be a threat to media diversity and cause a loss of trust and accountability. Lastly, if public service broadcasters are not given prominence in a democratic society, there are issues around this that could arise: an erosion of media pluralism, a threat to freedom of information, diminished public discourse, a loss of accountability, and the undermining of democratic values, social cohesion, education and lifelong learning, and cultural preservation.
As this is a probing amendment, I encourage the Minister to think about bringing back his own amendment as an instruction to Ofcom in dealing with prominence, to say that, however it writes it regulations, PSBs must have equal or greater prominence than any other offer on the screen.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, summing up from these Benches on the amendments in this group, I congratulate those who have spoken, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It crossed my mind as I was about to stand up that on the first day in Committee I was congratulating and following a prima ballerina and today it is an Olympian—which rather reduces my sense of myself. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a remarkable example of what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport produces that we have as great legislators these great sportsmen and artists.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said apart from the language point. Why is “significant” an improvement on “appropriate”, when neither of them are defined? “Significant” has to mean significant of something—we might think that it just means “a lot”, but it does not. It is as meaningless as “appropriate”, indefinable and cannot be quantified.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
To my mind, “significant” is very different from “appropriate”, which is a wishy-washy, woolly term, whereas “significant” is a specific term.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is not. If we went around the room and asked, “Please quantify it, or tell us what it means”, I think we would—
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
What word would the right reverend Prelate use?
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
I have struggled with it, but “substantial” or “substantive” might get us somewhere, rather than something that does not actually mean anything. The General Synod of the Church of England has a similar problem; it put “collegiate” in some recent legislation when it meant “collegial”—it had nothing to do with colleges. I worry about putting things in legislation that cannot be defined.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is nothing if not consistent. He has been raising what “appropriate” means in the Bill from the word go.
This group of amendments, and the debate which we have just had, is in many ways at the heart of the Bill. At its heart is the issue of our public service broadcasters as the cornerstone of our broadcasting sector in the UK, investing, as they do, billions of pounds in original productions and creating content that is trusted, valuable and entertaining for UK audiences. In return for the high standard of programming and investment that public service broadcasters provide, their channels have been made easy to find on linear television sets—to the benefit of audiences across the country. However, amid rapid changes in how viewers access television and content more generally, the prominence regime, which has not been updated for decades, is at increasing risk of becoming diluted and outdated.
It seems there are two major issues. First, public service broadcasters are in danger of being cut out of view, as noble Lords have said in this short debate, as global content players and platforms strike international deals with online platforms for prominence. Secondly, as a result, our public service broadcasters are at risk of being forced to concede increasingly material percentages of their revenue to those platforms simply to appear on them.
In this situation, it seems that almost everybody loses out—from audiences to the wider UK production economy, even the platforms themselves, which might find themselves in a position where they cannot promote the content that UK viewers most want to see. A new prominence framework for the digital era, therefore, was always going to be crucial. These amendments address how prescriptive such a new regime should be in legislation.
We on these Benches welcome that the Government have avoided explicitly spelling out what prominence looks like in the Bill or making primary legislation restrictive or resistant to future changes in technology and behaviour. Instead, we endorse a principles-based approach based on finding mutually beneficial carriage deals between what are branded “designated internet programme services” and “regulated television selection services”, with Ofcom able to provide a framework in which those negotiations can operate. Ofcom must show that it can and will undertake this important duty as a regulator. There must be strong dispute resolution and enforcement powers for Ofcom, including the ability to impose significant penalties as a result of non-compliance. That allows for maximum flexibility in both legislation and negotiations, as well as proper protections where agreements cannot be reached. It also allows for the regime to be expanded where necessary to capture new technology via which people might be watching television content. Platforms and PSBs have a history of successful negotiations, creating mutually beneficial deals and partnerships that it would be counterintuitive for the prominence regime to undermine.
We support the drafting, but we seek some clarity on the requirement to secure “appropriate” prominence. This was a major topic of discussion during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, with the majority of PSBs calling for this to be upgraded to “significant” prominence. The arguments were based mostly on the differences between linear and digital streaming landscapes.
I invite the Minister to provide a full response to the legitimate argument for “significant” prominence, and to outline the reasons why the prominence requirement has not been upgraded. What conversations have been had with Ofcom on how the detail of the regime will be set out in the code of practice to ensure that it meets its aims? We will need a strongly empowered Ofcom if the Bill is to succeed.
The BBC has consistently called for the possibility of including remote controls and multi-use devices in the prominence regime. I know that its latest thinking is that electronic programme guides could be given prominent buttons on remotes, rather than one PSB in particular. Though we are all keen to see this legislation on the statute book, our aim is that we fully seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that public service content is easily findable in the digital age. The Minister must assure us that that can be achieved and tell us how.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of the new online prominence framework is arguably the most important change that the Bill brings about in terms of ensuring that high-quality public service content remains available and easy to find online, and in helping to secure the future sustainability of the public service broadcasting system in the UK, of which we are so proud.
I will speak briefly about government Amendments 48 and 49 together. These amendments are to ensure consistency with Part 3A of the Communications Act 2003 in how the Bill describes the content and channels contained within the internet programme services that may be designated by Ofcom. These are technical amendments and I hope noble Lords will support them.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group that noble Lords have spoken to. The duty on regulated television selection services to give prominence to designated services goes to the very heart of the regime, so I understand why many noble Lords have strong views on this—as we heard today and at Second Reading—and why they are keen to ensure that the drafting delivers sufficient prominence for our public service broadcasters.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to amend the duty on platforms to give designated services “appropriate” prominence to “significant” prominence. I can reassure noble Lords that a lot of careful consideration has gone into the exact wording used in relation to this duty on discoverability. We have consciously designed the new online prominence framework to ensure that it strikes the right balance between ensuring that important public service content is easy to find online and ensuring that regulation is operable and proportionate.
As I made clear on Second Reading, there is a reason why we chose to use “appropriate”—it is a well understood term that has been delivering effective prominence for our public service broadcasters in relation to linear broadcasting for two decades now. It is the term used in the Communications Act so is understood in this context, even if etymologically—lexicographically—we may continue the debate. We remain of the view that “appropriate” is the right descriptor for prominence and that any amendments to the drafting—including removing “appropriate” or changing it to “significant”—could have unintended consequences for the overall user experience. It is not the intention of the new framework to restrict innovation or undermine customer choice or personalisation, for instance.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this grouping. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for giving us a different set of words we can use. I am sorry my noble friend Lord Colville is not in his place; I am merely an occasional TV and radio presenter as opposed to someone who works in the industry. “Appropriate” and “significant” are part of the language of the media, which is rather like the language of your Lordships’ Chamber; it is quite subtle and not always easily understood by people who work elsewhere.
I also thank the number of broadcasters that got in touch with me once I had tabled the amendments, particularly ITV, which spent some time with me pointing out why it did not think my amendment would necessarily work. It is not opposed to strengthening the language to “significant” prominence, and none of us wants any unintended consequences from these amendments, but strengthening that might be something to look at. No doubt the strength of the regime will depend on Ofcom’s implementation regardless of the change. There is plenty more to discuss on finding the right terminology for this. I am slightly disappointed but not surprised that my enthusiasm for these amendments is not shared by the Minister, but I am likely to come back again at the next stage. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“55A In section 324 (setting and publication of standards), in subsection (2)(a), for “teletext services”, substitute “news content, where it is provided by broadcasters in any format”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place an obligation on OFCOM to consult those using news content provided by broadcasters, in place of users of teletext services, when preparing the Standards Code.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 45 is unrelated to the other amendments in the group, which is described as “miscellaneous”. I might be allowed not to venture any comment on the Government’s technical amendments and confine myself just to say something on Amendment 54A. In light of all the things we have heard about the changing nature of access to television and televisual material—and radio, I suspect—the reliance on digital access and the limitations on access to the wide range of programmes we presently enjoy for those who lack digital connectivity is an issue certainly worth exploring. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on tabling Amendment 54A.
My Amendment 45 is really just a probing amendment to find out about the process by which a consultation is to take place before Ofcom conducts its standards code. Noble Lords will recall that in Clause 26 we brought the legislation into line with reality and the public teletext services disappeared, so asking Ofcom to consult those who use it would be unnecessary—pointless.
Strictly speaking, consulting those who use television programmes and radio services is perfectly sufficient for the standards code. However, given the standards code and the requirements relating to news impartiality and news accuracy, the special impartiality requirements in Section 320 of the Communications Act, and the fact that the consultation on teletext was about, in a sense, the ways in which broadcasters give the public access to news, I thought it might be helpful to suggest that it might be a good idea for the consultation on the standards code, whenever it happens, to take particular account of how public service broadcasters, by whatever format, set out to give the public access to news, in line with the standards objectives. I am hoping that Ministers would commend that, whether we need to write it into the Bill or not, and that it might be given special attention rather than simply being ignored when we lose teletext and its reference to news in the standards code. I beg to move Amendment 45.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the group being “miscellaneous”. It suggests it is a bit of a hotchpotch when, in fact, the noble Lord has already asked some very pertinent questions, which my noble friend’s Amendment 54A asks as well. It intends to probe the Government’s intentions to address digital exclusion relating to access to television. Quite a few of the stakeholders raised this issue with us as we prepared for this Bill; I think they will have done with other noble Lords as well.
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to
“prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the impact on the UK economy of addressing digital exclusion”,
including,
“an assessment of the impact of current and future levels of digital exclusion”
and
“an assessment of the likely costs of delivering a programme to … drive uptake of internet connectivity”—
an issue we have discussed in the House on many occasions—
“and digital devices to support access to television and … provide suitable support for skills development for those who need it in order to access television services”.
If the Bill is about the future and what might happen, we also have to address the fact that there will be millions of our fellow citizens who will not have access in different ways. We need to take account of that and work out how best we can approach it. That is what the amendment is about.
With his Amendment 45, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises issues about how we look to the future to ensure that the Bill is comprehensive and covers the issues that need to be covered when preparing the standards code.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, “miscellaneous” is certainly one of those words that we use in your Lordships’ House and mean all manner of things by it.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 45, which probes the Bill by seeking to amend the Communications Act 2003 to require Ofcom to consult those interested in news content provided by broadcasters in any format before setting broadcasting standards. As he set out, this aims to reflect the shifts we have seen in recent years towards digital news consumption. However, the Government do not believe it is necessary to make changes such as these to the requirements on Ofcom, which would blur the lines between the regulation of television on the one hand and the regulation of the press on the other. That is because we do not intend to amend the regulation of the press or of broadcast news content.
We are committed to protecting media freedom and the invaluable role of a free press in our society and democracy. As part of this, we are committed to upholding independence of the press and taking steps to preserve the existing system of self-regulation. That is why we are repealing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, and why we acted, through the Online Safety Act, to preserve the ability of readers to access recognised news publishers’ content online. The world of television is naturally different. For almost a century, what we have seen on the small screen has been underpinned by a clear set of broadcasting standards. This is something that UK audiences have come to know and value.
In a sense, this amendment addresses one potential boundary issue: the treatment of news websites, and in particular those run by broadcasters themselves—into which category are they to fall? Our considered view is that, in general, such websites are the digital extension not of television but of newspapers. A number of factors point towards this, not least that they are text-based and, in sharp contrast to teletext, rarely accessed from a television set. Viewed in this way, it is clearly inappropriate to apply the Broadcasting Code to them. I thank my noble friend for his probing amendment, but I hope I have reassured him why we do not need to add it to the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 54A, and for starting an important debate on digital inclusion as it relates to television. I agree with them that it is essential that access to high-quality television is universal and should not be dependent on having a high level of digital skills. In previous debates on this Bill, we have already discussed the importance of ensuring that nobody is left behind. I hope I was able to reassure noble Lords that the Government have guaranteed the provision of digital terrestrial television until 2034 at least, and that to turn off this technology would require primary legislation. We know that a key benefit of this technology is how easy it is to use, and we will continue to protect the millions of households that rely on it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to those who participated in this short debate. I thought they raised some useful points.
I think my noble friend may have slightly misinterpreted Amendment 45. I was not in any way trying to extend the standards code to the online activity or websites of the press. I am not interested in that. If anything, what I am really interested in is that we have a number of broadcasters—the BBC, Sky, ITV—each of which has, in addition to its broadcast activity, significant online news presentations. This has not happened, and I am not accusing anybody of doing anything, but I know from past experience just how important it is who chooses what is regarded as the most important news at any given time.
The essence of many of these news online websites is that they are determining what the public are being told are the lead news stories at this moment. To that extent, although they are technically on demand because you can pull down the video clips from Sky News or from ITV or wherever, actually the presentation of those choices is important. I hope those broadcasters will continue to make responsible, impartial and accurate decisions, but if they were not to do so and they are broadcasters, I do not think the standards code would apply to them because this is not covered by their broadcast activity. However, I think it ought to: public service broadcasters, in so far as they are active in news promotion and presentation, should be accountable through the standards code for what they do.
I know my noble friend will recognise that this debate is part of a broader issue, which I want to pursue when I can, relating to the structure of the media public interest test and the importance of these tests in the standards code in relation to news generally and extending the media public interest to those who are responsible for the agglomeration and selection of content for news presentations on a wider set of platforms. I cannot do it in this Bill or in this amendment, but I hope to have the chance to do it sometime. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 45.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 28 at page 44, line 13, are minor drafting changes.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 28 at page 43, line 12.
“1A In section 393 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), in paragraph (a), after “137A” insert “, 362AG(7), 362AW”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 28.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest that I was a TV journalist and executive and worked for the BBC and ITV and made programmes for Channel 4.
We on these Benches are pleased that this Government’s attempt to privatise Channel 4 failed. However, one of the conditions of that attempt, removing its publisher-broadcasting status and allowing it to make its own programmes, has made it into this Bill as Clause 31, which we oppose.
As has been pointed out often to the Minister from these Benches, Channel 4 was created in 1982 by a Government led by Margaret Thatcher. Channel 4 certainly succeeded in fulfilling her business and economic philosophy, in that our world-beating independent production sector owes a huge debt to its creation. As for whether Mrs Thatcher was quite so happy with its creative content, I suspect not.
Channel 4 was conceived as a publisher-broadcaster, not like the BBC/ITV duopoly which existed at that time and made its own programmes in its own studios, but commissioning entirely from what was then a small and innovative band of producers. As a consequence, the television industry in this country diversified as it provided new and exciting opportunities to creative entrepreneurs throughout the UK. In the TV world, it empowered and nurtured small independent producers and start-ups—the companies we were talking about in our first debate today. It played a pivotal role in driving the growth, competitiveness and creative diversity of UK indies. These companies were one of the UK creative industries’ greatest success stories.
Channel 4 invests a greater proportion of its revenue in independent UK commissions than any other PSB or commercial broadcaster, and its publisher-broadcaster status has also meant that Channel 4’s commercial revenues are reinvested in UK content production. As well as being the incubator of our thriving independent production sector, Channel 4 is also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”. One hour of in-depth news and current affairs at the heart of peak time on a commercial channel is unheard of anywhere else.
And then, of course, there is its pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. I believe that Channel 4’s championing of this event has led to a worldwide change in the attitude towards disability—a view confirmed by Dame Sarah Storey on Radio 4’s “Desert Island Discs” this weekend about her experience at the Beijing Olympics. She revisited Beijing a year after the Olympics and went to a disabled sports club where she was told that the transformation in the way the disabled were treated in Chinese society was immeasurable.
Due to its expansion of digital channels, Channel 4’s viewing demographic is young and diverse. We believe the cost of establishing a new in-house production outfit would disrupt its business plan—these things that it has achieved—and take money away from commissioning from others.
I do not think we should change Channel 4. It was conceived for a reason: to grow the UK independent TV sector and to represent the voice of minorities. It has done that spectacularly. Channel 4 is a vital part of our creative economy, providing invaluable support to smaller independent production companies throughout the nations and regions, although, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be underpinned. It is a platform for exciting new programming, quality news and current affairs, and pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. Why change its remit?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I too oppose Clause 31. Channel 4—what a brilliant initiative, how extraordinary, and what a success. It is a cauldron of innovative and original talent, fundamental to our brilliant, creative country, providing a stream of talent for use by all the others, streaming, literally, into our country. It was created to foster competition and innovation in the broadcast sector, and it did. The approach allowed independent production companies to compete for contracts to create programmes rather than relying on in-house production by the channel itself—an approach the Government now seem to want it to adopt. In that independence, it still had to maintain high editorial standards, ensuring accuracy and impartiality and fairness. It had to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and to fulfil certain public service obligations to educate, inform and entertain with social responsibility. That model, rather than an in-house production facility and staff, enabled Channel 4 to operate efficiently.
Of course there are challenges. Channel 4 itself had become a bit reliant on production companies that have now grown big, but it is a cauldron of creative opportunity. Right now it is not having the easiest of times, but if it was producing in-house, cuts would be swingeing and challenging. As a commissioning body, it can better cut its cloth to meet the vagaries and ups and downs of its and our economy.
If the Government’s desired change were to take place, it would reduce the opportunities for independent producers, impacting the diversity and range of voices represented. It would risk creative stagnation. It would have financial implications and require investment in additional production facilities, staff and resources at a time when it is cash poor. And any shift in its programming strategy would impact its ability to attract and retain audiences. There would also be an impact on the independent production sector if this significant source of commissioning independent production companies were to be reduced, particularly the smaller ones and the ones producing risky and innovative content.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the clause stand part debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for whom I have immense respect, is, I am sure, well intentioned. As she said, it relates to the primary purpose of Channel 4, which is to be a commissioning public service broadcaster.
The Government’s desire to enable Channel 4 to produce programmes in-house as well as through its tried and tested commissioning route is undoubtedly novel and a new departure for the channel, but it is not without risk. As I recall, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, reminded us, it was announced as part of the Government’s decision not to privatise the channel. We all cheered that, but we were left uncertain as to the real intent behind the announcement.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Clause 31 forms an essential component of our plans to support Channel 4’s long-term sustainability so that the channel remains an important and distinctive part of our broadcasting system for many years to come. It is always a pleasure to hear praise from the Benches opposite for the legacies of the Thatcher Governments.
The publisher-broadcaster restriction, as set out in Section 295 of the Communications Act, is unique to Channel 4 and prevents it from being involved in the making of programmes for the Channel 4 service, except to such an extent as Ofcom may allow. As a result, Channel 4 is significantly more dependent on advertising revenue than other commercial broadcasters—a point that we have touched on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly reminds us, in the debates that we have had on alternative means for securing money for the channel’s long-term sustainability. In particular, two-thirds of Channel 4’s revenue comes from linear television advertising, the market for which is both highly cyclical and in long-term structural decline because of the declining number of people watching linear television.
In response to these challenges, last year the Government announced a package of reforms that would help to support Channel 4’s long-term sustainability while retaining it in public ownership. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restriction is a key element of that package that will open up opportunities for Channel 4 to further diversify its revenues away from advertising by making its own programmes, should it choose to do so. The Government undertook an assessment of the impact of that and published it on GOV.UK. We will happily direct the noble Lord and others to that so that they can see the assessment that we set out when bringing the package of mitigations forward.
I understand the concerns set out by the two noble Baronesses about how the change might affect Channel 4’s support for the independent production sector across the UK, which were also raised when this issue was discussed in the other place, and we touched on it in our first group of amendments today. That is why, when we announced our intention to remove the restriction, we were clear that we would work closely with the production sector to ensure that Channel 4’s important role of driving investment into the sector would be safeguarded. The outcome of that work was a substantial package of mitigations that we announced in November, some of which, such as the introduction of new Channel 4 commissioning duties and an Ofcom-led review, are included in the Bill. Those mitigations, which also include increasing the level of Channel 4’s independent production quota, will be implemented in the event that Channel 4 incorporates a production company.
Channel 4 itself has welcomed the removal of the restriction and has said that in-house production could offer good long-term support for financial sustainability, while reaffirming its commitment to continue to invest in and champion independent producers, as it has done for the last 40 years. Ultimately, a stronger and more resilient Channel 4 will be best placed to continue playing its integral role in our broadcasting ecosystem for many years to come. By contrast, failing to remove Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction would mean passing up an opportunity to help it to deliver on that important ambition. That is why Clause 31 is an important clause and should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
What sort of costs does the Minister anticipate the channel will face in setting up its own production company? Has any estimate been made of that? What discussions have the Government had with the company to ensure that it can secure that in the most cost-efficient way?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have no estimate of my own, but I will happily find out and provide the noble Lord with any estimates that have been made.
“21A In section 39 (interpretation of Part 1), in subsection (1), in the definition of “S4C” and “S4C Digital”—(a) omit ““S4C” and”; and(b) omit “each”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Schedule 4 at page 134, line 18, add consequential amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 3.
“23A In section 105 (interpretation of Part 4 and supplementary provisions), in subsection (1), omit the definition of “S4C”.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 4 at page 134, line 8.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Age rating standardsWhere Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines, or(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards,(ii) applied consistently across content,(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public, and(iv) well understood and recognised by the public.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey and with his permission, I move Amendment 57. It seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by video on demand channels—and I of course acknowledge that some adopt a different approach to audience protection—the ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency and objectivity. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has worked tirelessly on this issue and whose amendments, while having the same effect as Amendment 57, provide much more detail on the procedures to be followed. We on these Benches support them, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I welcome the Bill’s proposal to improve audience protection on streaming services through Ofcom reviews, but my concern is that the Bill does not specify on what basis Ofcom should consider measures to be adequate—echoing the point I made earlier on the need for Parliament to have a greater say in guiding Ofcom on the way it carries out its functions. This is a particular problem when it comes to age ratings, as not all age ratings are equally effective for child protection. The present lack of consistency risks undermining public confidence in age ratings in general and I know there is an unusual level of cross-party support on this particular issue.
In the ideal world—as I see it—all streaming content would carry a BBFC age rating. We expect this of cinema and DVD releases, so why not streaming? Netflix, Amazon, Apple and many others have demonstrated that this is achievable. However, in the interests of achieving consensus, at the very least there should be minimum standards to ensure greater consistency where services choose to use age ratings. This is essentially what all the amendments in this group seek to achieve. BBFC ratings are rightly trusted and valued by UK families. The BBFC is designated by the Government, accountable to Parliament and legally bound to take UK public opinion into account, which it does through extensive research. The BBFC is also fully transparent. It publishes its guidelines and provides detailed content advice to help families make informed choices. This is essential to the effectiveness of its ratings.
Streamers working with the BBFC automatically benefit from its transparency and consistency and from the massive public trust it enjoys. Netflix viewers understand what a 12 or a 15 means on Netflix because it means exactly the same thing as in cinemas or on DVD. I have looked at some of the services that do not use BBFC ratings, including Disney+, Paramount+ and Sky’s Now service. I did not find any information on their age rating criteria, nor any evidence of research underpinning their standards. The ratings these services apply are often misaligned with UK expectations. Even where films and series have a legally enforceable BBFC rating, they often choose to apply—bizarrely—a different rating. How can parents know which rating to trust when the BBFC says one thing and Disney says something different?
To give an example: “Beauty and the Beast”, the 2017 live action remake, was a PG in the cinemas and on DVD. It remains a PG online on those streamers that are working with the BBFC, including Amazon Prime and Apple TV, but on Disney+, for some reason, it has been reclassified as a 12+. Another example is “Bohemian Rhapsody”, the Freddie Mercury biopic. This has a BBFC rating of 12. Many families will have enjoyed it together at the cinema. It remains a 12 on Amazon, Apple and the other services that work with the BBFC, but on Disney+ it is 16+. This means that, if a parent wants to let their 12 year-old watch a film that is entirely appropriate for them, they need to set the child’s Disney+ profile to access 16+ content—but that would include many titles with a BBFC rating of 15 or 18.
At the same time, Disney classified a very sinister 2019 adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” involving graphic horror scenes and sexual exploitation as a 9+. While Disney subsequently took this title down, it was a serious compliance failure when it was released with this rating in the first place. But Disney+ is not the only offender. On Paramount+, titles rated BBFC 12 are routinely bumped up to 15+, putting them alongside much stronger material. Do family favourites such as “Mean Girls”, “Top Gun: Maverick” and various titles in the Transformers series really belong alongside violent thrillers and gory horror movies?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who put the case for this group of amendments incredibly well. I do not want to go over the ground he has already covered, but I would just like to endorse three key points behind them.
First, children should be afforded the same protections against inappropriate content, whatever channel they are on. As my noble friend the Minister will remember well, what goes on in the real world should apply also to the digital world and vice versa. Secondly, it is the role of Parliament—no one else—to set out the rules when it comes to issues as important as the safety of children. Thirdly, companies that wilfully and knowingly fail to take steps to protect children should face the consequences. Those are the three principles behind this group of amendments and I thank the noble Lord for putting them so well.
I also thank some of the companies and stakeholders with whom I have engaged in the drafting of these amendments. As noble Lords may have noticed, the amendments have changed quite a lot between Second Reading and our meeting today. The reason is that companies have made good points and we have adjusted the amendments to reflect some of those: I thank in particular Disney and Sky for the engaging, positive and constructive way in which they have conducted these conversations.
Amendment 60 is incredibly straightforward. It is to include the British Board of Film Classification as a statutory consultee when Ofcom is drafting new video on demand codes. Statutory consultees are very common. The Children’s Commission was added during the Online Safety Bill and the BBFC is highly respected. So I hope very much that that could be waved through by my noble friend the Minister.
Amendment 61 is really the main focus of my remarks today. It would bring in a minimum standard across all ratings across tier 1 services. It would allow providers to either use the BBFC’s world-class and highly robust system or—and this is a very important “or”—a system of their own that meets equivalent standards. That is the gap that this amendment seeks to fill.
Following discussions with the providers, it also includes a provision for services provided by linear broadcasters to use a system based on the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. If I can, I will briefly explain that point. Many broadcasters have a linear service that is quite reasonably overseen by Ofcom and have a Broadcasting Code arrangement. It seems sensible—to me at least—that those standards should apply to their VOD broadcasts as well. That was one of the changes we were pleased to make to the amendments we have laid.
Amendment 61 sets out the process by which Ofcom can assess the ratings systems that are not based on the BBFC’s and, following the discussions I mentioned, the ability for Ofcom to designate some content, such as news or live events, as exempt from age ratings. That seems like a sensible exemption to me. Amendments 62 to 66 are consequential on Amendment 61 and would extend Ofcom’s enforcement powers to cover breaches related to the minimum standards for age-ratings requirements.
During Second Reading, there were some concerns raised that it would be inappropriate to mandate a particular solution and that these amendments might go against the tech-neutral approach of the overall Bill. If that were the case then I would share those concerns, but I reassure noble Lords, who will see this from the text, that those concerns are based on a misunderstanding of both the intent and substance of these amendments. The provisions would apply only to tier 1 services that choose to use age ratings as part of their overall audience protection duties. No service would be forced to use age ratings against its will and the requirements would not apply to any service that finds a different or better audience protection measure, whether that is tomorrow or in 50 years’ time. Nor would it mandate a specific age-ratings system, such as the BBFC’s. In fact, my amendment provides a clear choice of three different approaches, one including a bespoke service to them, provided it meets the minimum standards.
That is what my amendments are really about. They aim to ensure that, in the same way parents know what PG and 12A mean when they go to the cinema or buy a DVD, they can trust the age ratings that pop up on their TV at home or on the basis of their parental controls. For that reason, I hope very much indeed that my noble friend the Minister will embrace this set of amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 67 and 69 are in my name on the Marshalled List. Amendment 67 would add signposting measures to the audience protection measures which Ofcom must review under new Section 368OB of the Communications Act 2003. Amendment 69, in common with the amendments that have already been spoken to, would require Ofcom to consider whether age-rating systems used by a tier 1 service meet a set of minimum standards.
My amendments are very similar to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. The key to our amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is the need for us to be consistent in the way that we deal with children and age rating, so that systems are easily understood by parents and fulfil the standards that we have in this country about child protection, wherever it is. The Minister will be aware of all this, since he lived through the Bill that is now on the statute book as the Online Safety Act.
I was slightly surprised when I received a briefing which was signed by many of the stakeholders in this area—a number of companies, but it also included the PSBs. It made an argument against the three sets of amendments that have been put down. I was rather struck by this—I think they were a bit naughty in this briefing, in my view. For example, they included the public service broadcasters, which are not affected by this; this is absolutely not relevant to them. I would like the Minister to confirm that that is absolutely the case: this is not about their content at all.
The briefing also makes various statements about the commitment that many of the companies have to collaborating with Ofcom during the passage of the Bill, but that they want to take into consideration “audience research Ofcom conducts”. If it is the case that these companies are all committed to this then I can think of no reason why they would object to the minimum standards that we have put in our amendments being in the Bill. We are not saying that they should necessarily adopt the BBFC standards; what we are saying is that they need to show that their age ratings are comprehensive, understandable and sensible.
Some of these big beasts, if I might call them that, which have objected to this are doing it because they are big beasts. Frankly, I am unimpressed by that. We know, for example, that the same thing happened when New Zealand was dealing with this issue. But guess what? They are all complying with minimum standards there and it does not seem to have been a problem. If they can do it in New Zealand, I cannot see any reason why we would not be able to do it in this country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lords who have spoken about the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from the harmful and inappropriate video on demand content to which they might be exposed. We are aware of the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere on the need to ensure that the protection measures used by on-demand services are robust, and that providers are rightly held to a high standard when delivering them.
This is a key issue that the Bill will address by bringing mainstream, TV-like on-demand services in scope of a new video on demand code. The code will be drafted and enforced by Ofcom, which has a long track record of regulating broadcast television to ensure that it is age-appropriate and protects the most vulnerable. Ofcom will also be required to conduct reviews of the audience protection measures being taken by all on-demand services, whether or not they are subject to the new code. I can reassure noble Lords that the concerns raised today are already well covered by the Bill as drafted. Ofcom will be given extensive powers to set standards, assess video on demand services’ audience protection measures, and take action that it considers appropriate. If audiences are concerned, they can complain to Ofcom and the regulator can, in the most serious cases, apply sanctions, such as financial penalties, or even restrict access to that service in the UK.
Amendment 67 would add
“information about where viewers can seek help and further resources if they have been affected by content”
to the non-exhaustive list set out in new Section 368OB(4), a subsection which provides examples of audience protection measures. I agree that signposting audiences in this way is an important measure that all services should consider using where appropriate. I am pleased to say that many already do. However, the Bill already fully enables Ofcom to review or provide guidance on any such measures. The Bill, as drafted, purposely provides only a non-exhaustive list of measures that Ofcom can consider. As a result, it enables Ofcom to take into account anything it considers appropriate, which can of course include signposting.
Amendments 57 and 69 look to set specific standards for services that use age ratings—namely, that age ratings are consistent, recognised by UK audiences, based on transparent standards and
“informed by regular consultation with the … public”.
Let me be clear: the Bill already gives Ofcom the power to set these standards, and others, through its new video on demand code. It will rightly do that through consultation with audiences, providers and interested organisations such as the British Board of Film Classification. Ofcom must keep those rules under constant review, so that they can be adapted to take into account changes in audience expectation and technological change. In our view, the important thing is to ensure that effective protection is in place, rather than necessarily specifying as a matter of statute that systems have to be provided in a certain way or by any single or specific organisation.
Amendments 61 to 66 take this quite a few steps further by proposing an Ofcom certification scheme for those services which want to use age ratings but choose not to use the BBFC’s system. My concern is not only that this puts another responsibility on Ofcom but that it could actively discourage providers from using age ratings at all to avoid the need to get such measures certified.
I appreciate, as my noble friend Lord Bethell set out, that he has updated his amendment following dialogue with a number of companies to provide a new option for existing linear broadcasters: reliance on the Broadcasting Code when age-rating their content. This creates challenges of its own, given that the Broadcasting Code contains very little information on age ratings as they are rarely used on linear television. It is also unclear why, if the aim is for a consistent set of standards, some tier 1 providers should be treated differently from others in this way.
Finally, Amendment 60 places an obligation on Ofcom to consult the BBFC every time Ofcom considers a revision of the video on demand code. Such an obligation would be unnecessary and potentially inappropriate. While the BBFC has some interest in the issue of age classification, the scope of this amendment would include areas where it has little or no expertise—to give a topical example, it would include due impartiality in news. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom is already obliged to consult widely with appropriate organisations. We are satisfied that Ofcom and the BBFC already have regular conversations on a number of issues.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. Clearly, this is an issue we are very likely to return to on Report.
I have a couple of quick points the Minister might ponder on. He told us that Ofcom will be responsible for drafting the video on demand code. He said that will lead to Ofcom having extensive powers. But I am still left wondering how Ofcom is going to be made aware of the views of Parliament as it comes to draw up the code. How will we have any say in that code before it is finally put into place?
I confess that there were a couple of things the Minister said that slightly worried me. In response to a very simple amendment, which asked that one of Ofcom’s statutory consultees would be the BBFC, the Minister said, “We have discovered that Ofcom and the BBFC meet regularly”. I am sure they do, and I am delighted, but this Bill is meant to be future-proof and things could change later. I cannot understand why, if they meet regularly anyway, the BBFC cannot be listed as a statutory consultee.
Finally, it was slightly odd, given all the powers Ofcom has and how it will be able to do all this work, that when it comes to accrediting those who choose not to use an age-rating system, the Minister’s response appeared to be that Ofcom has too much on to take on that responsibility. I thought that was slightly odd. As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for his response, and I am certain we will be returning to this issue at a later date.
“(2) In section 393 of that Act (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) limits the information that may be published by OFCOM under section 368OB;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 38.